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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending.
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 05/04/2026 regarding rejection of claims 1-23 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new combinations of references including new prior arts being used in the current rejection. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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) 1, 4-10, 15-18, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et.al. (JP2014068260 (A)) hereinafter Sasaki and further in view of Abtin et al. (US 20230284108 A1)hereinafter Abtin
As to claim 1. Sasaki teaches A method comprising:
receiving, at a first cellular network that is a home network of a user equipment (UE) device, a request to accept a handover of [[a]]the UE device from a second cellular network [ ] the first cellular network; ([0024][0037] enb1 sends handover request for UE to eNB2; eNB1 the source base station))
determining, at the first cellular network, that the UE device is participating in an active emergency call; and([0037][0039] eNB1 does not transmit a Handover Request immediately after the Active transition, if the call is an emergency call i.e., determine call is active emergency call),
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, ([0077]
when the Handover Request includes information indicating that the call is an emergency call, and rejects the Handover Request when the first congestion judgment unit judges that the handover destination radio base station is in a congested state and when the Handover Request does not include information indicating that the call is an emergency call.)
Sasaki does not teach that is a roaming partner network to; wherein rejecting the request to accept the handover
Abtin teaches that is a roaming partner network ([0027] Fig. 1B, a roaming partner RAN)
wherein rejecting the request to accept the handover .([0063][0066] [0067]Fig. 3a, The UE 10 is performing an emergency service in the first RAN i.e. first PLMN, (base station 12-second cellular ) send HO request to node 15/s304 and network node 15 /second network, may then determine to reject the handover of the UE based on whether the communication includes an emergency service ).
prevents routing the active emergency call back to the home network during the active emergency call.([0063][0066] [0067][0072]Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b, network node 15 may then determine to reject the handover of the UE based on whether the communication includes an emergency service; . The network node 15 may send an MRL to the first radio network node 12, wherein mobility restriction list the MRL differentiates normal communication versus emergency communication where an emergency entry in the MRL for emergency communications indicates that HO to a certain PLMN is restricted during emergency communication).
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
Claim 18 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 4. the combination of Sasaki and Abtin specifically Abtin 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.
Abtin 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. ( ([0049]. [0090] first RAT, first PLMN and second RAT, second PLMN have different operators),
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
Claim 21is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 5. the combination of Sasaki and Abtin specifically 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.
As to claim 6 Sasaki teaches A method comprising: determining that a user equipment (UE) device connected to a first cellular network ([0037][0039] eNB1 does not transmit a Handover Request immediately after the Active transition, if the call is an emergency call i.e., determine call is active emergency call; eNB1 the source base station of UE;
that is a home network of the UE device; ([0037]eNB1 the source base station of UE),
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; 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 specifically teach that is a roaming partner network is in an area covered by both the first cellular network and a second cellular network,
wherein the rejection maintains the active emergency call on the roaming partner
Abtin teaches that is a roaming partner network is in an area covered by both the first cellular network and a second cellular network ([0049]. [0090] first RAT, first PLMN and second RAT, second PLMN have different operators),
wherein the rejection maintains the active emergency call on the roaming partner ([0053] RAN support HO of normal calls while treating emergency calls separately and avoid handover of emergency call to another PLMN with risk for dropping the emergency call and rather maintain the emergency call longer on current RAT)
network to comply with local breakout standards.( [0013]Fig. 1a, The roaming models for 5G system defined are either Home routed or local breakout LBO. Here the Home routed model)
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
Claim 23 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6
As to claim 7. The combination of Sasaki and Abtin specifically Abtin teaches wherein receiving the rejection to perform the handover comprises receiving a code indicative of the UE device participating in the active emergency call. ([0069] when recognizing that there is an Emergency call is ongoing, e.g. considering existence of an Emergency PDU session, would reject the Handover attempt from RAN with a cause code.)
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
Claim 16 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
As to claim 8 The combination of Sasaki and Abtin, 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 Abtin 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 Abtin specifically Abtin 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 ([0049]. [0090] first RAT, first PLMN and second RAT, second PLMN have different operators),
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
As to claim 15. Sasaki teaches and the 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)
; 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;
Abtin teaches A system comprising: a first cellular network operated by a first service provider, the first cellular network being a roaming partner network, a second cellular network operated by a second service provider;. ([0027][0049] [0090] Fig. 1b, first RAT, first PLMN, first operator, operates in a roaming partner RAN ),
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
Claim(s) 2, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, Abtin and further in view of Takakura (US 20210267001 A1) hereinafter Takakura
As to claim 2. the combination of Sasaki and Abtin specifically Sasaki teaches, wherein determining that the UE device is participating in the active emergency call comprises ([0037][0039] the call is an emergency call, )
the combination of Sasaki and Abtin does not teach checking an Access Point Name (APN) or Data Network Name (DNN) associated with a PDU session of the UE device
Takakura teaches 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 and Abtin 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, Abtin and further in view of Watfa et al. (US 20100297979 A1) hereinafter Watfa
As to claim 3 the combination of Sasaki and Abtin specifically 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.)
the combination of Sasaki and Abtin 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 and Abtin 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, Abtin and further in view of Zacharias et al. (US 20210022171 A1) hereinafter Zacharias
As to claim 11. The combination of Sasaki and Abtin does not teach wherein the UE device is subscribed to the second service provider.
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 and Abtin 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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, Abtin and further in view of Singh et al. (WO 2022077001 A2) hereinafter Singh
As to claim 12. The combination of Sasaki and Abtin specifically Abtin teaches further comprising: prior to requesting to perform the handover of the UE device ([0081][0082] Fig. 3c, he UE 10 may move towards the second radio network node 13 receiving signals of the second RAN and transmit a report to the first radio network node 12 indicating signal strengths of the second RAN)
prior to requesting to perform the handover of the UE device ([0081][0082][0085] Fig. 3c, The RAN would then need to consider a different target cell, including other RATs in same PLMN (even though the signal strength is not as good as the neighboring PLMN cell and despite that the MRL indicates that mobility is allowed i.e. allowed only for normal calls).)
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 Abtin with the teachings of Sasaki because Abtin teaches that rejecting hand over when on an emergency call would reduce the risk for dropping emergency calls by avoiding handover to e.g. a roaming partner RAN. (Abtin [0027])
The combination of Sasaki and Abtin does not teach comprising: comparing [ ]a signal strength of the first cellular network with a first threshold value, comparing, [ ] a signal strength of the second cellular network with a second threshold value, 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 [ ]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, [ ] 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 and Abtin 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, Abtin and Singh specifically 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 and Abtin 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.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keller; Ralf et al. [US 20220124869 A1] EMERGENCY CALLS WITH SERVICE REQUEST TRIGGERED FALLBACK
Nikkelen, Vincent [US 20030207688 A1] Service-based inter-system handover
Al-Khudairi; Abdul-Munem et al. [US 8730921 B2] System and method for call re-establishment
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
Prosecution Insights