DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 12/2/2025, claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 1- 5 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) in the remarks filed on 12/2/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended independent claims; hence examiner believes that the scope has been changed, hence new reference Velusamy et al. (US Pat. No. 9398508 B1), hereafter Velu. Velu teaches in claim 15 regarding … a first base station for providing first cellular coverage in which to serve user equipment devices (UEs); a second base station for providing second cellular coverage in which to serve UEs; and a third base station for providing third cellular coverage in which to serve UEs, wherein the first base station serves a UE at a quality of service level, and wherein the first base station includes a first controller configured to (i) determine a signal strength of an air interface between the UE and the second base station, (ii) based at least in part on a determination that the determined signal strength exceeds a threshold, transmit a first handover request to the second base station, wherein the first handover request includes an indication of the quality of service level,….
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0058060 A1) in view of Velusamy et al. (US Pat. No. 9398508 B1), hereafter Velu.
Regarding claim 1, Masuda teaches a communication system comprising: a first base station having a first controller and a second base station having a second controller (see Fig. 1… each of the base stations 11a to 11c is arranged to transmit or receive a radio signal between the base station and the mobile station 10 (i.e. user terminal). Also, each of the base stations 11a to 11c is arranged to transmit or receive a signal of a predetermined format between the base stations and the any of the mobile-service switching centers 12a to 12c….; see [0091]; now refer to [0092] These base stations 11a to 11c are arranged to include base station controllers 22a to 20c for controlling the base stations 11a to 11c…; now refer to Fig. 15 wherein 20b is of 11b (i.e. 11b as a base station and 20b as a first controller) and 20c of 11c (i.e. 11c as a base station and 20c as a second controller), wherein
the first controller transmits a handover request to the second base station when a handover to the second base station is required for a user terminal (see Fig. 15 at step C20 transmits Handover Required Message indicating that handover is requested …goes to all the way to 20c of the second base station; see step C21),
the second controller transmits a handover response including congestion state information at the second base station to the first base station in response to receiving the handover request (see Fig. 15 steps C23, C24, C25; see [0166]… At this time, depending on the congesting state of the network or the capacity of the base station, the base station controller 20c can deliver a determination that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode. Thus, the base station controller 20c returns Handover Request Ack Message C24 containing data indicating that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode….), and
the first controller transmits a handover command including the congestion state information or a data transmission control command according to the congestion state information to the user terminal in response to receiving the handover response (see Fig. 15, step C25, C26 (i.e. 10 as a user terminal); see [0167].. base station controller 20b extracts the data indicating that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode from Handover Command Message C25. Thus, the base station controller 20b transmits Special Message C26 (Notification) containing data indicative of a number of calls allowable to continue, to the mobile terminal 10 of the subscriber. This processing includes the following three steps, for example.; further see [0168- 0170]). But Masuda is silent about limitations, “reception strength of a signal received by a user terminal from the second base station exceeds a threshold”; however Velu teaches in claim 15 regarding … a first base station for providing first cellular coverage in which to serve user equipment devices (UEs); a second base station for providing second cellular coverage in which to serve UEs; and a third base station for providing third cellular coverage in which to serve UEs, wherein the first base station serves a UE at a quality of service level, and wherein the first base station includes a first controller configured to (i) determine a signal strength of an air interface between the UE and the second base station, (ii) based at least in part on a determination that the determined signal strength exceeds a threshold, transmit a first handover request to the second base station, wherein the first handover request includes an indication of the quality of service level.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Venu with the teachings of Masuda to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism transmitting handover request if reception strength of a signal received by a user terminal from the second base station exceeds a threshold; greater way standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Masuda in view of Velu teaches as per claim 1, wherein Masuda teaches the second controller acquires the congestion state information based on at least one of a usage rate of an arithmetic processor, a usage rate of a memory, a usage rate of the communication bandwidth, and a usage rate of wireless resource; in context with [0161] (…the base station controller 20c receives a handover request message (Handover Request) from the mobile-service switching center 12c, the base station controller 20c examines whether or not the call request can be supported on the basis of the multicall communication mode at step C2. If it is determined that the call request can be supported on the basis of the multicall communication mode, YES route is taken. At step C3, it is examined whether or not the handover can be executed while the multicall communication mode is maintained, based on the resource such as the state of congestion or the capacity of the base station.) pls refer to [0166]… base station controller 20b extracts the data indicating that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode from Handover Command Message C25. Thus, the base station controller 20b transmits Special Message C26 (Notification) containing data indicative of a number of calls allowable to continue, to the mobile terminal 10 of the subscriber. This processing includes the following three steps, for example.
Regarding claim 5, Masuda teaches a method of communication comprising (see Fig. 1… each of the base stations 11a to 11c is arranged to transmit or receive a radio signal between the base station and the mobile station 10 (i.e. user terminal). Also, each of the base stations 11a to 11c is arranged to transmit or receive a signal of a predetermined format between the base stations and the any of the mobile-service switching centers 12a to 12c….; see [0091]; now refer to [0092] These base stations 11a to 11c are arranged to include base station controllers 22a to 20c for controlling the base stations 11a to 11c…; now refer to Fig. 15 wherein 20b is of 11b (i.e. 11b as a base station and 20b as a first controller) and 20c of 11c (i.e. 11c as a base station and 20c as a second controller):
transmitting, by a first base station, a handover request to a second base station when the first base station determines that a handover of a user terminal to a second base station is necessary (see Fig. 15 at step C20 transmits Handover Required Message indicating that handover is requested …goes to all the way to 20c of the second base station; see step C21),
transmitting, by the second base station, a handover response including congestion state information at the second base station to the first base station in response to receiving the handover request (see Fig. 15 steps C23, C24, C25; see [0166]… At this time, depending on the congesting state of the network or the capacity of the base station, the base station controller 20c can deliver a determination that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode. Thus, the base station controller 20c returns Handover Request Ack Message C24 containing data indicating that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode….), and
transmitting, by the first base station, a handover command including a data transmission control command according to the state information or the state information to the user terminal in response to receiving the handover response (see Fig. 15, step C25, C26 (i.e. 10 as a user terminal); see [0167].. base station controller 20b extracts the data indicating that the handover cannot be executed while maintaining the multicall communication mode from Handover Command Message C25. Thus, the base station controller 20b transmits Special Message C26 (Notification) containing data indicative of a number of calls allowable to continue, to the mobile terminal 10 of the subscriber. This processing includes the following three steps, for example.; further see [0168- 0170]). But Masuda is silent about limitations, “reception strength of a signal received by a user terminal from the second base station exceeds a threshold”; however Velu teaches in claim 15 regarding … a first base station for providing first cellular coverage in which to serve user equipment devices (UEs); a second base station for providing second cellular coverage in which to serve UEs; and a third base station for providing third cellular coverage in which to serve UEs, wherein the first base station serves a UE at a quality of service level, and wherein the first base station includes a first controller configured to (i) determine a signal strength of an air interface between the UE and the second base station, (ii) based at least in part on a determination that the determined signal strength exceeds a threshold, transmit a first handover request to the second base station, wherein the first handover request includes an indication of the quality of service level.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Venu with the teachings of Masuda to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism transmitting handover request if reception strength of a signal received by a user terminal from the second base station exceeds a threshold; greater way standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0058060 A1) in view of Velusamy et al. (US Pat. No. 9398508 B1), hereafter Velu and in further view of Wu et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0199579 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Masuda in view of Velu teaches as per claim 1, wherein the user terminal performs control of data transmission based on the congestion state information or the data transmission control command after handover to the second base station; see [0168- 0169] and Fig. 3 regarding ... subscriber, who receives the messages with his or her mobile station and informed of the messages by means of the display screen of the station, selects a call identifier corresponding to a desired call to continue (see FIG. 3) and responds to the base station 20b with Reply Message (Acknowledgement) C27; see [0170]; but Masuda is silent to clearly state about after handover user terminal performs control step; however Wu states in [0062] regarding .. After the T-MN 106B identifies the UE 102 during the random access procedure (i.e., the UE 102 succeeds in the random access contention resolution) or receives 324A the handover complete message, the UE 102 communicates 326A control signals and data (e.g., UL data PDUs or DL data PDUs) with the T-MN 106B via the target cell by using configurations indicated in the handover command message…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Masuda in view of Velu to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0058060 A1) in view of Velusamy et al. (US Pat. No. 9398508 B1), hereafter Velu and in further view of Wu et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0199579 A1) and in further view of Jan et al. (EP 1 275 225 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Masuda in view of Velu and Wu teaches as per claim 3, but Masuda fails to state about wherein the user terminal performs control of data transmission according to the priority of communication data when suppressing the amount of data transmission after handover to the second base station; however Jan states about .. the scheduler in the base station control unit 24 prioritizes mobile terminals doing real-time applications, whether it be uplink or downlink, just before a handover or re-selection or just after the handover. The scheduler schedules more traffic for that mobile terminal to build up its receive buffer with excess packet storage or to empty its transmit buffer. The real-time application is prioritized since it can benefit, but the best effort application does not need to buffer. The type of scheduling described results in better service as the receive buffer in the mobile terminal for a downlink transaction or in the fixed node for an uplink transaction is less likely to be low or empty during and after the handover. This is illustrated in Fig. 5 which shows on a time line a first curve 48 representing throughput on the wireless link and a curve 50 representing amount of data stored in a receive buffer. The throughput on the radio link is increased before the handover (pre-HO) and just after the handover (post-HO)…; see [0034]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Jan with the teachings of Masuda in view of Velu and Wu to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the user terminal performs control of data transmission according to the priority of communication data when suppressing the amount of data transmission after handover to the second base station; greater way reliable communication can be carried out in the communication system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 form for considered prior arts for record.
Reference Damnjanovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0174095 A1) teaches in [0018] regarding.. in some examples the determining whether to handover the UE to the second base station further comprises one or more of determining that a signal strength of transmissions of the second base station at the UE exceeds a threshold value..
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479