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 .
Response to arguments
2. Applicant’s argument, filed on 10/03/2025 regarding rejection of claims 1 – 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Applicant states that in scanned page 1 and scanned page 2 “The Action, however, missed that in claim 1, it is the first cellular network-i.e., the request receiver-that determines that the UE device is participating in an active emergency call. Instead, the Action asserted eNB 1-which was mapped to the requester-as making that determination, noting that the eNB 1 in Sasaki "does not transmit a Handover Request immediately after the Active transition, if the call is an emergency call."
Thus, the Action fails to establish that Sasaki anticipates at least the first two features of claim 1. In any case, Sasaki also fails to describe the feature "responsive to determining that the UE device is participating in the active emergency call, rejecting the request to accept the
handover of the UE device. Rather, Sasaki espouses doing the complete opposite - by describing specifically accepting handover requests that concern emergency calls”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Sasaki teaches in para [0037] communication is possible between the UE and the eNB1, and the UE can transmit a Measurement Report to the eNB1. The Measurement Report is a signal indicating reception quality of radio waves from the eNB to which the UE is attached and reception quality of radio waves from other eNBs. If the UE communicates with eNB2 better than eNB1 and the reception quality at the UE improves, eNB1 (handover source base station) determines the handover of the UE, and sends a Handover Request (handover request) to eNB2 for the UE that is, the eNB 1 determines whether or not to hand over the call of the UE to another eNB based on the report from the UE, and transmits a handover request to the other eNB when determining that the handover should be performed.
e.g., other eNB or eNB2 considered as receiving node or a first cellular network;
other eNB or eNB2 receives handover request.
and in para [0041] It is assumed that eNB2 (handover destination radio base station) has decided not to accept a general call in CAC due to congestion of eNB2 before receiving a Handover Request. However, the eNB 2 can recognize that the call to be handed over is an emergency call from the information included in the Handover Request. When the call to be handed over is an emergency call, the eNB 2 can accept the handover of the emergency call even if congestion occurs ("CAC OK" in the figure).
e.g., other eNB or eNB2 considered as receiving node or a first cellular network
other eNB or eNB2 recognize that call is an emergency call
Further in para [0043]When eNB2 that has decided not to accept a general call in CAC receives a Handover Request that does not include information that clearly indicates that the call is an emergency call (expressly or implies that the call is a general call) The acceptance of the general call handover is rejected. In this way, depending on whether the call is actually an emergency call or a general call, the eNB 2 that is the handover destination radio base station can appropriately determine whether or not to accept the call handover.
e.g., other eNB or eNB2, depending on whether the call is actually an emergency call or a general call, the eNB 2 that is the handover destination radio base station can appropriately determine whether or not to accept the call handover.
Therefore, prior art Sasaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
. Claim(s) 1, 5, 18, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)) as anticipated by Sasaki et.al. (JP2014068260 (A)) hereinafter Sasaki
As to claim 1. Sasaki teaches A method comprising: receiving, at a first cellular network, a request to accept a handover of a UE device from a second cellular network to the first cellular network; ([0024] enb1 sends handover request for UE to eNB2)
determining, at the first cellular network, that the UE device is participating in an active emergency call([0037}[0039] eNB1 does not transmit a Handover Request immediately after the Active transition, if the call is an emergency call),
; and responsive to determining that the UE device is participating in the active emergency call, rejecting the request to accept the handover of the UE device. ([0043] If eNB2, which has determined in CAC not to accept general calls, receives a Handover Request that does not contain information explicitly indicating that the call is an emergency call, it will refuse to accept the handover of the general call.)
Claim 18 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 5. Sasaki teaches , further comprising accepting, at the first cellular network, a subsequent handover of the UE device from the second cellular network to the first cellular network after a termination of the active emergency call. ([0043][0064] dedicated bearer establishment process for emergency voice, a dedicated bearer is established between the UE and the access point for the IMS emergency call via eNB2 and the VoLTE call, which is an emergency call, is handed over from eNB1 to eNB2).
Claim 22 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 2, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and further in view of Takakura (US 20210267001 A1) hereinafter Takakura
As to claim 2. Sasaki teaches wherein determining that the UE device is participating in the active emergency call comprises ([0037][0039] the call is an emergency call, )
checking an Access Point Name (APN) or Data Network Name (DNN) associated with a PDU session of the UE device([0155][0180] the APN in Use may he information for identifying a DN with which the PDU, session first identification-inquiring whether or not a voice service and/or an emergency call service (including support of an emergency call bearer or a PDU session function) provided via the core network_B 190 with which the UE_A 10 attempts to register is supported)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Takakura with the teachings of Sasaki because Takakura teaches that selecting, an emergency call connection scheme, would allow the network to initiate and perform the process of redirection and/or handover to the core network(. (Takakura [0341]).
Claim 19 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and further in view of Watfa et al. (US 20100297979 A1) hereinafter Watfa
As to claim 3 Sasaki teaches , wherein rejecting the request to accept the handover of the UE device comprises ([0043] refuse to accept the handover of the general call.)
Sasaki does not teach providing the second cellular network with a code indicative of the UE device participating in the active emergency call.
Watfa teaches providing the second cellular network with a code indicative of the UE device participating in the active emergency call. ([0071] WTRU may request emergency call establishment by sending the "service request" message where a new code-point in the "security header type" may be assigned to indicate a "request for the emergency call establishment.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Watfa with the teachings of Sasaki because Watfa teaches that providing a code indicating emergency call would enable to remove or relax as many restrictions as possible in order to grant an emergency service to a WTRU with minimal delay. (Watfa [0055])
Claim 20, is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, , 8 -11,17 21 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and further in view of Zacharias et al. (US 20210022171 A1) hereinafter Zacharias
As to claim 4. Sasaki does not teach wherein the first cellular network is operated by a first service provider and the second cellular network is operated by a second service provider.
Zacharias teaches that wherein the first cellular network is operated by a first service provider and the second cellular network is operated by a second service provider. ([0057] FIG. 5, the first RAT is 5G NR and the second RAT is LTE)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zacharias with the teachings of Sasaki because Zacharias teaches that spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard thereby signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards. (Zacharias [0004])
Claim 21is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 6. A method comprising: determining that a user equipment (UE) device connected to [ ] requesting to perform a handover of the UE device from the first cellular network to the second cellular network; ([0024] enb1 sends handover request for UE to eNB2)
determining, at the first cellular network, that the UE device is participating in an active emergency call ([0037}[0039] eNB1 does not transmit a Handover Request immediately after the Active transition, if the call is an emergency call,)
and receiving, at the first cellular network, a rejection to perform the handover, wherein the rejection is indicative of the UE device participating in an active emergency call. ([0050][0073]If eNB2, which has determined in CAC not to accept general calls, receives a Handover Request that does not contain information explicitly indicating that the call is an emergency call, it will refuse to accept the handover of the general call, UE receives rejection).)
Sasaki does not teach a first cellular network is in an area covered by both the first cellular network and a second cellular network,
Zacharias teaches a first cellular network is in an area covered by both the first cellular network and a second cellular network,([0031] Gig 1, first and second network covers different area)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zacharias with the teachings of Sasaki because Zacharias teaches that spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard thereby signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards. (Zacharias [0004])
Claim 23 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As to claim 8 The combination of Sasaki and Zacharias, Specifically Sasaki teaches further comprising continuing to carry the active emergency call subsequent to receiving the rejection to perform the handover. ([0043][0064][0067] dedicated bearer establishment process for emergency voice, a dedicated bearer is established between the UE and the access point for the IMS emergency call via eNB2 and the VoLTE call, which is an emergency call, is handed over from eNB1 to eNB2, call continues).
Claim 17 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
As to claim 9. The combination of Sasaki and Zacharias specifically Sasaki teaches further comprising sending a second request to perform the handover of the UE device from the first cellular network to the second cellular network subsequent to a termination of the active emergency call. ([0073] eNB2 invalidates the information indicating that the previous call is an emergency call. Because eNB2 has disabled the emergency call information, when sending a Handover Request (second handover request)
after the previous call is terminated, eNB2 does)
As to claim 10. The combination of Sasaki and Zacharias specifically Zacharias teaches, wherein the first cellular network is operated by a first service provider and the second cellular network is operated by a second service provider ([0057] FIG. 5, the first RAT is 5G NR and the second RAT is LTE)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zacharias with the teachings of Sasaki because Zacharias teaches that spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard thereby signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards. (Zacharias [0004])
As to claim 11. The combination of Sasaki and Zacharias specifically Zacharias teaches wherein the UE device is subscribed to the second service provider. ([0054] Fig. 1, the UE 505 (e.g., controller/processor 359, etc.) determines an amount of time, over a window of time, that is based on concurrent uplink transmissions on both the first and second RATs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zacharias with the teachings of Sasaki because Zacharias teaches that spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard thereby signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards. (Zacharias [0004])
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, Zacharias and Watfa
As to claim 7. The combination of Sasaki and Zacharias does not teach wherein receiving the rejection to perform the handover comprises receiving a code indicative of the UE device participating in the active emergency call.
Watfa teaches wherein receiving the rejection to perform the handover comprises receiving a code indicative of the UE device participating in the active emergency call. ([0071] WTRU may request emergency call establishment by sending the "service request" message where a new code-point in the "security header type" may be assigned to indicate a "request for the emergency call establishment.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Watfa with the teachings of Sasaki because Watfa teaches that providing a code indicating emergency call would enable to remove or relax as many restrictions as possible in order to grant an emergency service to a WTRU with minimal delay. (Watfa [0055])
Claim 16 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, Zacharias and further in view of Singh et al. (WO 2022077001 A2) hereinafter Singh
As to claim 12. The combination of Sasaki and Zacharias does not teach further comprising: comparing, prior to requesting to perform the handover of the UE device, a signal strength of the first cellular network with a first threshold value, comparing, prior to performing the handover of the UE device, a signal strength of the second cellular network with a second threshold value, determining that the signal strength of the first cellular network satisfies a first threshold condition for initiating the handover of the UE device, and determining that the signal strength of the second cellular network satisfies a second threshold condition for initiating the handover of the UE device.
Singh teaches comprising: comparing, prior to requesting to perform the handover of the UE device, a signal strength of the first cellular network with a first threshold value, ([0031] a UE for wireless communication includes a memory and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the memory and the one or more processors configured to determine, during an active call on a first RAT, that a signal strength associated with the first RAT is within a particular range above a handover threshold associated with triggering a handover from the first RAT to a second RAT )
comparing, prior to performing the handover of the UE device, a signal strength of the second cellular network with a second threshold value, , ([0039]Fig. 4B, In some aspects, the determination that the first condition for performing the handover from the first RAT to the second RAT is satisfied is based at least in part on at least one of: a preference indicating that the second RAT is preferred over the first RAT for voice calls, a signal strength associated with the second RAT; from the first RAT to the second RAT (block 620). )
and determining that the signal strength of the second cellular network satisfies a second threshold condition for initiating the handover of the UE device. ([0158] Fig. 6, determining, based at least in part on a signal strength of the second RAT, that the active call would be moved from the second RAT to a third RAT after the handover from the first RAT to the second RAT (block 620))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Singh with the teachings of Sasaki because Singh teaches that it is desirable for the UE to handover from Wi-Fi to LTE directly (rather than from Wi-Fi to NR and then NR to LTE) in order to, improve call quality and reduce UE and/or network resource wastage.([0109])
As to claim 13. The combination of Sasaki Zacharias specifically Singh teaches does not teach wherein determining that the signal strength of the first cellular network satisfies the first threshold condition comprises determining, at the UE device, that the signal strength of the first cellular network satisfies the first threshold condition and wherein determining that the signal strength of the second cellular network satisfies the second threshold condition comprises determining, at the UE device, that the signal strength of the second cellular network satisfies the second threshold condition.
Singh teaches wherein determining that the signal strength of the first cellular network satisfies the first threshold condition comprises determining, at the UE device, that the signal strength of the first cellular network satisfies the first threshold condition, ([0031] a UE for wireless communication includes a memory and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the memory and the one or more processors configured to determine, during an active call on a first RAT, that a signal strength associated with the first RAT is within a particular range above a handover threshold associated with triggering a handover from the first RAT to a second RAT )
and wherein determining that the signal strength of the second cellular network satisfies the second threshold condition comprises determining, at the UE device, that the signal strength of the second cellular network satisfies the second threshold condition. ([0039] In some aspects, the determination that the first condition for performing the handover from the first RAT to the second RAT is satisfied is based at least in part on at least one of: a preference indicating that the second RAT is preferred over the first RAT for voice calls, a signal strength associated with the second RAT)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Singh with the teachings of Sasaki because Singh teaches that it is desirable for the UE to handover from Wi-Fi to LTE directly (rather than from Wi-Fi to NR and then NR to LTE) in order to, improve call quality and reduce UE and/or network resource wastage.([0109])
Claim 14 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 13.
As to claim 15. Sasaki teaches and a UE device connected to the first cellular network, wherein the first cellular network is configured to request a handover of the UE device from the first cellular network to the second cellular network ([0024] enb1 sends handover request for UE to eNB2)
determining, at the first cellular network, that the UE device is participating in an active emergency call ([0037}[0039] eNB1 does not transmit a Handover Request immediately after the Active transition, if the call is an emergency call),
; and wherein the second cellular network is configured to identify whether the UE device is participating in an active emergency call, and responsive to determining that the UE device is participating in the active emergency call, reject the handover of the UE device. . ([0043] If eNB2, which has determined in CAC not to accept general calls, receives a Handover Request that does not contain information explicitly indicating that the call is an emergency call, it will refuse to accept the handover of the general call.)
Sasaki does not teach A system comprising: a first cellular network operated by a first service provider; a second cellular network operated by a second service provider;
Zacharias teaches A system comprising: a first cellular network operated by a first service provider; a second cellular network operated by a second service provider;. ([0057] FIG. 5, the first RAT is 5G NR and the second RAT is LTE)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Zacharias with the teachings of Sasaki because Zacharias teaches that spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard thereby signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards. (Zacharias [0004])
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banks; Robert Edward et al. [US 20150334604 A1] APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR HANDOVER FOR BASE STATIONS WITH CELLULAR BACKHAUL
Kumar et al. [US 20210136721 A1] POSITIONING ENHANCEMENTS IN 5G NR USING UPPER LAYER INDICATION
Mufti; Shujaur [US 10004004 B2] Telecommunication equipment measuring pre-establishment service interruptions
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ATIQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-6244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 PM M-F Eastern.
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, Un Cho can be reached at 5712727919. 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.
/ATIQUE AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413