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
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Express Global Dossier Review Request Consideration
The Global Dossier Review Request has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 31-32 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miklos (Pub. No. US 2012/0100848).
Regarding claim 31. (New) Miklos teaches a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Miklos, the Abstract), comprising:
identifying that the UE is not connected with a first network to which the UE subscribes (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [91]-[92]: the UE in communication with network A but identifying that it loses connectivity to the network A);
identifying a fallback configuration to be applied based at least in part on identifying that the UE is not connected with the first network (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [91]-[92]: the UE in communication with network A but identifying that it loses connectivity to the network A);
determining, based at least in part on the fallback configuration, a second network of one or more networks to which the UE is allowed to connect while the first network is unavailable, wherein the UE is provisioned by the first network with the one or more networks (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [94]-[96]: based on the connection lost with network A, and the UE is provided with a broadcast standby and available network B for allowed connection); and
attempting to connect with the second network based at least in part on the fallback configuration and the UE not being connected with the first network (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [94]-[96]: connection with network B has been granted and established).
Regarding claim 35. (New) Miklos teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Miklos, the Abstract), comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor; and
instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify that the UE is not connected with a first network to which the UE subscribes (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [91]-[92]: the UE in communication with network A but identifying that it loses connectivity to the network A);
identify a fallback configuration to be applied based at least in part on identifying that the UE is not connected with the first network (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [91]-[92]: the UE in communication with network A but identifying that it loses connectivity to the network A);
determine, based at least in part on the fallback configuration, a second network of one or more networks to which the UE is allowed to connect while the first network is unavailable, wherein the UE is provisioned by the first network with the one or more networks (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [94]-[96]: based on the connection lost with network A, and the UE is provided with a broadcast standby and available network B for allowed connection); and
attempt to connect with the second network based at least in part on the fallback configuration and the UE not being connected with the first network (Miklos, Fig. 7B, pp [94]-[96]: connection with network B has been granted and established).
Regarding claim 32. (New) Miklos teaches the method of claim 31, wherein identifying the fallback configuration further comprises:
identifying the UE is allowed to switch to the one or more networks while the first network is unavailable, the one or more networks arranged in a list based on a priority associated with each network (Miklos, pp [73]-[74]: updated PLMN list broadcasted by a base station to the UE).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklos (Pub. No. US 2012/0100848) and further in view of Velev et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0034647).
Regarding claim 33. (New) Miklos does not teach the method of claim 32, wherein determining the second network further comprises:
identifying the second network in the one or more networks is associated with a highest priority; and
determining to establish a connection with the second network based at least in part on the second network being associated with the highest priority.
Velev teaches:
identifying the second network in the one or more networks is associated with a highest priority (Velev, pp [170], [174]-[176]: fallback information provides a list of target networks with prioritized order); and
determining to establish a connection with the second network based at least in part on the second network being associated with the highest priority (Velev, pp [170], [174]-[176]: fallback information provides a list of target networks with prioritized order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Miklos by incorporating teachings of Velev, methods and systems for providing fallback assistance information to a RAN node, wherein the system receives a service request indicating a service for fallback, the service request associated with a UE, where the service for fallback corresponds to a different RAT or a different system generation, and transmit, to a network entity, an indication of a fallback requirement or a target system, or both, based on a service type associated with the service request or a network configuration, where the service type corresponds to a different RAT or a different system generation, where a handover or redirection is performed based on the transmitted indication. The system also provides a priority list of target networks to the UE thus guaranteeing the quick and effective selection to a new best available network from the list to support the communication from the previous fallback network.
Regarding claim 34. (New) Miklos does not teach the method of claim 32, wherein determining the second network further comprises:
identifying, at a first time, the second network in the one or more networks is associated with a highest priority ; and
determining, at a second time, to establish a connection with the second network based at least in part on the second network being associated with the highest priority, a duration between the first time and the second time being computed randomly within a configured range.
Velev teaches:
identifying, at a first time, the second network in the one or more networks is associated with a highest priority (Velev, pp [170], [174]-[176]: fallback information provides a list of target networks with prioritized order); and
determining, at a second time, to establish a connection with the second network based at least in part on the second network being associated with the highest priority, a duration between the first time and the second time being computed randomly within a configured range (Velev, pp [170], [174]-[176]: fallback information provides a list of target networks with prioritized order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Miklos by incorporating teachings of Velev, methods and systems for providing fallback assistance information to a RAN node, wherein the system receives a service request indicating a service for fallback, the service request associated with a UE, where the service for fallback corresponds to a different RAT or a different system generation, and transmit, to a network entity, an indication of a fallback requirement or a target system, or both, based on a service type associated with the service request or a network configuration, where the service type corresponds to a different RAT or a different system generation, where a handover or redirection is performed based on the transmitted indication. The system also provides a priority list of target networks to the UE thus guaranteeing the quick and effective selection to a new best available network from the list to support the communication from the previous fallback network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The reasons for allowance for claims 1-30 are the same as the reasons for allowance indicated from the Notice of Allowance dated 12/23/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY C HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1108. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUY C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights