DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments 8/11/2026 for
response of the office action mailed on 5/15/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to
file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 7-12), filed on 8/11/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully
considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection to the amended claim using a newly introduced reference (Shukair et al.) is applied in the current rejection.
Regarding remarks in page 8, for independent claims 1, applicant asserts that Yang fails to describe or suggest the claimed first variable threshold and the claimed multiple variable thresholds that pertain to the single type of handover. Rather, Yang describes the first and second thresholds as relating to the RSRP and different types of handovers (e.g., a near future handover and a more imminent handover). Yang, ¶ 0027).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, because the amended limitation “that pertain to the single type of handover” is ambiguous what is meant by “single type of handover” and not described in the application specification. Examiner suggests Applicant to consider recite further details to specify what exactly the “single type of handover”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et
al. (US 2023/0345317 Al, hereinafter “Sarkar”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0249382 Al, hereinafter “Yang”) and in further view of Shukair et al. (US 2017 /0055197 Al, hereinafter “Shukair”).
Re. claims 1, 9 and 17, Sarkar teaches A method comprising (Abstract): and A network device comprising (¶0093 - apparatus 1000 may be implemented as part of an integrated network node or platform): and a processor that is configured to (¶0093 - One or more processors may be operatively coupled to various modules): and A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor of a network device, wherein the instructions are configured to (¶0007 - one or more systems, network nodes, elements or apparatuses are disclosed, each comprising at least one processor and persistent memory having program instructions stored thereon. computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium is disclosed, which is operative to store computer readable program code, the computer readable program code operable, when executed by processing circuitry to perform any of the methods set forth herein): applying, by the network device in response to the selecting, the first variable threshold value to the handover criteria (Sarkar ¶0004 - target cell node selected for handover may be compared against a tunable threshold parameter indicative of the effect of the target cell on the anchor cell quality. Fig.5A & ¶0048 - Responsive to determining that a handover modulation criterion exceeds a threshold value, a handover of the UE device to the target cell may be performed (block 508). responsive to determining that the likelihood of service failure exceeds the probability threshold, in some embodiments, a handover of the UE device to the target cell may be initiated (block 514)); determining, by the network device in response to the applying, whether to perform a handover of the end device (Fig.5A & ¶0048 - Responsive to determining that a handover modulation criterion exceeds a threshold value, a handover of the UE device to the target cell may be performed (block 508). Otherwise, responsive to determining that the handover criterion does not exceed the value, a quality degradation prediction (e.g., based on RLF probability) may be performed with respect to the UE device to estimate a likelihood of service failure for the UE device on the serving cell (e.g., due to the effect of the selected neighbor target cell) as set forth at block 510. Responsive to determining that the likelihood of service failure does not exceed a probability threshold, handover of the UE to the target cell may be suppressed (block 512). ¶0092 - if the predicted failure probability is greater than a threshold value (e.g., >0.95), an HO decision is returned as True, otherwise an HO decision of False is returned, as set forth at decision module 918).
Sarkar does not expressly teach receiving, by a network device from an end device, a measurement report that includes a signal-to-interference-plus noise ratio (SINR) value that pertains to a single type of handover; selecting, by the network device based on the SINR value, a first variable threshold from multiple variable thresholds for a threshold SINR parameter included in a handover criteria that pertains to the single type of handover, wherein each variable threshold of the single type of handover indicates a different SINR value or a different range of SINR values relative to another variable threshold and the network device selects the first variable threshold from the multiple variable thresholds based on a mapping from the SINR value to the first variable threshold;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang explicitly discloses receiving, by a network device from an end device, a measurement report that includes a signal-to-interference-plus noise ratio (SINR) value that pertains to a single type of handover (¶0025~¶0029 - eNB determines the reliability of signaling based on measurement reports received from end device. The measurement report may include one or multiple values, such as, a Reference Signal Receive Power (RSRP), a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), a signal-to noise ratio (SNR), a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), and/or some other channel condition value); selecting, by the network device based on the SINR value, a first variable threshold from multiple variable thresholds for a threshold SINR parameter included in a handover criteria that pertain to the single type of handover (¶0025~¶0029 - The measurement report may include one or multiple values, such as, a Reference Signal Receive Power (RSRP), a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), and/or some other channel condition value. When eNB determines that the signaling is reliable, eNB includes logic that may determine to provide a "normal" handover service afforded under the LTE or the LTE-A service. eNB includes logic that configures end device with multiple thresholds and a list of candidate target cells/eNBs to use for selection. The mobility control message may carry the multiple thresholds. Each threshold may be a single value (e.g., X) or a range of values (e.g., W-Z)), wherein each variable threshold of the single type of handover indicates a different SINR value or a different range of SINR values relative to another variable threshold (¶0025~¶0029 - eNB may transmit multiple mobility control messages in which each message carries a threshold. According to an exemplary implementation, the threshold may include a threshold parameter. the threshold may include a threshold value relating to RSRP, RSSI, SNR, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarkar in view of Yang in order to further modify receiving a measurement report that includes a signal-to-interference-plus noise ratio (SINR) value and selecting a first threshold value from multiple variable thresholds for a threshold SINR parameter included in a handover criteria that pertains to a single type of handover and each variable threshold indicates a different SINR value or a different range of SINR values relative to another variable threshold from the teachings of Yang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the service may utilize resources more efficiently based on the context information and may improve end device-to-network connectivity (Yang, ¶0012).
Yet, Sarkar in view of Yang does not expressly teach the network device selects the first variable threshold from the multiple variable thresholds based on a mapping from the SINR value to the first variable threshold;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shukair explicitly discloses the network device selects the first variable threshold from the multiple variable thresholds based on a mapping from the SINR value to the first variable threshold (¶0063~¶0064, ¶0082 - UE may measure the neighbor cells of a second network for signal strength. Such measurements may include, but are not limited to RSRP, RSRQ, and SINR measurements. The signal strength may be compared to a threshold value. The threshold can be indicated to the UE through dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling from the network or stored within the UE based on predetermined or dynamically adjustable values. the network operator may preselect the threshold value. the threshold value may be dynamically set and adjustable based on the RF conditions);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarkar and Yang in view of Shukair in order to further modify the network device selects the first variable threshold from the multiple variable thresholds based on a mapping from the SINR value to the first variable threshold from the teachings of Shukair.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be advantageous to delay or prevent the handover procedure if the RF conditions are strong enough or of a high enough quality to enable the continued exchange of messages prior to handover of the UE from a source AP to a target AP (Shukair, ¶0082).
Re. claims 3, 11, and 19, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1, 9 and 17.
Sarkar does not expressly teach the threshold SINR parameter pertains to a source cell SINR value or a target cell SINR value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang explicitly discloses the threshold SINR parameter pertains to a source cell SINR value or a target cell SINR value (¶0025 ~ ¶0029 - the threshold may include a threshold parameter. the threshold may include a threshold value relating to RSRP, RSSI, SNR, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). The mobility control message may also include a list of candidate target cells and/or target wireless stations 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarkar and Shukair in view of Yang in order to further modify the threshold SINR parameter pertains to a target cell SINR value from the teachings of Yang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the service may utilize resources more efficiently based on the context information and may improve end device-to-network connectivity (Yang, ¶0012).
Re. claims 4 and 12, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1 and 9.
Sarkar further teaches wherein the threshold SINR parameter pertains to a difference value between a source cell value and a target cell value (¶0006, ¶0052 - handover modulation criterion may comprise a difference between the source cell's Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) and the target cell's RSRP being greater than the tunable threshold value, which may comprise a neighbor cell interference parameter, by an offset. DL PDUs may be sent over NR leg unless radio quality of NR is worse than configurable Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise Ratio (SINR) thresholds).
Re. claims 5 and 13, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1 and 9.
Sarkar further teaches wherein the handover pertains to an inter-frequency handover, an intra-frequency handover, or an inter-radio access technology (RAT) handover (¶0005 - an embodiment of a handover (HO) management method performed by an anchor node serving a DC-connected UE is disclosed, wherein the anchor node is configured as a master node of a source cell operating in a first radio access technology (RAT) with respect to a secondary node operating in a second RAT, and the master node and the secondary node are connected via an inter-nodal interface. ¶0039 - With respect to an example LTE mobility/handover scenario, it is relevant to note that when a neighbor cell with better radio conditions is found, the neighbor cell may be reported by the UE through a suitable measurement report, e.g., RRC Measurement Report, as per fulfillment of applicable respective event criteria. As such, various LTE mobility scenarios are possible within the same carrier and/or different LTE carriers, where inter-frequency mobility events may trigger an evaluation of both source and neighbor cells against static configurable thresholds. On the other hand, intra-frequency mobility events may trigger an evaluation based only on neighbor cell's radio conditions).
Re. claims 6, 14 and 20, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1, 9 and 17.
Sarkar further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to (¶0093 - One or more processors may be operatively coupled to various modules): and wherein the instructions further comprise instructions configured to (¶0093 - One or more processors may be operatively coupled to various modules that may be implemented in persistent memory for executing suitable program instructions): determining, by the network device, that the handover criteria is satisfied (¶0096 - It should be appreciated that such broader range of feature parametric sets provide for handover criteria that are over and above the current handover determination criteria, which may help facilitate a more informed decision-making process regarding handover); performing, by the network device, the handover (¶0048 - responsive to the measurement report, a particular neighbor cell may be selected as a target cell for handing over the UE device. At block 506, a determination may be made that there is traffic with the secondary node over the inter-nodal interface. Responsive to determining that a handover modulation criterion exceeds a threshold value, a handover of the UE device to the target cell may be performed).
Re. claims 7 and 15, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1 and 9.
Sarkar further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to (¶0093 - One or more processors may be operatively coupled to various modules): applying, by the network device, one or more values included in the measurement report to the handover criteria (¶0059 - decide whether to proceed with handover towards Le based on the latest measurement report sent by UE. In one arrangement, at least a subset of the variables of the latest measurement report may correspond to a feature set).
Re. claims 8 and 16, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1 and 9.
Sarkar further teaches wherein the network device is a next generation Node B (gNB), an evolved Node B (eNB), or an evolved Long Term Evolution (eLTE) eNB (¶0094 - Depending on the implementation, one or more "upstream" interfaces (I/F) and and/or "downstream" I/Fs, collectively I/F(s) 1020, may be provided for interfacing with various network elements (e.g., other eNBs, gNBs, EPC/5GC elements, data center nodes, management nodes (e.g., business support system (BSS) nodes. ¶0006 - the anchor node may comprise an eNB node of 4G LTE technology and the secondary node may comprise a gNB node of 5G NR cellular technology, wherein the UE may be operative with a combination of (i) master cell group (MCG) radio bearers served by the eNB node, (ii) secondary cell group (SCG) radio bearers served by the gNB node, and (iii) split radio bearers served by both the eNB and gNB nodes, depending on the services consumed and/or sessions established).
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar-Yang-
Shukair in view of MELIN et al. (US 2018/0262958 Al, hereinafter “Melin”).
Re. claims 2, 10, and 18, Sarkar-Yang-Shukair teach claims 1, 9, and 17.
Sarkar-Yang-Shukair does not expressly teach comparing, by the network device, the first variable threshold to the SINR value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Melin explicitly discloses comparing, by the network device, the first variable threshold to the SINR value (¶0049 - The source network node may then compare the second normalised SINR for the network node with the predefined threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarkar and Yang and Shukair in view of Melin in order to further modify comparing, by the network device, the first variable threshold to the SINR value from the teachings of Melin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the method determining whether the target network node is a better option than the source network node for serving the wireless device based on the first determined SINR for the target network node and based on the received first normalized SINR for the source network node; and providing, to the source network node, an indication indicating whether the target network node is a better option than the source network node for serving the wireless device (Melin, ¶ 0007).
Conclusion
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 SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights