DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13 and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 3, 6, 12 and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 21-26 are added.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13 and 16-26 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 10-14), filed on 12/02/2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13 and 16-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended. See the detailed Office Action bellow under 35 U.S.C. § 103 section.
Claim Objection
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 7 and claim 16 line 7: “the forbidden list” lacks of antecedence.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-2, 7-11, 16-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20150043529 A1), hereinafter “Kang”, in view of C1-205145 (“Avoiding inter-system ping-pong due to redirection”), hereinafter “C1-205”, and in view of RFC4068.
Per claim 1, 10 and 19:
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches ‘A terminal device’ (Kang: [FIG.2A]: [0017]: “an electronic device”; [Abstract]: “An apparatus and a method for providing a packet service (PS) or a Circtui service (CS) in an electronic device”); ‘comprising: one or more processors’ (Kang: [FIG.2A]: “Processor”); ‘a memory’ (Kang: [FIG.2]: “MEMORY UNIT”); ‘configured to store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to’ (Kang: [0103]: “memory components, e.g., RAM, ROM, Flash, etc. that may store or receive software or computer code that when accessed and executed by the computer, processor or hardware implement the processing methods”);
‘determine a target network standard in at least two network standards when a terminal device is in inter-system ping-pong state’ (Kang: [0011]: “The electronic device includes: a first modem that supports a first Radio Access Technology (RAT); a second modem that supports a second RAT; an determining module that is configured to determine a number of ping-pongs in which an access change between the first modem and the second modem of the electronic device is repeatedly made for a predetermined first time … and a providing module that provides a Packet Service (PS) through the second modem”; [0029]: “the electronic device 101 supports a multi-RAT including LTE and GSM”; determine a target network when ping-pong between different RAT);
‘wherein the inter-system ping-pong state refers to a state that the terminal device repeatedly switches between cells of at least two network standards’ (discussed in element above).
‘update a number of inter-system ping-pong state rounds, wherein the number of inter-system ping-pong state rounds represents a number of occurrences of the inter-system ping-pong state’ (Kang: [FIG.3]: “NUMBER OF PING-PONGS”; [0030]: “determine the number of ping-pongs occurring”; update the number of ping-pong);
‘set a time duration of a timer according to the number of inter-system ping- pong state rounds, and start the timer when the terminal device resides in a target cell’ (Kang: [FIG.5A]: block 505: “NUMBER OF PING-PONGS >= PREDERMINED NUMBER OF PING-PONGS ?”, block 513: “SET TIMER TO PREDERMINED SECOND TIME and OPERATE TIMER”, set a time duration according to the number of ping-pong);
‘wherein the timer duration is positively correlated with the number of inter-system ping-pong state rounds’ (Kang: [FIG.3]: “Gt (305)” > “T1 (303)”; [0067]: “the second time is longer than the first time”; [0065]-[0067]: when number of ping-pong is two, set timer to “T1 (303)”, when number of ping-pong is three, set timer to “Gt (305)”, where 3>2 and “Gt (305)” > “T1 (303)”, i.e. positive correlation). However, when number of ping-pong is greater than 3, Kang only teaches non-negative correlation since the timer is set to “G1 (305)” too.
Kang does not expressly teach ‘close a network capability of the terminal device in other network standards, wherein the other network standards are the network standards other than the target network standard among at least two network standards’.
However, C1-205 in the same field of endeavor teaches UE would disable N1-mode to avoid inter-system ping-pong between EPC and 5GS (C1-205: [Title]: “Avoiding inter-system ping-pong”; [Page 2]: “the UE is disabling the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access”; [Page 3]: “When the UE supporting both N1 mode and S1 mode needs to stay in E-UTRA connected to EPC (e.g. due to the domain selection for UE originating sessions as specified in subclause 4.3.2), in order to prevent unintentional handover or cell reselection from E-UTRA connected to EPC to NG-RAN connected to 5GCN, the UE operating in single registration mode shall disable the N1 mode capability”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine C1-205’s teaching with that of Kang for UE to close a network capability of the terminal device in other network standards, wherein the other network standards are the network standards other than the target network standard among at least two network standards in order to avoid inter-system ping-pong (see reference quotes in element above).
Combination of Kang and C1-205 does not expressly teach positive correlation.
However, RFC4068 in the same field of endeavor teaches exponential backoff for subsequent retry attempts (RFC4068: [Page 19]: “Subsequent retransmissions can be up to RTSOLPR_RETRIES, but MUST use an exponential backoff in which the timeout period (i.e., 2xRTT or 100 milliseconds) is doubled prior to each instance of retransmission … During each use of RtSolPr, exponential backoff is used for retransmissions”; [Page 16]: “Ping-Pong is a special case of fast movement, where an MN moves between the same two access points rapidly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RFC4068’s teaching with that of combination of Kang and C1-205 to set the timer duration to be exponentially (positively) correlated with the number of inter-system ping-pong state rounds in order to improve reliability by increasing protection interval between retry attempts.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the memory and the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Per claim 2, 11 and 20:
Regarding claim 11, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the terminal device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang and C1-205 teaches ‘wherein the processor is further caused to’ (this is implied); ‘restore the network capability in the other network standards when the timer reaches a timer duration’ (Kang: [FIG.5B]: block 525: “SECOND TIMER IS EXPIRED” -> “YES” -> block 527: “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIRST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, allow the other RAT again upon the timer reaches a timer duration. C1-205: [Page 2]: “Disabling and re-enabling of UE's N1 mode capability”; [Page 4]: “if the UE is in S1 mode … on expiry of the timer, the UE should enable the N1 mode capability”, restore the network capability of the other RAT when timer is expired).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine C1-205’s teaching of disabling and re-enabling of UE’s N1-mode capability with that of Kang in order to avoid inter-system ping-pong (C1-205: [Title]: “Avoiding inter-system ping-pong”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the memory and the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 8 and 17:
Regarding claim 17, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the terminal device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang and C1-205 teaches ‘determine the terminal device is in the inter-system ping-pong state when the terminal device repeatedly switches between cells of a 5G network and a 4G network’ (Kang: [0011]: “The electronic device includes: a first modem that supports a first Radio Access Technology (RAT); a second modem that supports a second RAT; an determining module that is configured to determine a number of ping-pongs in which an access change between the first modem and the second modem of the electronic device is repeatedly made for a predetermined first time”; [0029]: “the electronic device 101 supports a multi-RAT including LTE”. C1-205: [Page 2]: “UE's N1 mode capability for 3GPP access … EPC”, a 5G network and a 4G network; [Title]: “Avoiding inter-system ping-pong”, inter-system ping-pong between a 5G network and a 4G network);
‘determining the target network standard is 4G’ (Kang: “the electronic device 101 may provide the PS through LTE”. C1-205: [Page 2]: “When the UE is disabling the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access …select an E-UTRA cell connected to EPC”, determine the target network is 4G);
‘close the 5G SA capability when the terminal device resides in a 4G cell’ (C1-205: [Page 2]: “the UE is disabling the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access”, close N1 mode capability (5G SA capability)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine C1-205’s teaching of disabling of UE’s N1-mode capability with that of Kang in order to avoid inter-system ping-pong between 5G and 4G (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above).
Per claim 9 and 18:
Regarding claim 18, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the terminal device of claim 17 (discussed above).
Kang does not expressly teach, but C1-205 teaches ‘wherein after closing the 5G SA capability’ (C1-205: “disable the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access”);
‘the instructions further cause the one or more processors to’ (this is implied);
‘send a TAU request to a network device, wherein a value of a preset field in the TAU request is a first numerical value, and the first numerical value is used for indicating the close of the 5G SA capability of the terminal device’ (C1-205: [Page 3]: “shall set the N1 mode bit to "N1 mode not supported" in the UE network capability IE (see 3GPP TS 24.301 [15]”) of the ATTACH REQUEST message and the TRACKING AREA UPDATE REQUEST message in EPC”; [Page 2]: “select an E-UTRA cell connected to EPC”; send TAU request via E-UTRA cell in EPC to close N1 mode capability (5G SA capability), where the N1 mode bit is a flag (numerical value): 1 => “N1 mode supported”, 0 => “N1 mode not supported”);
‘the network device is used for updating the network capability of the terminal device according to the TAU request’ (discussed in element above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine C1-205’s teaching with that of Kang in order to inform the network about UE’s network capability (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 22, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang and RFC4068 teaches ‘wherein the timer duration is exponentially correlated with the number of inter-system ping-pong state rounds’ (Kang: [FIG.3]: “Gt (305)” > “T1 (303)”; [0067]: “the second time is longer than the first time”; [0065]-[0067]: when number of ping-pong is two, set timer to “T1 (303)”, when number of ping-pong is three, set timer to “Gt (305)”. RFC4068: [Page 19]: “Subsequent retransmissions can be up to RTSOLPR_RETRIES, but MUST use an exponential backoff in which the timeout period (i.e., 2xRTT or 100 milliseconds) is doubled prior to each instance of retransmission … During each use of RtSolPr, exponential backoff is used for retransmissions”; [Page 16]: “Ping-Pong is a special case of fast movement, where an MN moves between the same two access points rapidly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RFC4068’s teaching of exponential backoff with that of combination of Kang and C1-205 to set the timer duration to be exponentially correlated with the number of inter-system ping-pong state rounds in order to improve reliability by increasing protection interval between retry attempts.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068, in view of TS38.331_measurement hereinafter “TS38.331”.
Per claim 4 and 13:
Regarding claim 13, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the terminal device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang and C1-205 teaches ‘wherein after closing the network capability in the other network standards’ (Kang: [FIG.5B]: “PROVIDE PS THROUGH SECOND MODEM SUPPORTING SECOND RAT”, block 519: “ELECTRIC INTENSITY >= REFERENCE ELECTRIC INTENSITY” -> “YES” -> “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIRST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, access the first RAT even if timer is not yet expired. C1-205: [Page 2]: “When the UE is disabling the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access for a PLMN, it should proceed as follows … d) if no other allowed PLMN and RAT combinations are available, then the UE may re-enable the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access”, would restore the other RAT after closing if target RAT becomes unavailable even if timer is not yet expired).
‘the instructions further cause the one or more processors to’ (this is implied);
‘restore the network capability in the other network standards in the timer duration of the timer’ (discussed in element above);
‘or displacement of the terminal device is greater than a displacement threshold’ (this is optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine C1-205’s teaching of disabling of UE’s N1-mode capability with that of Kang in order to avoid inter-system ping-pong (C1-205: [Title]: “Avoiding inter-system ping-pong).
Combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 does not expressly teach ‘when a signal strength of the target cell is less than a signal strength threshold’.
However TS38.331 in the same field of endeavor teaches Event A2 (Serving becomes worse than threshold) which requires UE to search for other cell and release current serving cell when RSRP is less than a network configured threshold (TS38.331: [Page 99]: ”Event A2 (Serving becomes worse than threshold) … RSRP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS38.331’s teaching with that of combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 for terminal device to restore network capability of the other RAT when current serving RAT cell becomes unavailable due to it has a signal strength less than a signal strength threshold in order to access the other RAT cell again.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Claims 7, 16 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068, in view of Ore et al. (US 20080280604 A1), hereinafter “Ore”.
Per claim 7 and 16:
Regarding claim 16, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the terminal device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Kang teaches ‘wherein before determining the target network standard in at least two network standards when the terminal device is in inter-system ping-pong state’ (Kang: [FIG.5B]: block 521: “DETECT SECOND CELL ID OF FIRST RAT” is before block 527: “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIRST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, determining the target network (first RAT)).
‘the instructions further cause the one or more processors to’ (this is implied);
‘obtain a cell identifier of the switched cell when the resident cell of the terminal device is switched’ (Kang: [0028]: “a cell IDentifier (ID)”; [FIG.5B]: block 515: “PROVIDE PS THROUGH SECOND MODEM SUPPORTING SECOND RAT”, block 527: “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIRST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, block 521: “DETECT SECOND CELL ID OF FIRST RAT”; would obtain a cell identifier of the first RAT cell which is allowed to access again);
‘record the network standard adopted by the switched cell when the identifier of the switched cell does not belong to the forbidden list’ (Kang: [0038]: “the data memory stores various data generated during the operation of the electronic device”; [0029]: “the electronic device 101 supports a multi-RAT including LTE and GSM”). However, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 fails to expressly teach a forbidden list;
‘the forbidden list contains the cell identifier of the cell with inter-system ping-pong state problem’ (Kang: : [0028]: “a cell IDentifier (ID)”; [0012]: “a number of ping-pongs in which an access change between a first modem supporting a first RAT and a second modem supporting a second RAT”). However, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 fails to expressly teach the forbidden list.
However, Ore in the same field of endeavor teaches storing a list of forbidden cells which UE does not have to search and report (Ore: [0011]: “storage means for storing a forbidden neighbor cell list”; [0030]: “a list of forbidden cells about which the UE does not have to search and report”; [0008]: “measurements based on the forbidden neighbor cell list”; cell identifier in the bidden list won’t be measured and accessed by the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ore’s teaching with that of combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 to record the network standard adopted by the switched cell when the identifier of the switched cell does not belong to the forbidden list, and the forbidden list contains the cell identifier of the cell with inter-system ping-pong state problem in order to reduce signaling load (Ore: [0031]: “unnecessary increase of the signaling load and increased UE complexity and load can be avoided , ameliorated, or reduced by use of a forbidden neighbor cell list”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
Per claim 24 and 26:
Regarding claim 26, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the terminal device of claim 10 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang and C1-205 teaches ‘add a target cell identifier to a forbidden list, wherein the forbidden list is used for storing cell identifiers of cells with inter-system ping-pong state problem’ (Kang: [0028]: “a cell IDentifier (ID)”; [0012]: “a number of ping-pongs in which an access change between a first modem supporting a first RAT and a second modem supporting a second RAT”, cell identifiers of cells in ping-pong problem. [FIG.4]: step 413: “PROVIDE PS THROUGH SECOND MODEM SUPPORTING SECOND RAT”; [FIG.5A]: step 511: “STORE FIRST CELL ID OF CURRENT FIRST RAT”; if terminal device is in FIRST RAT Cell (ping-pong target cell) and is moving to SECOND RAT, terminal device should avoid to measure FIRST RAT cell after on SECOND RAT to avoid ping-pong again). However, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 fails to expressly teach add a target cell identifier to a forbidden list;
‘restore the network capability in the other network standards when a resident cell of the terminal device is switched and cell identifier of the switched cell does not belong to the forbidden list’ (Kang: [FIG.5B]: block 515: “PROVIDE PS THROUGH SECOND MODEM SUPPORTING SECOND RAT”, block 527: “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIRST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, switch from second RAT cell to first RAT cell. C1-205: [Page 2]: “When the UE is disabling the N1 mode capability for 3GPP access for a PLMN, it should proceed as follows … the UE may re-enabling of UE's N1 mode capability”, restore capability for the other RAT). However, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 fails to expressly teaches ‘cell identifier of the switched cell does not belong to the forbidden list’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine C1-205’s teaching of disabling and re-enabling of UE’s N1-mode capability with that of Kang in order to avoid inter-system ping-pong (C1-205: [Title]: “Avoiding inter-system ping-pong”).
However, Ore in the same field of endeavor teaches storing a list of forbidden cells which UE does not have to search and report (Ore: [0011]: “storage means for storing a forbidden neighbor cell list”; [0030]: “a list of forbidden cells about which the UE does not have to search and report”; [0008]: “measurements based on the forbidden neighbor cell list”; cell identifier in the bidden list won’t be measured and accessed by the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ore’s teaching with that of combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 for terminal device to add a target cell identifier of a target cell to a forbidden list in response to the terminal device residing in the target cell, wherein the forbidden list is used for storing cell identifiers of cells with inter-system ping-pong state problem in order to reduce signaling load (Ore: [0031]: “unnecessary increase of the signaling load and increased UE complexity and load can be avoided, ameliorated, or reduced by use of a forbidden neighbor cell list”) and to restore the network capability in the other network standards when a resident cell of the terminal device is switched and cell identifier of the switched cell does not belong to the forbidden list in order to measure and report the switched cell for access (Ore: [0008]: “measurements based on the forbidden neighbor cell list”).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites the method implemented by the terminal device of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 26 above).
Regarding claim 25, combination of Kang, C1-205, RFC4068 and Ore teaches the method of claim 24 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang and Ore teaches ‘removing the target cell identifier from the forbidden list when a removal condition is met’ (Kang: [FIG.5B]: block 515: “PROVIDE PS THROUGH SECOND MODEM SUPPORTING SECOND RAT”, block 527: “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, block 525: “SECOND TIME IS EXPIRED”, allow to access first RAT cell again upon timer expired. Ore: [0030]: “a list of forbidden cells about which the UE does not have to search and report”; [0008]: “measurements based on the forbidden neighbor cell list”; would remove first RAT cell identifier from the forbidden list in order to measure and report for cell access again);
‘the removal condition includes at least one of: the terminal device accessing the network again’ (Kang: [FIG.5B]: block 527: “ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE PS THROUGH FIST MODEM SUPPORTING FIRST RAT”, access to first RAT again);
‘an adding time of the target cell identifier reaches a time threshold’ (Kang: : [FIG.5B]: block 525: “SECOND TIME IS EXPIRED”, allow to access first RAT cell again upon timer expired (reach a time threshold)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ore’s teaching of a list of forbidden cells with that of combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 in order to reduce signaling load (Ore: [0031]: “unnecessary increase of the signaling load and increased UE complexity and load can be avoided , ameliorated, or reduced by use of a forbidden neighbor cell list”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068, in view of Swann et al. (US 20140086050 A1), hereinafter “Swann”.
Regarding claim 21, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Kang teaches ‘obtaining a network standard sequence within a predetermined time, determining that the terminal device is in the inter-system ping-pong state, in response to determining according to the network standard sequence that switching times of network standards reach a threshold number and adjacent network standards in the network standard sequence differ’ (Kang: [0011]: “The electronic device includes: a first modem that supports a first Radio Access Technology (RAT); a second modem that supports a second RAT; an determining module that is configured to determine a number of ping-pongs in which an access change between the first modem and the second modem of the electronic device is repeatedly made for a predetermined first time … and a providing module that provides a Packet Service (PS) through the second modem”; [0012]: “determining a number of ping-pongs in which an access change between a first modem supporting a first RAT and a second modem supporting a second RAT of an electronic device is repeatedly made for a predetermined first time period; comparing the number of ping-pongs determined with a predetermined reference number of ping-pongs; and providing the PS through the second modem for a predetermined second time period when the number of ping-pongs determined is equal to or greater than the reference number of ping-pongs”, [0029]: “the electronic device 101 supports a multi-RAT including LTE and GSM”, determine ping-pong between two RATs (network standards) such as LTE and GSM when switching times reach a threshold (a predetermined reference number of ping-pongs) in a predetermined time period). However, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 fails to expressly teach using a RAT (network standard) sequence to determine ping-pong.
However, Swann in the same field of endeavor teaches mobile device using a RAT history to determine ping-pong between RATs (Swann: [FIG.9]: “RAT History”; [0198]: “monitor RATs used by the mobile device, for example by monitoring RAT history 912, to determine the number of times mobile device 900 has switched from a higher order RAT to a lower order RAT within a period of time”; [0112]: “when a mobile device is on the edge of coverage for a specific radio access technology (RAT) the device can ping-pong between RATs causing excessive power drain … Some embodiments of this disclosure may avoid unnecessary uplink transmissions for user data by limiting uplink transmission for background user data based on the monitoring of RAT selection and hysteresis at the service level”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Swann’s teaching with that of combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 to obtain a network standard sequence within a predetermined time; and determining that the terminal device is in the inter-system ping-pong state, in response to determining according to the network standard sequence that switching times of network standards reach a threshold number and adjacent network standards in the network standard sequence differ in order to avoid excessive power drain by monitoring RAT selection (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068, in view of RFC7695.
Regarding claim 23, combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 does not expressly teach ‘wherein the time duration of the timer is less than an upper limit of a timer duration’.
However, RFC7695 in the same field of endeavor teaches maximum backoff time (RFC7695: [Page 15]: “BACKOFF_MAX_DELAY represents the maximum backoff time a Node may wait”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RFC7695’s teaching with that of combination of Kang, C1-205 and RFC4068 to the time duration of the timer to be less than an upper limit of a timer duration in order to avoid excessively long delays.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462