CTFR 17/454,639 CTFR 81206 On DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant’s amendment filed 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 16,20,24,29, and 30 are amended. Claims 3,10-12,18,23, 26-28, 32, and 37 are cancelled. Claims 1,2,4-9,13-17,19-22,24,25,29-31,33-36, and 38-41 are pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1,2,16,17,25,29,30,40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (US 20230036966) in view of Suzuki (US 20140198640) . Re claim 1: Agarwal discloses establishing a communication for a voice call over WiFi while connected to a first radio access technology (RAT), wherein the first RAT is a New Radio (NR) RAT ( Fig.3 ref. 301 Detect that a user of the UE is engaged in a VoWiFi call using Wi-Fi network while the UE is connected to a NR network ) ; and performing, based at least in part on the communication connection for the voice call over Wi-Fi and a capability of one or more cells associated with the first RAT, an action to deprioritize the first RAT ( Fig.3 ref. 302 Prevent an occurrence of a handover from the Wi-Fi network to a NR network during the VoWiFi call and Para.[0032] The processor 104 is configured to prevent/reduce the occurrence of the handover from the Wi-Fi network to the NR network 103, since Evolved Packet System (EPS) fallback mechanism will be triggered as a result of the handover. This is because Voice over NR (VoNR) has not been enabled in the NR network 103 and the EPS fallback mechanism will increase the latency of the handover and degrade user experience ) ,wherein performing the action includes: performing a search for operating frequencies of a second RAT , performing cell reselection to a second RAT ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102. Once the UE 101 is connected to the LTE network 102, the embodiments include preventing/reducing the UE 101 from reconnecting to the NR network 103 until the VoWiFi call is completed ) , and subsequently, until the voice call ends: modifying a value of cell reselection criteria parameter associated with the first RAT, ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102. Once the UE 101 is connected to the LTE network 102, the embodiments include preventing/reducing the UE 101 from reconnecting to the NR network 103 until the VoWiFi call is completed and Para.[0023] The embodiments include preventing/reducing the handover from Wi-Fi to NR by disabling the NR capability of the UE, preventing/reducing NR cell measurements and reducing the priority of NR over the priority of LTE ) , or suspending transmission of inter-RAT measurement reports associated with operating frequencies of the first RAT ( Para.[0024] Once the call is completed, the UE can initiate 5G cell measurements for connecting to a NR cell and Claim 6 blocking inter-Radio Access Technology (RAT) measurements and Claim 15 delaying sending a measurement report ) . Agarwal does not explicitly disclose performing a search for operating frequencies of a second RAT. Suzuki discloses performing a search for operating frequencies of a second RAT ( Fig.1 ref. 114 Attempt to find suitable cell trying all frequencies of all RATs listed in system info and supported by the UE except frequencies or RATs that are de-prioritized ) . Agarwal and Suzuki are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include searching frequencies as taught by Suzuki in order to find a suitable cell faster ( Suzuki Para.[0079] ) . Re claim 2: Agarwal discloses wherein performing the action to deprioritize the first RAT comprises: terminating the first communication connection with the first RAT; and establishing a connection with the second RAT based at least in part on the cell reselection to the second RAT ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102. Once the UE 101 is connected to the LTE network 102, the embodiments include preventing/reducing the UE 101 from reconnecting to the NR network 103 until the VoWiFi call is completed ) . Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Agarwal further discloses one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories ( Fig.1 ) . Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2. Re claim 25: Agarwal discloses refrain from transmitting, to a serving cell associated with the first RAT, an inter-RAT measurement report associated with the operating frequencies of the first RAT ( Claim 6 blocking inter-Radio Access Technology (RAT) measurements and Claim 15 delaying sending a measurement report ) . Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Re claim 30: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Re claim 40: Agarwal discloses wherein the second RAT is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) RAT ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102 ) . Re claim 41: Claim 41 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 40 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4,6,7,13-15,19,21,22,31,34,39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (US 20230036966) in view of Suzuki (US 20140198640) as applied to claim s 1,16,29, and 30 above, and further in view of Wu (US 20240080718) . Re claim 4: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose transmitting, by a modem of the UE and to a first RAT protocol stack of the UE, an indication to deprioritize the first RAT; and transmitting, by the modem of the UE and to a second RAT protocol stack of the UE, an indication to deprioritize the first RAT. Wu discloses transmitting, by a modem of the UE and to a first RAT protocol stack of the UE, an indication to deprioritize the first RAT ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Fig.2B and Para.[0063] The UE 102, in some implementations, supports both the NR stack as shown in FIG. 2A and UTRA stack as shown in FIG. 2B, to support handover from a NR base station to a UTRA base station for a voice or video call ) ; and transmitting, by the modem of the UE and to a second RAT protocol stack of the UE, an indication to deprioritize the first RAT ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Para.[0063] The UE 102, in some implementations, supports both the NR stack as shown in FIG. 2A and UTRA stack as shown in FIG. 2B, to support handover from a NR base station to a UTRA base station for a voice or video call ) . Wu does not explicitly disclose by the modem to a protocol stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the modem communicates with the protocol stack. Wu (US 20230292149 Para.[0029]) and Sung (US 20200367240 Fig.3) are further evidence relied upon to show a modem. Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include transmitting a reduction command between protocol stacks as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Re claim 6: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the action to deprioritize the first RAT comprises: transmitting, from a first RAT protocol stack of the UE and to a second RAT protocol stack of the UE, a redirection command indicating one or more second RAT operating frequencies. Wu discloses wherein performing the action to deprioritize the first RAT comprises: transmitting, from a first RAT protocol stack of the UE and to a second RAT protocol stack of the UE, a redirection command indicating one or more second RAT operating frequencies ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Fig.2B and Para.[0063] The UE 102, in some implementations, supports both the NR stack as shown in FIG. 2A and UTRA stack as shown in FIG. 2B, to support handover from a NR base station to a UTRA base station for a voice or video call and Para.[0103] At block 1208, the UE receives a redirection command from the RAN, so as to redirect the UE to a carrier frequency of the second RAT ) ; and As shown above, Wu discloses a first RAT protocol stack and a second RAT protocol stack. Wu does not explicitly disclose from a first stack to a second stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a command is sent from one stack to another because the protocol stack is what’s used when communicating with a BS. Wu (US 20230292149 Para.[0029]) and Sung (US 20200367240 Fig.3) are further evidence relied upon to show communication between stacks. Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include transmitting a reduction command between protocol stacks as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Re claim 7: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the redirection command indicating the one or more second RAT operating frequencies comprises: transmitting, from the first RAT protocol stack of the UE and to the second RAT protocol stack of the UE, the redirection command indicating the one or more second RAT operating frequencies in a prioritized order. Wu discloses wherein transmitting the redirection command indicating the one or more second RAT operating frequencies comprises: transmitting, from the first RAT protocol stack of the UE and to the second RAT protocol stack of the UE, the redirection command indicating the one or more second RAT operating frequencies in a prioritized order ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Fig.2B and Para.[0063] The UE 102, in some implementations, supports both the NR stack as shown in FIG. 2A and UTRA stack as shown in FIG. 2B, to support handover from a NR base station to a UTRA base station for a voice or video call and Para.[0103] At block 1208, the UE receives a redirection command from the RAN, so as to redirect the UE to a carrier frequency of the second RAT ) ; and As shown above, Wu discloses a first RAT protocol stack and a second RAT protocol stack. Wu does not explicitly disclose from a first stack to a second stack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a command is sent from one stack to another because the protocol stack is what’s used when communicating with a BS. Wu (US 20230292149 Para.[0029]) and Sung (US 20200367240 Fig.3) are further evidence relied upon to show communication between stacks. Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include transmitting a reduction command between protocol stacks as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Re claim 13: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose receiving an indication to deprioritize the first RAT, wherein the indication to deprioritize the first RAT includes an indication to deprioritize one or more cells. Wu discloses receiving an indication to deprioritize the first RAT, wherein the indication to deprioritize the first RAT includes an indication to deprioritize one or more cells ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Para.[0006] UEs can perform handover procedures to switch from one cell to another, whether in single connectivity (SC) or DC operation. These procedures involve messaging (e.g., RRC signaling and preparation) among RAN nodes and the UE. The UE may handover from a cell of a serving base station to a target cell of a target base station ) . Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include receiving an indication to deprioritize as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Re claim 14: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication to deprioritize the one or more cells is based at least in part on a performance of the one or more cells. Wu discloses wherein the indication to deprioritize the one or more cells is based at least in part on a performance of the one or more cells ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Para.[0035] determining whether a base station should redirect a UE to another RAT for initiating or maintaining an IMS service, based on cell availability ) . Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include receiving an indication to deprioritize as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Re claim 15: Agarwal discloses wherein performing the action comprises at least one of: refraining from selecting a cell included in the one or more cells unless no other cell is available; refraining from reselecting to a cell included in the one or more cells; initiating a radio link failure (RLF) based at least in part on performing a handover with a cell included in the one or more cells; or initiating an RLF based at least in part on being connected to a cell included in the one or more cells ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102. Once the UE 101 is connected to the LTE network 102, the embodiments include preventing/reducing the UE 101 from reconnecting to the NR network 103 until the VoWiFi call is completed ) . Re claim 19: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki meets all the limitations of the parent claim. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose receive, from an application programming interface (API), an indication to deprioritize the first RAT. Wu discloses receive, from an application programming interface (API) , the indication to deprioritize the first RAT ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Para.[0006] UEs can perform handover procedures to switch from one cell to another, whether in single connectivity (SC) or DC operation. These procedures involve messaging (e.g., RRC signaling and preparation) among RAN nodes and the UE. The UE may handover from a cell of a serving base station to a target cell of a target base station ) . Wu does not explicitly disclose from an API. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receiving an indication from an API in order to use a well-known component to control the communication. Wu (US 20230292149 Para.[0029]) and Sung (US 20200367240 Fig.3) are further evidence relied upon to show an API. Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include receiving an indication to deprioritize as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6. Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7. Re claim 31: Claim 31 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 19. Re claim 34: Claim 34 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6. Re claim 39: Claim 39 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Suzuki (US 20140198640) as applied to claim s 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Babaei (US 20230413091) . Re claim 5: As discussed above, Agarwal meets in view of Suzuki all the limitations of the parent claim. Agarwal discloses wherein performing the action to deprioritize the first RAT comprises: performing an operation to autonomously release the communication connection with the redirection to the second RAT ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102. Once the UE 101 is connected to the LTE network 102, the embodiments include preventing/reducing the UE 101 from reconnecting to the NR network 103 until the VoWiFi call is completed ) ; and As shown above, Agarwal discloses redirecting to a second RAT when the first RAT does not support voice over NR. Agarwal does not explicitly state autonomously release the communication connection. Babaei discloses autonomously release the communication connection ( Para.[0146] In some examples, an RRCRelease message may be used to command the release of an RRC connection or the suspension of the RRC connection. A cnType field may indicate that the UE is redirected to EPC or 5GC ) . Agarwal and Babaei are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify agarwal to explicitly show releasing a connection as taught by Babaei in order to redirect the UE and enable various types of applications with different requirements ( Babaei Para.[0146,0039] ) . Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20230156540) . Re claim 8: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose initiating a first timer upon transmitting the redirection command; and refraining from performing another operation to release the communication connection with the redirection to the second RAT until after the first timer expires. Wang discloses initiating a first timer upon transmitting the redirection command; and refraining from performing another operation to release the communication connection with the redirection to the second RAT until after the first timer expires ( Para.[0194] Thus, in at least one embodiment, after expiration of the timer that was started upon reception of an RRC release with redirection information, the redirected carrier frequency and cells (e.g., indicated by redirectedCarrierInfo in RRC release) or the carrier frequency and cells for which random access was attempted after reception of the concerned RRC Release message, can be barred for the UE for a configured time period. If a frequency is barred, the UE can switch to another carrier frequency to find suitable cell to access. Alternatively, the carrier frequency is not barred; instead, it is down-prioritized for a configured time period and Para.[0196] When the second type timer expires (or the first timer if there is only one timer introduced), the UE goes to RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE and performs ordinary cell selection and reselection procedure for further actions. Meanwhile the UE may declare an “RRC redirection failure” and report the failure to the gNB, upon the UE entering the RRC_Connected mode. In addition, the UE may also report one or more of the below items of information to the gNB ) . Agarwal and Wang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include a redirection timer as taught by Wang in order to handle redirection failures ( Wang Para.[0001] ) . Re claim 9: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose initiating a second timer upon transmitting the redirection command; and establishing, if the UE has not established a communication connection with the second RAT prior to an expiration of the second timer, another communication connection with the first RAT. Wang discloses initiating a second timer upon transmitting the redirection command; and establishing, if the UE has not established a communication connection with the second RAT prior to an expiration of the second timer, another communication connection with the first RAT ( Para.[0194] Thus, in at least one embodiment, after expiration of the timer that was started upon reception of an RRC release with redirection information, the redirected carrier frequency and cells (e.g., indicated by redirectedCarrierInfo in RRC release) or the carrier frequency and cells for which random access was attempted after reception of the concerned RRC Release message, can be barred for the UE for a configured time period. If a frequency is barred, the UE can switch to another carrier frequency to find suitable cell to access. Alternatively, the carrier frequency is not barred; instead, it is down-prioritized for a configured time period and Para.[0196] When the second type timer expires (or the first timer if there is only one timer introduced), the UE goes to RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE and performs ordinary cell selection and reselection procedure for further actions. Meanwhile the UE may declare an “RRC redirection failure” and report the failure to the gNB, upon the UE entering the RRC_Connected mode. In addition, the UE may also report one or more of the below items of information to the gNB ) . Agarwal and Wang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include a redirection timer as taught by Wang in order to handle redirection failures ( Wang Para.[0001] ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Suzuki (US 20140198640) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Surisetty (US 20210329539) . Re claim 24: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal discloses modify, in a first RAT protocol stack of the UE , one or more cell reselection criteria parameters associated with the second RAT ( Para.[0046] The embodiments include enabling the triggering of inter-RAT handover from the NR network 103 to the LTE network 102. Once the UE 101 is connected to the LTE network 102, the embodiments include preventing/reducing the UE 101 from reconnecting to the NR network 103 until the VoWiFi call is completed and Para.[0023] The embodiments include preventing/reducing the handover from Wi-Fi to NR by disabling the NR capability of the UE, preventing/reducing NR cell measurements and reducing the priority of NR over the priority of LTE ) , Agarwal does not explicitly disclose in a first RAT protocol stack of the UE. Surisetty discloses modify, in a first RAT protocol stack of the UE ( Fig.2 and Fig. 3 ref. 5G Stack and 4G Stack ) . Agarwal and Surisetty are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include two protocol stacks communicating as taught by Surisetty in order to manage failure ( Surisetty Para.[0002] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 33 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Suzuki (US 20140198640) as applied to claims 1,16,29, and 30 above, and further in Wu (US 20240080718) and Kim (WO 2021187633 – citations are from the translation) . Re claim 33: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose receiving an indication to deprioritize the first RAT, wherein the indication to deprioritize the first RAT is based at least in part on that a temperature of the UE is above a temperature threshold, or that a battery level of the UE is below a charge threshold. Wu discloses receiving an indication to deprioritize the first RAT ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Para.[0006] UEs can perform handover procedures to switch from one cell to another, whether in single connectivity (SC) or DC operation. These procedures involve messaging (e.g., RRC signaling and preparation) among RAN nodes and the UE. The UE may handover from a cell of a serving base station to a target cell of a target base station ) . Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include receiving an indication to deprioritize as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication to deprioritize the first RAT is based at least in part on that a temperature of the UE is above a temperature threshold, or that a battery level of the UE is below a charge threshold. Kim discloses wherein the indication to deprioritize the first RAT is based at least in part on that a temperature of the UE is above a temperature threshold, or that a battery level of the UE is below a charge threshold ( Page 20 last paragraph fallback to 4Gis made, that is, It may be a temperature determined according to the threshold temperature at which 5G communication is restricted due to heat generation ) . Agarwal and Kim are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include fallback due to temperature as taught by Kim in order to prevent a rapid rise in temperature ( Kim Page 1 ) . Re claim 38: Claim 38 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 33 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Ramachandran (US 9386621) . Re claim 35: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the redirection command orders second RAT operating frequencies identified from a measurement object before second RAT operating frequencies identified from a system information block of a first RAT protocol stack. Wu discloses wherein the redirection command orders second RAT operating frequencies identified from a measurement object before second RAT operating frequencies identified from a system information block of a first RAT protocol stack ( Fig.13B ref. 1311B The base station transmits to the UE a redirection command to redirect the UE to a cell of the second RAT in response to the CN to BS interface message and Para.[0063] The UE 102, in some implementations, supports both the NR stack as shown in FIG. 2A and UTRA stack as shown in FIG. 2B, to support handover from a NR base station to a UTRA base station for a voice or video call and Para.[0103] At block 1208, the UE receives a redirection command from the RAN, so as to redirect the UE to a carrier frequency of the second RAT ) . Agarwal and Wu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include receiving an indication to deprioritize as taught by Wu in order to allow UEs to maintain continuity of a packet-data service ( Wu Para.[0008] ) . Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu does not explicitly disclose ordering frequencies identified from a measurement object before frequencies identified from a system information block. Ramachandran discloses ordering frequencies identified from a measurement object before frequencies identified from a system information block ( Claim 7 wherein using the information in the predefined order comprises: using candidates from measurement objects received from the first Node B; after using the candidates from the measurement objects, using a neighbor list received from the first Node B, wherein the neighbor list comprises Node Bs associated with the second RAT, and wherein the neighbor list comprises Node Bs listed in SIB6 (System Information Block) – where Wu discloses a redirection command ) . Agarwal, Wu, and Ramachandran are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal in view of Wu to include ordering frequencies from a measurement object before frequencies from a SIB as taught by Ramachandran in order to direct a UE to a wireless network that can provide the desired communication service ( Ramachandran Col.1 lines 37-39 ) . Re claim 36: As discussed above, Agarwal in view of Suzuki and Wu meets all the limitations of the parent claims. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the redirection command orders second RAT operating frequencies identified from a measurement object based at least in part on at least one of: an amount of time since each of the one or more second RAT operating frequencies have been measured by the UE, a measurement value associated with each of the one or more second RAT operating frequencies, or whether the UE detected each of the one or more second RAT operating frequencies when measuring the one or more second RAT operating frequencies. Ramachandran discloses wherein the redirection command orders second RAT operating frequencies identified from a measurement object based at least in part on at least one of: an amount of time since each of the one or more second RAT operating frequencies have been measured by the UE, a measurement value associated with each of the one or more second RAT operating frequencies, or whether the UE detected each of the one or more second RAT operating frequencies when measuring the one or more second RAT operating frequencies ( Col.8 lines 5-19 the UE may use information relating to CS RAT candidates from the most recently received/maintained measurement objects received from the LTE eNB – where Wu discloses a redirection command ) . Agarwal and Ramachandran are analogous because they both pertain to data communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agarwal to include ordering frequencies from a measurement object before frequencies from a SIB as taught by Ramachandran in order to direct a UE to a wireless network that can provide the desired communication service ( Ramachandran Col.1 lines 37-39 ) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,16,29, and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 3 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 4 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 5 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 6 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 7 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 8 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 9 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 10 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 11 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 12 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 13 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 14 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 15 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 16 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 17 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 20 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 21 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 22 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 23 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/454,639 Page 24 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights