DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in the 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.
The factual inquiries 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, 3-10, 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,585,099 (hereinafter, “MANCHANDA”) in view of US 2024/0098589 (hereinafter, “BABAEI”), and further in view of US 2015/0282013 (hereinafter, “KIM”).
Regarding claim 1, MANCHANDA discloses:
An electronic device (UE 18) for performing cellular communication with a first node supporting a first frequency band and a second node supporting a second frequency band being higher than the first frequency band, the electronic device comprising: (Col. 1, ll. 23-24: [R]emote network entities or with other UEs; Col. 7, ll. 22-29: UE 18 may be arranged to be able to operate on any of various carrier frequencies. For instance, the UE 18 may be a multi-band device, including one or more radios and associated components for being served on various frequency bands. In a specific example, the UE 18 may be a quad-band device arranged to support operation on four different frequency bands)
at least one processor (processors 510); and
memory (data storage 510) storing instructions and information on a plurality of designated conditions, wherein each of the plurality of designated conditions is for performing handover from the second node to the first node . . . , (Col. 3, ll. 9-24: [A]n air interface protocol may sometimes also define yet another threshold that, together with the handover threshold, may possibly trigger handover of the UE to a target carrier. In particular, an air interface protocol may define a target carrier threshold for target-carrier signal strength, such that when the UE detects that the signal strength on the serving carrier is lower than the handover threshold and also detects that the signal strength on the target carrier is higher than the target carrier threshold, the UE begins engaging in signaling with its serving base station to possibly trigger handover of the UE to that target carrier. In this manner, in order to possibly trigger handover of the UE to a target carrier, the UE would need to detect serving-carrier signal strength at least as low as the handover threshold and target-carrier signal strength at least as high as the target carrier threshold. Other thresholds are possible)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
perform a service via the cellular communication with the at least the second node, (Col. 2, ll. 40-41: [A] UE is being served by a base station on a particular carrier (“serving carrier”); col. 7, ll. 13-21: [S]hown as being served by base station 12 on carrier frequency F2 is a representative UE 18. When the base station 12 serves the UE 18, the base station 12 may do so over a radio resource control (RRC) connection defining a radio-link-layer connection between the UE 18 and the base station 12. As such, we may assume that the UE 18 has worked with base station 12 to establish the RRC connection, and that at least one logical bearer has been established between the UE 18 and the network infrastructure 14; col. 2, ll. 22-27: [E]ach base station may define various logical or physical channels (e.g., through frequency division multiplexing, time division multiplexing, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, and/or code division multiplexing) for carrying certain types of communications between the base station and UEs)
identify whether a current state of the electronic device satisfies a designated condition related to the service being performed, among the plurality of designated conditions; and (Col. 2, ll. 40-60: [V]arious operations could consume some of the UE's limited battery energy; col. 8, ll. 41-44: UE 18 may be configured to make a determination (e.g., continuously or periodically) of whether or not the UE's remaining battery life is threshold low)
. . .
MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose:
and each of the plurality of designated conditions is set differently according to a type of service performed via the cellular communication, the type of service including eMBB, mMTC, and URLLC,
based on that the current state of the electronic device satisfies the designated condition, perform at least one operation of releasing a connection to the second node.
In the same field of endeavor, however, BABAEI teaches:
and each of the plurality of designated conditions is set differently according to a type of service performed via the cellular communication, the type of service including eMBB, mMTC, and URLLC (Abstract: A user equipment (UE) receives measurement configuration parameters including one or more first measurement configuration parameters for handover decisions associated with one or more first services, the one or more first services associated with a first type of service and one or more second measurement configuration parameters for handover decisions associated with one or more second services; ¶ 0026: [M]obile communications 100 may enable various types of applications with different requirements in terms of latency, reliability, throughput, etc. Example supported applications include enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications (URLLC), and massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANCHANDA’s handover triggering procedure to provide measurement configuration parameters associated with different types of service—as taught by BABAEI—such that the UE transmits measurement reports that include the two types of measurement information, and the UE then receives a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message indicating a handover to the target cell and establishes a connection with the target cell based on the received the RRC reconfiguration message. See BABAEI, at Abstract.
Also in the same field of endeavor, KIM teaches:
based on that the current state of the electronic device satisfies the designated condition, perform at least one operation of releasing a connection to the second node. (¶ 0093: AP 203 . . . releases a path for a VoWiFi service based on a predetermined operation mode and handover condition; ¶ 0095: AP [203] . . . releases a path for a VoLTE service based on a predetermined operation mode and handover condition)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANCHANDA’s handover triggering procedure to provide handover triggering conditions which differ depending on a type of service—as taught by KIM—such that a threshold level in the first handover condition differs from the threshold level in the second handover condition and which are a bases for performing path release, so as to provide compatibility between heterogenous networks to improve user experience. See KIM, at ¶ 0019.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes
a condition related to a residual quantity of a battery of the electronic device, (Col. 8, ll. 44-56: UE may determine its remaining battery life in various ways using techniques currently known or using techniques developed in the future. For instance, the UE 18 may have a battery level sensor, which could be integrated in the UE's battery or could be provided in another form. In practice, the battery level sensor may be configured to monitor the remaining battery life and to provide an output signal indicating the UE's current remaining battery life, which could be represented as a remaining voltage of the battery, as a remaining percentage of the battery's energy capacity, and/or as a remaining time until the battery is depleted of stored energy)
a condition related to an amount of traffic of data transmitted or received per unit time,
or
a condition related to a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of the second frequency band.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
refrain from measuring a quality of a channel supported by the second node as a part of an operation of preventing connection to the second node in a state in which the electronic device is connected to the first node. (Col. 9, ll. 25-32: The scanning-limiting process may involve the UE 18 identifying on the scan list each carrier frequency that is higher than the serving carrier frequency. For instance, the UE 18 may carry out a comparison between various carrier frequencies listed on the scan list 200 and, based on that comparison, may identify that carrier frequencies F3 and F4 are both higher than the serving carrier frequency F2. And once the UE 18 identifies the higher carrier frequencies, the scanning-limiting process may then involve the UE 18 excluding from the list each of those identified higher carrier frequencies; col. 9, ll. 51-52: UE 18 should forgo scanning of the identified higher carrier frequencies; col. 10, l. 64 – col. 11, l. 3: [B]y avoiding scanning of carrier frequencies higher than the serving carrier frequency, the UE may avoid transitioning to being served on such a higher carrier frequency, thereby avoiding the more battery intensive scanning and/or signaling that could occur on grounds of that higher carrier frequency having higher path loss)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device:
refrain from transmitting, to the first node, a result of measurement of a quality of a channel supported by the second node as a part of an operation of preventing connection to the second node in a state in which the electronic device is connected to the first node. (Col. 9, ll. 25-32: The scanning-limiting process may involve the UE 18 identifying on the scan list each carrier frequency that is higher than the serving carrier frequency. For instance, the UE 18 may carry out a comparison between various carrier frequencies listed on the scan list 200 and, based on that comparison, may identify that carrier frequencies F3 and F4 are both higher than the serving carrier frequency F2. And once the UE 18 identifies the higher carrier frequencies, the scanning-limiting process may then involve the UE 18 excluding from the list each of those identified higher carrier frequencies; col. 9, ll. 51-52: UE 18 should forgo scanning of the identified higher carrier frequencies; col. 10, l. 64 – col. 11, l. 3: [B]y avoiding scanning of carrier frequencies higher than the serving carrier frequency, the UE may avoid transitioning to being served on such a higher carrier frequency, thereby avoiding the more battery intensive scanning and/or signaling that could occur on grounds of that higher carrier frequency having higher path loss [Implementation of the scanning-limiting procedure excludes scanning of a non-listed frequency channel, which precludes measurement of its quality, and thus the UE “refrains from transmitting” a measurement result for a higher carrier requency.])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to adjust a designated value to determine whether to transmit, to the first node, a result of measurement of a quality of a channel supported by the second node as a part of an operation of preventing connection to the second node in a state in which the electronic device is connected to the first node. (Col. 9, ll. 45-54: UE 18 may modify the list to produce a modified list that does not include each of the identified higher carrier frequencies yet still includes each carrier frequency that is lower than the serving carrier frequency. In another case, the UE 18 may simply add to the list an indication (e.g., by adding meta-data) indicating that the UE 18 should forgo scanning of the identified higher carrier frequencies. In yet another case, the UE 18 may simply set a flag (e.g., a Boolean variable) to indicate that the UE 18 should not scan higher carrier frequencies; col. 2, l. 63 – col. 3, l. 3: [T]he UE may transmit to its serving base station a measurement report that specifies the coverage detected on one or more carriers and, for each such detected coverage, the detected signal strength. The serving base station and/or associated network infrastructure may then decide based on the UE's measurement report to process a handover of the UE to a particular target carrier from which the UE detected sufficiently strong signal strength)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 6. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the designated value is at least one of a designated value to be compared with the quality measurement result or a value related to a duration of maintaining the quality. (Col. 2, ll. 40-52: When a UE is being served by a base station on a particular carrier (“serving carrier”), the UE may monitor signal strength (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) of reference signals received from the serving base station, and the UE may apply various thresholds to control carrier frequency scanning and possible resulting handover to another carrier frequency (e.g., provided by the same serving base station or by another base station). For example, an air interface protocol may define a start-scanning threshold for serving-carrier signal strength, such that when the UE detects that the signal strength on the serving carrier is lower than the start-scanning threshold, the UE starts to scan for coverage on one or more other carriers)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to connect to the second node in response to identifying that the state of the electronic device satisfies a designated condition in a state in which the electronic device is connected to the first node. (Col. 1, ll. 47-60: [A]n air interface protocol may define a handover threshold for serving-carrier signal strength (e.g., equal to or lower than the start-scanning threshold), such that when the UE finds coverage on at least one target carrier and detects that the signal strength on the serving carrier is lower than the handover threshold, the UE begins engaging in signaling with its serving base station to possibly trigger handover of the UE to that target carrier; col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 3: The serving base station and/or associated network infrastructure may then decide based on the UE's measurement report to process a handover of the UE to a particular target carrier from which the UE detected sufficiently strong signal strength)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
transmit, to the second node, a quality measurement result including a lower value than a measured quality value of a channel supported by the second node as a part of the at least one operation of releasing the connection to the second node in the state in which the electronic device is connected to the second node. (Col. 2, ll. 40-47: When a UE is being served by a base station on a particular carrier (“serving carrier”), the UE may monitor signal strength (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) of reference signals received from the serving base station, and the UE may apply various thresholds to control carrier frequency scanning and possible resulting handover to another carrier frequency (e.g., provided by the same serving base station or by another base station); col. 3, ll. 12-25: [A]n air interface protocol may define a target carrier threshold for target-carrier signal strength, such that when the UE detects that the signal strength on the serving carrier is lower than the handover threshold and also detects that the signal strength on the target carrier is higher than the target carrier threshold, the UE begins engaging in signaling with its serving base station to possibly trigger handover of the UE to that target carrier. In this manner, in order to possibly trigger handover of the UE to a target carrier, the UE would need to detect serving-carrier signal strength at least as low as the handover threshold and target-carrier signal strength at least as high as the target carrier threshold)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to transmit, to the second node, a quality measurement result including a higher value than a measured quality value of a channel supported by the first node as a part of the at least one operation of releasing the connection to the second node in the state in which the electronic device is connected to the second node. (Col. 2, ll. 40-47: When a UE is being served by a base station on a particular carrier (“serving carrier”), the UE may monitor signal strength (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) of reference signals received from the serving base station, and the UE may apply various thresholds to control carrier frequency scanning and possible resulting handover to another carrier frequency (e.g., provided by the same serving base station or by another base station); col. 3, ll. 12-25: [A]n air interface protocol may define a target carrier threshold for target-carrier signal strength, such that when the UE detects that the signal strength on the serving carrier is lower than the handover threshold and also detects that the signal strength on the target carrier is higher than the target carrier threshold, the UE begins engaging in signaling with its serving base station to possibly trigger handover of the UE to that target carrier. In this manner, in order to possibly trigger handover of the UE to a target carrier, the UE would need to detect serving-carrier signal strength at least as low as the handover threshold and target-carrier signal strength at least as high as the target carrier threshold)
Regarding claim 12, MANCHANDA discloses:
An operation method of an electronic device (UE 18) for performing cellular communication with a first node supporting a first frequency band and a second node supporting a second frequency band being higher than the first frequency band, the method comprising: (Col. 1, ll. 23-24: [R]emote network entities or with other UEs; Col. 7, ll. 22-29: UE 18 may be arranged to be able to operate on any of various carrier frequencies. For instance, the UE 18 may be a multi-band device, including one or more radios and associated components for being served on various frequency bands. In a specific example, the UE 18 may be a quad-band device arranged to support operation on four different frequency bands)
performing a service via the cellular communication with at least the second node; (Col. 2, ll. 40-41: [A] UE is being served by a base station on a particular carrier (“serving carrier”); col. 7, ll. 13-21: [S]hown as being served by base station 12 on carrier frequency F2 is a representative UE 18. When the base station 12 serves the UE 18, the base station 12 may do so over a radio resource control (RRC) connection defining a radio-link-layer connection between the UE 18 and the base station 12. As such, we may assume that the UE 18 has worked with base station 12 to establish the RRC connection, and that at least one logical bearer has been established between the UE 18 and the network infrastructure 14; col. 2, ll. 22-27: [E]ach base station may define various logical or physical channels (e.g., through frequency division multiplexing, time division multiplexing, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, and/or code division multiplexing) for carrying certain types of communications between the base station and UEs)
identifying whether a current state of the electronic device satisfies a designated condition related to the service being performed, among a plurality of designated conditions, (Col. 2, ll. 40-60: [V]arious operations could consume some of the UE's limited battery energy; col. 8, ll. 41-44: UE 18 may be configured to make a determination (e.g., continuously or periodically) of whether or not the UE's remaining battery life is threshold low)
. . .
MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the each of the plurality of designated conditions is for performing handover from the second node to the first node and each of the plurality of the designated condition is set differently according to a type of service performed via the cellular communication the type of service including eMMB, mMTC, and URLLC; and
based on that the current state of the electronic device satisfies the designated condition, performing at least one operation of releasing a connection to the second node.
In the same field of endeavor, however, BABAEI teaches:
wherein the each of the plurality of designated conditions is for performing handover from the second node to the first node and each of the plurality of the designated condition is set differently according to a type of service performed via the cellular communication; and (Abstract: A user equipment (UE) receives measurement configuration parameters including one or more first measurement configuration parameters for handover decisions associated with one or more first services, the one or more first services associated with a first type of service and one or more second measurement configuration parameters for handover decisions associated with one or more second services; ¶ 0026: [M]obile communications 100 may enable various types of applications with different requirements in terms of latency, reliability, throughput, etc. Example supported applications include enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications (URLLC), and massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANCHANDA’s handover triggering procedure to provide measurement configuration parameters associated with different types of service—as taught by BABAEI—such that the UE transmits measurement reports that include the two types of measurement information, and the UE then receives a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message indicating a handover to the target cell and establishes a connection with the target cell based on the received the RRC reconfiguration message. See BABAEI, at Abstract.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, KIM teaches:
based on that the current state of the electronic device satisfies the designated condition, performing at least one operation of releasing a connection to the second node. (¶ 0093: AP 203 . . . releases a path for a VoWiFi service based on a predetermined operation mode and handover condition; ¶ 0095: AP [203] . . . releases a path for a VoLTE service based on a predetermined operation mode and handover condition)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANCHANDA’s handover triggering procedure to provide handover triggering conditions which differ depending on a type of service—as taught by KIM—such that a threshold level in the first handover condition differs from the threshold level in the second handover condition and which are a bases for performing path release, so as to provide compatibility between heterogenous networks to improve user experience. See KIM, at ¶ 0019.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 12. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes
a condition related to a residual quantity of a battery of the electronic device, (Col. 8, ll. 44-56: UE may determine its remaining battery life in various ways using techniques currently known or using techniques developed in the future. For instance, the UE 18 may have a battery level sensor, which could be integrated in the UE's battery or could be provided in another form. In practice, the battery level sensor may be configured to monitor the remaining battery life and to provide an output signal indicating the UE's current remaining battery life, which could be represented as a remaining voltage of the battery, as a remaining percentage of the battery's energy capacity, and/or as a remaining time until the battery is depleted of stored energy)
a condition related to an amount of traffic of data transmitted or received per unit time,
or
a condition related to a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of the second frequency band.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 12. MANCHANDA further discloses:
further comprising refraining from measuring a quality of a channel supported by the second node. (Col. 9, ll. 25-32: The scanning-limiting process may involve the UE 18 identifying on the scan list each carrier frequency that is higher than the serving carrier frequency. For instance, the UE 18 may carry out a comparison between various carrier frequencies listed on the scan list 200 and, based on that comparison, may identify that carrier frequencies F3 and F4 are both higher than the serving carrier frequency F2. And once the UE 18 identifies the higher carrier frequencies, the scanning-limiting process may then involve the UE 18 excluding from the list each of those identified higher carrier frequencies; col. 9, ll. 51-52: UE 18 should forgo scanning of the identified higher carrier frequencies; col. 10, l. 64 – col. 11, l. 3: [B]y avoiding scanning of carrier frequencies higher than the serving carrier frequency, the UE may avoid transitioning to being served on such a higher carrier frequency, thereby avoiding the more battery intensive scanning and/or signaling that could occur on grounds of that higher carrier frequency having higher path loss)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a first condition in which a throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a first threshold when the electronic device performs a first service, and a second condition in which the throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a second threshold when the electronic device performs a second service.
In the same field of endeavor, however, KIM teaches:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a first condition in which a throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a first threshold when the electronic device performs a first service, and a second condition in which the throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a second threshold when the electronic device performs a second service. (¶¶ 0060, 0063: APs available for voice services under the first handover condition may be determined by . . . Data reception rate through AP (throughput estimation): may be measured under circumstances where a data service is carried out through WiFi, and a value measured upon a recent service may be put to use. The terminal may measure the throughput of the target AP by receiving some data for measuring throughput in an idle mode; ¶ 0068: Upon detecting an available WiFi network (available AP) based on the AP's throughput estimation among the above described criteria, the detected available WiFi network (available AP) may be deemed to also meet the other criteria regarding AP's connection to backbone, APs' congestion, and signal quality; ¶¶ 0071-0072: [I]n a second handover condition for the terminal with the operation mode set to the cellular preferred mode, determining to switch from VoWiFi service to VoLTE service is satisfied by offering the minimum signal quality (predetermined threshold level) at which the LTE network may support the VoLTE service. The threshold level in the first handover condition may be the same or different from the threshold level in the second handover condition. In a case where the threshold levels differ from each other, the threshold level in the second handover condition may be set to be relatively higher than the threshold level in the first handover condition. This is why the handover as per the first handover condition is conducted under circumstances where the WiFi network, which is effectively offering the VoWiFi service, is verified)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose: MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a third condition in which a speed of the electronic device is lower than a third threshold when the electronic device performs a third service, and a fourth condition in which the speed of the electronic device is lower than a fourth threshold when the electronic device performs a fourth service.
In the same field of endeavor, however, KIM teaches:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a third condition in which a speed of the electronic device is lower than a third threshold when the electronic device performs a third service, and a fourth condition in which the speed of the electronic device is lower than a fourth threshold when the electronic device performs a fourth service. (¶¶ 0060, 0065: Terminal mobility: predicts terminal's current speed using a sensor or Doppler; ¶¶ 0068-0069: [C]riteria regarding RTD, terminal mobility, and packet error rate, may additionally apply to verifying availability of the WiFi network (AP) detected based on the estimation of an AP's throughput. . . . Accordingly, it may be preferable that the terminal detects an available WiFi network (available AP) based on the throughput estimation and additionally verifies the same according to the RTD, terminal mobility and PER; ¶¶ 0071-0072: [I]n a second handover condition for the terminal with the operation mode set to the cellular preferred mode, determining to switch from VoWiFi service to VoLTE service is satisfied by offering the minimum signal quality (predetermined threshold level) at which the LTE network may support the VoLTE service. The threshold level in the first handover condition may be the same or different from the threshold level in the second handover condition. In a case where the threshold levels differ from each other, the threshold level in the second handover condition may be set to be relatively higher than the threshold level in the first handover condition. This is why the handover as per the first handover condition is conducted under circumstances where the WiFi network, which is effectively offering the VoWiFi service, is verified)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 12. MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a first condition in which a throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a first threshold when the electronic device performs a first service, and a second condition in which the throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a second threshold when the electronic device performs a second service.
In the same field of endeavor, however, KIM teaches:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a first condition in which a throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a first threshold when the electronic device performs a first service, and a second condition in which the throughput via the cellular communication is lower than a second threshold when the electronic device performs a second service. (¶¶ 0060, 0063: APs available for voice services under the first handover condition may be determined by . . . Data reception rate through AP (throughput estimation): may be measured under circumstances where a data service is carried out through WiFi, and a value measured upon a recent service may be put to use. The terminal may measure the throughput of the target AP by receiving some data for measuring throughput in an idle mode; ¶ 0068: Upon detecting an available WiFi network (available AP) based on the AP's throughput estimation among the above described criteria, the detected available WiFi network (available AP) may be deemed to also meet the other criteria regarding AP's connection to backbone, APs' congestion, and signal quality; ¶¶ 0071-0072: [I]n a second handover condition for the terminal with the operation mode set to the cellular preferred mode, determining to switch from VoWiFi service to VoLTE service is satisfied by offering the minimum signal quality (predetermined threshold level) at which the LTE network may support the VoLTE service. The threshold level in the first handover condition may be the same or different from the threshold level in the second handover condition. In a case where the threshold levels differ from each other, the threshold level in the second handover condition may be set to be relatively higher than the threshold level in the first handover condition. This is why the handover as per the first handover condition is conducted under circumstances where the WiFi network, which is effectively offering the VoWiFi service, is verified)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 12. MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a third condition in which a speed of the electronic device is lower than a third threshold when the electronic device performs a third service, and a fourth condition in which the speed of the electronic device is lower than a fourth threshold when the electronic device performs a fourth service.
In the same field of endeavor, however, KIM teaches:
wherein the plurality of designated conditions includes a third condition in which a speed of the electronic device is lower than a third threshold when the electronic device performs a third service, and a fourth condition in which the speed of the electronic device is lower than a fourth threshold when the electronic device performs a fourth service. (¶¶ 0060, 0065: Terminal mobility: predicts terminal's current speed using a sensor or Doppler; ¶¶ 0068-0069: [C]riteria regarding RTD, terminal mobility, and packet error rate, may additionally apply to verifying availability of the WiFi network (AP) detected based on the estimation of an AP's throughput. . . . Accordingly, it may be preferable that the terminal detects an available WiFi network (available AP) based on the throughput estimation and additionally verifies the same according to the RTD, terminal mobility and PER; ¶¶ 0071-0072: [I]n a second handover condition for the terminal with the operation mode set to the cellular preferred mode, determining to switch from VoWiFi service to VoLTE service is satisfied by offering the minimum signal quality (predetermined threshold level) at which the LTE network may support the VoLTE service. The threshold level in the first handover condition may be the same or different from the threshold level in the second handover condition. In a case where the threshold levels differ from each other, the threshold level in the second handover condition may be set to be relatively higher than the threshold level in the first handover condition. This is why the handover as per the first handover condition is conducted under circumstances where the WiFi network, which is effectively offering the VoWiFi service, is verified)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over MANCHANDA in view of BABAEI and KIM, and further in view of WO 2020/113821 (hereinafter, “CHENG”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of MANCHANDA, BABAEI, and KIM, as applied above, renders obvious the electronic device of claim 1. MANCHANDA further discloses:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to transmit, to the second node, a quality measurement result . . . as a part of the at least one operation of releasing the connection to the second node in the state in which the electronic device is connected to the second node. (Col. 2, ll. 40-47: When a UE is being served by a base station on a particular carrier (“serving carrier”), the UE may monitor signal strength (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) of reference signals received from the serving base station, and the UE may apply various thresholds to control carrier frequency scanning and possible resulting handover to another carrier frequency (e.g., provided by the same serving base station or by another base station); Id., ll. 63-65: [T]he UE may transmit to its serving base station a measurement report that specifies the coverage detected on one or more carriers and, for each such detected coverage, the detected signal strength)
MANCHANDA does not explicitly disclose:
a quality measurement result including information indicating that connection to the second node is unavailable as a part of an operation of releasing connection from the second node in a state in which the electronic device is connected to the second node.
In the same field of endeavor, however, CHENG teaches:
a quality measurement result including information indicating that connection to the second node is unavailable as a part of an operation of releasing connection from the second node in a state in which the electronic device is connected to the second node. (¶ 0005: The UE may detect or otherwise determine that an RLF [radio link failure] has occurred between the UE and the MN. In response, the UE may transmit or otherwise provide an indication of the RLF to the SN in the dual-connectivity configuration. The SN may receive the indication of the RLF between the UE and the MN and transmit, forward, or otherwise provide an indication of a RLF to the MN (such as via a wireless transmission between the SN and the MN and/or via a backhaul link between the SN and MN). In some aspects, the indication of the RLF may be carried or otherwise conveyed in a measurement report; ¶ 0098: [T]he RLF may occur due to obstruction, link degradation, and the like, such that the radio link becomes unavailable and/or fails to satisfy a performance threshold for continued use)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANCHANDA’s measurement report to provide forwarding of same as taught by CHENG to provide an indication of an RLF to the MN so as to use a wireless transmission between the SN and the MN and/or via a backhaul link between the SN and MN. See CHENG, at ¶ 0005.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644