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 2026-06-25 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 39, 41-43, 48, 50-51, 54-58 are pending for consideration.
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) 43, 58
TS36.331 teaches
wherein the transmitting, by the user equipment, to the eNodeB, the user equipment capability information comprises transmitting a UECapabilityInformation message that includes the information that indicates the user equipment supports a capability
EUTRAN sends, to the UE, UECapabilityEnquiry and in response the UE provides UECapabilityInformation <FIG. 5.6.1.1-1;
TS36.331 does not explicitly teach
a capability that is voice over high speed packet access.
However in a similar endeavor, Flore_752 teaches
a capability that is 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) 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>.
In response to 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 and in response the UE provides capability information <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.
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 following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered and are persuasive:
Amendments and argument regarding USC112(a) rejections.
The following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The arguments assert that the Examiner is using Flore to teach “a UE sending the UE supports packet-switched to packet-switched intersystem handover, single radio-voice call continuity, and voice over high speed packet access” (see page 12). This is not the case, as seen in the prior art rejections and repeated herein, the Examiner simply asserted that “Flore_752 teaches voice over high speed packet access. VoIP for HSPA <FIG(s). 2; para. 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0058>.” For whatever reasons the applicant made an incorrect assumptions that Flore is used to teach features beyond demonstrating that voice over high speed packet access existed in the art prior to the invention.
In summary, primary art TS36.331 demonstrates that a capability inquiry and response with capability information procedure was well known in the art. Secondary references are asserted to demonstrate that the claimed capabilities (e.g., vohspa) various capability/technologies existed at the time and were well-known. It would be obvious to include new and updated capabilities in the capability information as technology progresses so that the UE is capable of said new/updated capabilities.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is the examiner’s sentiment that the claimed subject matter is an obvious combination of taking a well-known principle (UE capability enquiry and response with UECapabilityEnquiry procedure ) that is being applied to well-known technologies (PS-PS HO, SRVCC, VoHSPA, etc). The combination is trivial, such that there is no non-obvious technique or technical achievement required to enable the combination. In this case, it’s pretty simple – new technology comes out, add a bit/field to the UECapabilityInformation to indicate whether the UE is capable of said new technology. Was there a unique or non-obvious way we added the bit/field to the UECapabilityInformation that required special consideration? No…pretty much just keep amending bit/fields to the UECapabilityInformation as well-known capabilities emerge. What if we had 5 bits to represent 5 well-known capabilities? Still obvious. 50 bits for 50 well-known capabilities? Still obvious. You can keep adding well-known capabilities to the claims and I’ll keep rejecting them under this sentiment.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights