DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-01-06 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 39, 41-43, 48, 50-51, 54-58 are pending for consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on identified above has been entered.
35 USC §112(a) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claim(s) 43, 58
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim(s) recite variants of:
…transmitting a the UECapabilityInformation message comprising a parameter or a field comprising the user equipment capability information of the user equipment that includes the information that indicates the user equipment supports packet-switched to packet-switched intersystem handover, the single-voice call continuity, and voice over high speed packet access.
In other words, the claim requires that the UECapabilityInformation includes a parameter or field comprising capability information that indicates the UE supports all three of: PS-PS IS HO, SVCCC, and VoHSPA. That is, the claim recites the feature of a single parameter or field within the UECapabilityInformation that is able to indicate support for all three different capabilities.
However, the Specification describes (using citation of the corresponding US Publication):
[0007] In a variant, the notifying includes providing a parameter or field that indicates the capability.
[0069]…Then, at 220, in response to the UECapabilityEnquiry, the user equipment 110 can provide user equipment capability information (UECapabilityInformation) including an indication of voice over HSPA capability. Finally, at 230, the eNodeB 120 can store the information.
[0020] In a variant, the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to notify by providing a parameter or field that indicates the capability.
[0086] The notifying can include direct notification and indirect notification via a mobility management entity. The notifying can include providing a parameter or field that indicates the capability. The notifying can be performed during an E-UTRAN attach. The specified kind of internet protocol connection can be voice over high speed packet access.
Claim 16. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to notify by providing a parameter or field that indicates the capability.
The Specification fails to disclose whether a “parameter or field” in UECapabilityInformation that can indicate the UE supports all three capabilities. It only discloses the UECapabilityInformation indicating VoHSPA capabilities.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TS36.331 (NPL - 3GPP TS 36.331 V9.9.0 [2011-12]) in view of TS23.401 (NPL - 3GPP TS 23.401 V11.0.0 [2011-12]), in view of Tang_215 (US20100135215), and further view of Flore_752 (US20080026752)
Claim(s) 39, 55
TS36.331 teaches
receiving, by a user equipment, from an evolved Node (eNodeB), a user equipment capability enquiry, wherein the user equipment capability enquiry is an enquiry for user equipment capability information of the user equipment; and in response to receiving the user equipment capability enquiry, transmitting, by the user equipment, to the eNodeB, the user equipment capability information of the user equipment, EUTRAN sends, to the UE, UECapabilityEnquiry and in response the UE provides UECapabilityInformation <FIG. 5.6.1.1-1; Section 5.6.3, Pages 120-122>
TS36.331 does not explicitly teach
wherein the user equipment capability information of the user equipment includes information that indicates the user equipment supports
packet-switched to packet-switched intersystem handover,
single radio-voice call continuity, and
voice over high speed packet access.
However in a similar endeavor, TS23.401 teaches
wherein the user equipment capability information of the user equipment includes information that indicates the user equipment supports
packet-switched to packet-switched intersystem handover and single radio-voice call continuity, and <Section 5.3.2>
Note: 3GPP TS23.401 teaching these features are also supported and admitted by the Applicant in para. 0047 and 0053-0054 of the originally filed Specification.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TS36.331 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by TS23.401. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to function and operate in accordance with 3GPP specification and technical requirements.
However in a similar endeavor, Tang_215 teaches
wherein the user equipment capability information of the user equipment includes information that indicates the user equipment supports
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TS36.331 and TS23.401 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Tang_215. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a method for bearing CS-domain service data over radio bearer and/or bridge HSPA technology with CS-domain services. See Background and para. 0010.
As discussed above TS36.331 in view of Tang_215 teaches high speed packet access capability but does not disclose particularly a voice over type of high speed packet access capability
However in a similar endeavor, Flore_752 teaches
voice over high speed packet access. VoIP for HSPA <FIG(s). 2; para. 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0058>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TS36.331, TS23.401 and Tang_215 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Flore_752. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for maintaining call continuity. See para. 0009.
Claim(s) 41, 56
TS36.331 teaches
wherein the user equipment capability enquiry comprises a UECapabilityEnquiry message. EUTRAN sends, to the UE, UECapabilityEnquiry and in response the UE provides UECapabilityInformation <FIG. 5.6.1.1-1; Section 5.6.3, Pages 120-122>
Claim(s) 42, 57
TS36.331 teaches
wherein the transmitting, by the user equipment, to the eNodeB, the user equipment capability information comprises transmitting a UECapabilityInformation message comprising the user equipment capability information of the user equipment. EUTRAN sends, to the UE, UECapabilityEnquiry and in response the UE provides UECapabilityInformation <FIG. 5.6.1.1-1; Section 5.6.3, Pages 120-122>
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedman_901 (US20140204901) in view of Flore_752 (US20080026752)
Claim(s) 48
Hedman_901 teaches
transmitting, by an evolved NodeB (eNodeB), to a user equipment, a user equipment capability enquiry for user equipment capability information of the user equipment; The UE's eNodeB requests the IE UE Radio Capability from the UE. <FIG(s). 1; para. 0011-0012, 0028-0037>.
after transmitting the user equipment capability enquiry, receiving, by the eNodeB, from the user equipment, the user equipment capability information of the user equipment, The UE's eNodeB requests the IE UE Radio Capability from the UE. <FIG(s). 1; para. 0011-0012, 0028-0037>.
wherein the user equipment capability information includes information that indicates the user equipment supports
packet-switched to packet-switched intersystem handover, VoLTE is used in accordance with the received mobile terminal capability information. VoLTE includes PS-PS HO capability. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0008, 0016-0017, 0031, 0041-0047, 0050; Abstract>.
single radio-voice call continuity and, UE provides, to the eNodeB, IE UE Radio Capability information including UE handover capability. For example, regarding the mobile terminal's capability for handover over from the LTE system and/or SRVCC capability. <FIG(s). 1; para. 0012-0013, 0029-0042>.
voice over
executing, by the eNodeB, a packet-switched to packet-switched intersystem handover to handover the user equipment to the target cell. UE and target systems capabilities are matched to perform a handover for voice service in a target system that is, e.g. LTE and voice over LTE, supported. A scenario exists where a handover match occurs within two different LTE systems (which considered PS-PS switched) when a matching for compatible handover occurs. <para. 0006, 0028-0035, 0042-0047, 0050, 0571>.
Hedman_901 does not explicitly teach
As discussed above, Hedman_901 teaches a system where a UE capability is conveyed to an eNodeB in response to a capability enquiry and handing over the UE in accordance with the UE capability to a compatible target system. The capabilities in the handover decision include handover capabilities in VoIP, SRVCC, and voice over technologies.
However, Hedman_901 does not teach a capability that particularly a voice over type of high speed packet access capability.
However in a similar endeavor, Flore_752 teaches
a voice over type of high speed packet access capability VoIP for HSPA <FIG(s). 2; para. 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0058>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by Hedman_901 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Flore_752. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for maintaining call continuity. See para. 0009.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedman_901 (US20140204901) in view of Flore_752 (US20080026752), and further view of Wu_919 (US20100159919)
Claim(s) 50
Hedman_901 does not explicitly teach
wherein the user equipment capability enquiry comprises a UECapabilityEnquiry message.
However in a similar endeavor, Wu_919 teaches
wherein the user equipment capability enquiry comprises a UECapabilityEnquiry message. network node sends, to the UE, a UE CAPABILITY ENQUIRY message <para. 0033-0035; Abstract>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by Hedman_901 and Flore_752 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Wu_919. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to a method of reporting radio access capability in a wireless communication system and related communication device to eliminate unnecessary capability reporting and provide a core network with capability information for handover preparation. See para. 0010.
Claim(s) 51
Hedman_901 does not explicitly teach
wherein the receiving the user equipment capability information of the user equipment comprises receiving a UECapabilityInformation message comprising the user equipment capability information of the user equipment.
However in a similar endeavor, Wu_919 teaches
wherein the receiving the user equipment capability information of the user equipment comprises receiving a UECapabilityInformation message comprising the user equipment capability information of the user equipment. The UE sends the network node a UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION message directly. E-UTRA capability information may be a UECapabilityInformation having the parameters/bit fields for indicating capabilities. <FIG(s). 5; para. 0007, 0033-0042; Abstract>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by Hedman_901 and Flore_752 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Wu_919. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to a method of reporting radio access capability in a wireless communication system and related communication device to eliminate unnecessary capability reporting and provide a core network with capability information for handover preparation. See para. 0010.
Claim(s) 54
Hedman_901 teaches
based on a determination that the target cell is not capable of voice over internet protocol and a determination that the target cell supports single radio voice call continuity,
executing, by the eNodeB, a single radio voice call continuity procedure. Determining whether to initiate an IMS voice or SRVCCC handover is based on a system's (which includes eNodeB having cells) capability matches the UE's capability. A scenario is implicitly disclosed where the IMS voice is not supported by the system while SRVCC is, and the UE is handed over via SRVCC. <FIG(s). 1, 2; para. 0028-0031, 0035-0037, 0042, 0044-0046>.
Response to Arguments
The Reply’s arguments with respect to the other matters have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415