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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 1, 4, 6, 24 and 37 have been amended.
Claims: 2-3, 5, 8-11, 14-15, 19, 21, 25, 29-30 and 36 have not
been amended.
Claims: 7, 12-13, 16-18, 20, 22-23, 26-28 and 31-35 have been cancelled.
EXAMINER’S NOTES:
The examiner notes that the previous claim objections indicated in pages 2-3 of the previous office action filed on 10/01/25 has been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9-11, 19, 29-30 and 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The dependent claims 2, 9-11, 19, 29-30 and 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the closest prior art found fails to disclose, teach or suggest either alone or render obvious in a combined teachings of the prior art, the uniquely distinct features in the specific order, structure and combination of limitations together as a whole of the limitations recited in the dependent claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in between.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14-15, 19, 21, 24-25, 29-30 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “… a first user equipment (UE) in a 5G standalone (SA) network or a long term evolution (LTE) network; and a second UE in the 5G SA network, wherein the first UE is configured to: initiate an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) domain-based voice call to the second UE, wherein an IMS domain-based voice bearer comprises a voice over LTE (VoLTE), or a voice over new radio (VoNR), or an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback; in response to a VoNR or EPS fallback call initiated by the first UE being abnormally released by a network in a setup phase, fall back to the LTE network and initiate a VoLTE call retry to the second UE on the LTE network …” which indicates that the first UE may either reside in a 5G SA network or an LTE network and continues to indicate that the first UE would fallback to the LTE network in response to the first UE being abnormally released.
However, the conditional nature of the claims reciting “a first user equipment (UE) in a 5G standalone (SA) network or a long term evolution (LTE) network;” renders the claims indefinite for the following reasons:
When the first UE is in a 5G SA network and the context of “a long term evolution (LTE) network” is not present, then the limitations reciting “the LTE network” renders the claims indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis, as it would be unclear to the examiner as to which LTE network the claimed “the LTE network” is referring back to and as to what context and relationship said LTE network would have on the claimed invention (i.e. see MPEP 2173.05(e) that recites “… A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference …”). For the purpose of examination and rejection herein the examiner will interpret the claimed “the LTE network” to be directed towards any “LTE network” when the first UE is in a 5G SA network.
When the first UE is in an LTE network, then the limitations reciting “fallback to the LTE network” renders the claims indefinite due to omitting essential steps or elements, as it would be unclear to the examiner how the first UE that is already in the LTE network would then fallback or handover to the same LTE network (i.e. see MPEP 2172.01 that recites “Depending on the specific facts at issue, a claim which omits subject matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may be rejected … under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (see, e.g., In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976)); or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention (see, e.g., In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968)). Such essential matter may include missing elements, steps or necessary structural cooperative relationships of elements described by the applicant(s) as necessary to practice the invention.”).
In addition, Independent claim 1 further recites “… and a second UE in the 5G SA network … and in response to a VoLTE call initiated by the first UE being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase, initiate a circuit switched fallback (CSFB) call retry to the second UE on the LTE network … “ which specifies that the first UE initiates a circuit switched fallback CSFB call retry on the LTE network which renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear to the examiner how the first UE is able to perform a CSFB call retry on the LTE network when the circuit switched fallback would require the first UE to fall back or be handed over to a circuit switched CS network. For the purpose of examination and rejection herein the examiner will interpret the claimed invention to be in a CS network when performing the CSFB call retry.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 14-15, 19 and 37 are dependent upon Independent claim 1 and are therefore subject to the same rejection for the same reasons as indicated above.
In addition, claim 4, 6 and 11 also recites “the LTE network” and is also rendered indefinite for the same reasons as indicated above.
Independent Claim 21 recites “ … and wherein the first UE resides in a 5G standalone (SA) network or a long term evolution (LTE) network, and the second UE resides in the 5G SA network; fall back to the LTE network or a circuit switched (CS) domain in response to a call being abnormally released by a network in a setup phase;
start a first timer when the second UE falls back to the LTE network; …” which indicates that the first UE may either reside in a 5G SA network or an LTE network and continues to indicate that the first UE would fallback to the LTE network in response to the first UE being abnormally released.
However, the conditional nature of the claims reciting “a first user equipment (UE) in a 5G standalone (SA) network or a long term evolution (LTE) network;” renders the claims indefinite for the following reasons:
When the first UE is in a 5G SA network and the context of “a long term evolution (LTE) network” is not present, then the limitations reciting “the LTE network” renders the claims indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis, as it would be unclear to the examiner as to which LTE network the claimed “the LTE network” is referring back to and as to what context and relationship said LTE network would have on the claimed invention (i.e. see MPEP 2173.05(e) that recites “… A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference …”).
Claims 24-25, 29-30 and 36 are dependent upon Independent claim 21 and are therefore subject to the same rejection for the same reasons as indicated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 11/12/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 14-15, 19, 21, 24-25, 29-30 and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim limitations reciting “start a first timer when the second UE falls back to the LTE network; suppress 5G SA after starting the first timer; and cancel suppression of 5G SA when the first timer expires and the second UE is not in a call state” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with newly found prior art as can be seen in the rejection presented below:
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/12/25 with regards to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection for claims 1-6, 8-11, 14-15, 19, 21, 24-25, 29-30 and 36-37 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … With respect to claims 1-6, 8-11, 14-15, 19, and 37, the claims have been amended to render the rejection moot ... With respect to claims 21, 24-25, 29-30, and 36, the Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is made in error. ... The full claim element in question recites "wherein the first UE resides in a 5G standalone (SA) network or a long term evolution (LTE) network." Existence of the LTE network is not conditional. Instead, whether or not the first UE resides in the LTE is conditional. Irrespective of whether the first UE resides in the 5G SA network or in the LTE network, the 5G SA network and the LTE network exist. As such, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are definite and the rejection of claims 21, 24-25, 29-30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is unwarranted because the presence of the LTE network is not conditional in claim 21. (See Pages of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 11/12/25).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the applicant’s amendments or arguments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as is apparent in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection provided above.
In addition, while the examiner agrees with the applicant’s argument’s that “Existence of the LTE network is not conditional. Instead, whether or not the first UE resides in the LTE is conditional. Irrespective of whether the first UE resides in the 5G SA network or in the LTE network, the 5G SA network and the LTE network exist”, the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s reasoning that the existence of the LTE network being non conditional is due to the limitations reciting “wherein the first UE resides in a 5G standalone (SA) network or a long term evolution (LTE) network” which is incorrect as the claims clearly recite an alternative “or” limitation indicating the existence of one or the other.
The existence of the LTE network is unconditional due to the limitations reciting “start a first timer when the second UE falls back to the LTE network;” which indicates that an LTE network has to be present.
As indicated above, MPEP 2173.05(e) that recites “… A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference …” and as such, the indefiniteness of the current claimed invention is due to the lack of antecedent basis that arises when the first UE resides in the 5G SA network and the context and relation of the recitation of “a long term evolution (LTE) network” is no longer present as it would then become unclear as to what the context and relation to the claim of an LTE network would be for an LTE network that is being referred back to by the recited “the LTE network”.
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0086087 herein after referenced as Shen) in view of SHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239952 herein after referenced as Shi) and further in view of Kodali et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0345185 herein after referenced as Kodali).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses:
A communications system, comprising: a first user equipment (UE) in a 5G standalone (SA) network (Shen, Fig. 4A-1 & [0136] discloses S101: The terminal 100 (i.e. reads on a first UE) connects to the 5G SA network (i.e. reads on 5G SA network) and registers with the IMS 300; Shen, Abstract discloses A terminal first connects to a 5th generation 5G standalone SA network and initiates a call to another terminal by using a Voice over New Radio VoNR technology and When the terminal fails to call the other terminal, the terminal disconnects from the 5G SA network, connects to a Long-Term Evolution LTE network, and then automatically initiates a call to the other terminal by using a Voice over LTE VoLTE technology; Shen, [0063] discloses The terminal may be referred to as UE. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a long term evolution (LTE) network”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
and a second UE
wherein an IMS domain-based voice bearer comprises a (Shen, Fig. 4A-1 & [0140] discloses S103: In response to the user operation, the terminal 100 calls (i.e. reads on initiate an IP multimedia subsystem IMS domain-based voice call) the terminal 400 (i.e. reads on second UE) through VoNR (i.e. reads on wherein an IMS domain-based voice bearer comprises a VoNR); Shen, [0004] discloses A solution in which user equipment UE obtains an audio/video call service on the 5G SA network through the IMS is also referred to as an IMS-based 5G voice over new radio VoNR solution. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “voice over LTE (VoLTE), or” and “or an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback;”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
in response to a VoNR (Shen, Fig. 4A-1 & [0142]-[0145] discloses S104: When the terminal 100 fails (i.e. reads on being abnormally released by a network in a setup phase) to call the terminal 400 through VoNR (i.e. reads on in response to a VoNR call initiated by the first UE), the terminal 100 connects to an LTE network (i.e. reads on fall back to the LTE network) and discloses the terminal 100 may determine, in any one of the following cases, that the terminal 100 fails to call the terminal 400 through VoNR in step S103 and discloses The terminal 100 receives an error indication message, where the error indication information indicates that the terminal 100 fails to call the terminal 400 and discloses The error indication message may be any one of SIP-based 3xx to 6xx messages and 5xx indicates a server error, indicating that the current server cannot process a clearly valid request and 6xx indicates a global fault, indicating that the request cannot be processed on any server; Shen, [0264] discloses if the first terminal fails to call the second terminal through VoNR, the first terminal falls back to an LTE network and calls the second terminal again through VoLTE. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or EPS fallback call”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
and initiate a VoLTE call retry to the second UE on the LTE network; (Shen, Fig. 4A-1 & [0171] discloses S105: The terminal 100 calls the terminal 400 (i.e. reads on to the second UE) through VoLTE (i.e. reads on initiate a VoLTE call retry); Shen, Fig. 4A-1 & [0142] discloses S104: When the terminal 100 fails to call the terminal 400 through VoNR, the terminal 100 connects to an LTE network (i.e. reads on the LTE network); Shen, [0264] discloses if the first terminal fails to call the second terminal through VoNR, the first terminal falls back to an LTE network and calls the second terminal again through VoLTE).
and in response to a VoLTE call initiated by the first UE being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase, initiate a circuit switched fallback (CSFB) call retry to the second UE (Shen, Fig. 4A-1 & [0187] discloses S109: If the terminal 100 fails (i.e. reads on being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase) to call the terminal 400 through VoLTE (i.e. reads on in response to a VoLTE call initiated by the first UE), the terminal 100 connects to a 2G/3G network; Shen, Fig. 4A-2 & [0195] discloses S1010: The terminal 100 calls the terminal 400 through the CS domain (i.e. reads on initiate a CSFB call retry to the second UE); Shen, [0178]-[0179] discloses the terminal 100 may determine, in any one of the following cases, that the terminal 100 fails to call the terminal 400 through VoLTE in step S105 and discloses The terminal 100 receives an error indication message returned by the LTE network, where the error indication information indicates that the terminal 100 fails to call the terminal 400 and a corresponding network element sends the error indication information to the terminal 400 and The network element may be any network element involved during communication between the terminal 100 and the terminal 400, for example, the IMS 700; Shen, [0189] discloses the terminal 100 falls back from the LTE network to a CS domain CS fallback, CSFB; Shen, [0031] discloses when the first terminal fails to call the second terminal by using the VoLTE technology, the first terminal may further stop connecting to the second network device through the LTE link, connect to a third network device through a 2G/3G link, and call the second terminal through a CS domain).
Shen discloses a first UE in a 5G SA network calling a second UE and performing fallbacks to different networks and establishing the calls via different networks when the call fails but fails to explicitly disclose that said second UE is also in the 5G SA and performs a fallback operation to other networks and therefore fails to disclose “and a second UE in the 5G SA network,” and “wherein the second UE is configured to: fall back to the LTE network or a circuit switched (CS) domain in response to a call being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase;
start a first timer when the second UE falls back to the LTE network; suppress 5G SA after starting the first timer; and cancel suppression of 5G SA when the first timer expires and the second UE is not in a call state.”
In a related field of endeavor, Shi discloses:
and a second UE in the 5G SA network, (Shi, Fig. 1 & [0043] discloses user equipment 102 (i.e. reads on second UE), which is initially connected to the 5G network (i.e. reads on 5G SA network), may be configured to switch to a fallback network when an SIP failure message is received in connection to an MT voice session; Shi, [0022] discloses VoNR is a basic call service, which fully utilizes the SA architecture of the 5G network; Shi, Fig. 3A & [0049]-[0050] discloses to establish an IMS voice session with MT UE 102a, user B of MO UE 102b first dials at 301 the cellphone number for user A of MT UE 102a and discloses when there is a network or global SIP failure, gNB 104a may return at 307 an SIP failure message indicating a 5xx failure network or 6xx failure global to MT UE 102a).
wherein the second UE is configured to: fall back to the LTE network or a circuit switched (CS) domain in response to a call being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase; start a first timer when the second UE falls back to the LTE network;
suppress 5G SA after starting the first timer; (Shi, [0043] disclosessuppress 5G SA) for telescoping lengths of time (i.e. reads on start a first timer and reads on after starting the first timer) with each new SIP failure message that is received and For example, user equipment 102 may bar NR communications for 15 minutes upon the receipt of a first SIP failure message, 30 minutes upon the receipt of a second SIP failure message, 45 minutes upon the receipt of a third SIP failure message, and so on and In this way, continuity of voice services may be provided to the user while the network attempts to fix the issue associated with the SIP failure; Shi, Fig. 4B & [0040] discloses At 426, the apparatus may bar the UE from performing NR communication for a time period with a duration associated with the number of SIP failures indicated by the counter and In other words, when the counter reaches a first number e.g., 1, MT UE 102a may set at 315a a timer that bars at 317a NR communication for a first period e.g., x minutes and Fig. 4B shows that step 426 occurs after connecting with the 1st fallback network at step 414; Shi, [0070] discloses Barring NR communication may include, for example, barring NR communication with gNB 104a, barring NR communication with a tracking area associated with gNB 104a, or disabling at 319 the NR RAT at MT UE 102a such that no NR communication can be performed with any NR cell for the duration of the timer; Shi, [0030] discloses The UE may bar NR communication for a predetermined period with each received SIP failure message and This may ensure that the user has access to voice services via a different RAT; Shi, [0060] discloses Non-limiting examples of the type of 5xx failure response that may be received by the apparatus at 408 include, e.g., 500 response server internal error, 501 response not implemented, 502 response bad gateway, 503 response service unavailable, 504 response server timeout, 505 response version too large, or 513 response message too large and More specifically, a 500 response may indicate to MT UE 102a, e.g., that the SIP server encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling the request).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shen to incorporate the teachings of Shi for the purpose of providing the system with a means to not leave the user without voice services for an extended period and provide continuity of voice services to the user while the network attempts to fix the issue associated with the SIP failure (Shi, [0043]) by ensuring that the user has access to voice services via a different RAT in the event that NR communication is unavailable (Shi, [0030]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and added functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of performing fallback to an LTE network when an error condition is indicated as taught by Shen) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of performing fallback to an LTE network when an error condition is indicated, wherein the process is also applied to the called UE and utilizes different types of error condition and failure messages and wherein the called UE starts a timer to bar NR communication as taught by Shi) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of performing fallback to an LTE network when an error condition is indicated (i.e. as taught by both Shen & Shi) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Shen in view of Shi discloses starting a timer to bar NR communication for a period of time but fails to explicitly disclose that said barring of NR communication is cancelled upon the period of time expiring and therefore fails to disclose “and cancel suppression of 5G when the first timer expires and the second UE is not in a call state.”
In a related field of endeavor, Kodali discloses:
and cancel suppression of 5G when the first timer expires and the second UE is not in a call state (Kodali, [0031] discloses After EPS Fallback or VoNR to VoLTE, and the VoLTE call is ended (i.e. reads on the second UE is not in a call state), an “n” milli second timer is started referred to herein as FrNR timer and If Device is still in LTE connected mode and the FrNR timer has expired (i.e. reads on when the first timer expires), the FrNR timer is stopped, the LTE RRC connection is locally aborted, and re-direction to the Last-NR cell is attempted (i.e. reads on cancel suppression of 5G)).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shen in view of Shi to incorporate the teachings of Kodali for the purpose of providing the system with a means to return to the 5G network once the barring timer has expired (Kodali, [0031]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and added functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of starting a 5G timer after a fallback to LTE as taught by Shi) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of starting a 5G timer after a fallback to LTE, wherein after the timer expires, the UE 5G network is reselected as taught by Kodali) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of starting a 5G timer after a fallback to LTE (i.e. as taught by both Shi & Kodali) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The communications system of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein in response to the call being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase, the second UE is configured to: (Shi, [0043] disclosesEXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “continue to reside in the 5G SA network responsive to the second UE being in a screen- on state, the second UE is running a first-type application in a foreground, and a data flow corresponding to the first-type application is transmitted through a wireless communication network; or” and “or the CS domain”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 6, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The communications system of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the second UE is configured to: (Shi, [0043] discloses user equipment 102, which is initially connected to the 5G network, may be configured to switch to a fallback network when an SIP failure message is received in connection to an MT voice session and User equipment 102 may maintain a hierarchy of fallback networks to which it systematically attempts to connect until a connection with one of the fallback networks is eventually established and In so doing, user equipment 102 may receive voice calls using one a fallback network so that a network or global SIP failure does not leave the user without voice services for an extended period and By way of example, assume the hierarchy of fallback networks, from highest priority to lowest priority, includes: 1) LTE, 2) Wi-Fi, 3) 3G, and 4) 2G and Here, when user equipment 102 receives the SIP failure message in connection with an MT call, user equipment 102 may first attempt to establish a connection with the LTE network to provide the user with voice services and If the LTE network is unavailable, user equipment 102 may then attempt to connect to a Wi-Fi network, and so on, until eventually a connection to one of the fallback networks is established. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “disable a 5G SA capability, initiate de-registration to the 5G SA network, and fall back from the 5G SA network to the LTE network; or” and “or report an LTE B1 event to a network side, and trigger the network side to indicate the second UE to redirect or be handed over to the LTE network; or be prohibited from residing in an NR serving cell of a first public land mobile network (PLMN), and reside in an LTE serving cell of the first PLMN, wherein the first PLMN is a PLMN with which the second UE has registered.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 8, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The communications system of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the second UE suppressing 5G SA comprises (Shi, [0070] discloses Barring NR communication may include, for example, barring NR communication with gNB 104a, barring NR communication with a tracking area associated with gNB 104a, or disabling at 319 the NR RAT at MT UE 102a such that no NR communication can be performed with any NR cell for the duration of the timer. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “the second UE suppressing new radio (NR) measurement, and/or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0086087 herein after referenced as Shen) in view of SHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239952 herein after referenced as Shi) in view of Kodali et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0345185 herein after referenced as Kodali) and further in view of ZAUS et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0167244 herein after referenced as Zaus).
Regarding claim 3, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The communications system of claim 1, (see claim 1).
Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses that the called UE receiving both a VoNR call and a VoLTE call when a network failure occurs but fails to explicitly disclose that the called UE supports both VoNR and VoLTE and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the second UE supports VoNR and VoLTE.”
In a related field of endeavor, Zaus discloses:
wherein the second UE supports VoNR and VoLTE (Zaus, [0093] discloses if the UE indicates support of VoNR or VoLTE-5GC or both and additionally it indicates support of S1 mode such as EPS in the 5GMM capability IE, the UE will also support VoLTE; Zaus, [0082] discloses with the information received from the UE in the 5GMM capability IE, the AMF determines based on the information whether IMS voice services can be provided via any of the alternatives indicated as supported by the UE such as VoNR, VoLTE-5GC, EPS fallback via handover, etc. or whether IMS voice services can be provided via release with redirection to VoLTE-5GC or via release with redirection to EPS/VoLTE).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Zaus for the purpose of providing the system with a means to indicate the supported capabilities of the mobile device that is utilized in determining whether or not IMS voice services may be provided an in what manner (Zaus, [0093] & [0082]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of initiating an IMS voice call and performing a fall back as taught by Shen) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of initiating an IMS voice call and performing a fall back, wherein the fall back is based on the supported capabilities of the mobile device that supports both VoNR and VoLTE as taught by Zaus) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of initiating an IMS voice call and performing a fall back (i.e. as taught by Shen & Zaus) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 5 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0086087 herein after referenced as Shen) in view of SHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239952 herein after referenced as Shi) in view of Kodali et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0345185 herein after referenced as Kodali) and further in view of GAO et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239962 herein after referenced as Gao).
Regarding claim 37, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The system of claim 4, (see claim 4).
Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses falling back from a 5G network to a LTE or CS network but fails to explicitly disclose the fallback due to a screen off state and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the first preset condition is any one of the following: the second UE is in a screen-off state; the second UE is in the screen-on state, the second UE is running the first-type application in the foreground, and the data flow corresponding to the first-type application is transmitted through a network other than the wireless communication network; or the second UE is in the screen-on state, and the second UE is running a second-type application in the foreground or is not running an application in the foreground.”
In a related field of endeavor, Gao discloses:
wherein the first preset condition is any one of the following: the second UE is in a screen-off state; (Gao, Fig. 5 & [0111]-[0117] discloses the disabling and enabling of a radio mode capability based on a screen off operation and a screen on operation of the user and discloses it is assumed that the user does not perform continuous data download in the case of using the 5G service normally and selects to go off screen and sleep in the case of no large data volume service in the background and discloses it is assumed that a terminal enables a power storing mode in which a screen is turned off and after the screen is turned off, the terminal detects that the amount of exchanged data is less than or equal to a first preset threshold and a 4G part is sufficient to cope with these small data communication requirements and in this case the 5G module of the terminal releases the local radio resources and discloses after the local radio resources of the 5G are released, the terminal stops reporting measurement on all the 5G cells and measurement results so as to prevent the base station from readding the 5G cell and discloses after the base station detects the release of the 5G radio resources of the terminal, all subsequent communications will go through the 4G side and discloses the user performs a screen turn on operation and when the terminal initiates a large traffic service at this time and the amount of data currently exchanged by the terminal is greater than the first preset threshold, the terminal establishes a local radio resource of the 5G and discloses after a local radio resource of the 5G is established, the terminal enables measurements on the 5G and reporting of a measurement result and a user normally performs data service of the 5G. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “the second UE is in the screen-on state, the second UE is running the first-type application in the foreground, and the data flow corresponding to the first-type application is transmitted through a network other than the wireless communication network; or the second UE is in the screen-on state, and the second UE is running a second-type application in the foreground or is not running an application in the foreground”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Gao for the purpose of providing the system with a means to conserve power by going into power saving mode according to specific criteria such as a screen off mode (Gao, Fig. 5 & [0111]-[0117]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G as taught by Shen) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G, wherein the process includes suppressing measurements of 5G when in a screen off state in order to save battery as taught by Gao) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G (i.e. as taught by Shen & Gao) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Shen in view of Shi in view of Kodali and further in view of Gao discloses:
The communications system of claim 37 (see claim 37).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the first-type application is a game application configured to be run by the second UE in an online manner, and the second-type application is an application other than the first-type application”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0086087 herein after referenced as Shen) in view of SHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239952 herein after referenced as Shi) in view of Kodali et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0345185 herein after referenced as Kodali) and further in view of JUNG et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0137609 herein after referenced as Jung).
Regarding claim 14, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The communications system of claim 1, (see claim 1).
Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses a UE transitioning to 4G from 5G NR to initiate a VoLTE call retry but fails to explicitly disclose that the UE suppress 5G NR measurement and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the first UE is configured to: suppress new radio (NR) measurement during the VoLTE call retry initiated by the first UE; and cancel suppression of the NR measurement after the setup phase ends.”
In a related field of endeavor, Jung discloses:
wherein the first UE is configured to: suppress new radio (NR) measurement during the VoLTE call retry initiated by the first UE; and cancel suppression of the NR measurement after the setup phase ends (Jung, [0112]-[0113] discloses when a 4G dedicated traffic is in an active state such as voice over LTE VoLTE and there is no or less traffic transceived through a 5G system or when it is configured to release a connection even though there is a traffic in the 5G system, a base station temporarily releases a connection with a 5G base station and suppresses even measurements for the 5G system thereby being able to reduce battery consumption caused by a terminals circuit for communication with the 5G base station and discloses even though connection has not yet been made with a 4G base station and a 5G base station, a base station suppresses measurement for a 5G system thereby being able to reduce the battery consumption caused by the 5G module of the terminal; Jung, Fig. 8 & [0094]-[0095] discloses in response to the measurement suspending command indicating measurement suspending for a specific RAT such as 5G, the terminal operates in a non-measurement state for a 5G cell and by lapse of a predetermined time, the suspended measurement operation may be resumed again and discloses the terminal does not perform a measurement operation before lapse of a predetermined time thereby saving a battery; Jung, [0084] discloses restricting of the measurement operation means the deactivation of measurement).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Jung for the purpose of providing the system with a means to save battery power by disabling the measurement of another system when the mobile device is active in a current system (Jung, Fig. 8 & [0094]-[0095] & [0112]-[0113]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G as taught by Shen) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G, wherein the process includes suppressing measurements of 5G for a predetermined period of time to save battery as taught by Jung) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G (i.e. as taught by Shen & Jung) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 15, Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses:
The communications system of claim 1, (see claim 1).
Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali discloses a UE transitioning to 4G from 5G NR to initiate a VoLTE call retry but fails to explicitly disclose that the UE suppress 5G NR measurement and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the first UE is configured to: disable 5G SA capability during the VoLTE call retry initiated by the first UE; and re-enable the 5G SA capability after a call between the first UE and the second UE ends.”
In a related field of endeavor, Jung discloses:
wherein the first UE is configured to: disable 5G SA capability during the VoLTE call retry initiated by the first UE; and re-enable the 5G SA capability after a call between the first UE and the second UE ends (Jung, [0112]-[0113] discloses when a 4G dedicated traffic is in an active state such as voice over LTE VoLTE and there is no or less traffic transceived through a 5G system or when it is configured to release a connection even though there is a traffic in the 5G system, a base station temporarily releases a connection with a 5G base station and suppresses even measurements for the 5G system thereby being able to reduce battery consumption caused by a terminals circuit for communication with the 5G base station and discloses even though connection has not yet been made with a 4G base station and a 5G base station, a base station suppresses measurement for a 5G system thereby being able to reduce the battery consumption caused by the 5G module of the terminal; Jung, Fig. 8 & [0094]-[0095] discloses in response to the measurement suspending command indicating measurement suspending for a specific RAT such as 5G, the terminal operates in a non-measurement state for a 5G cell and by lapse of a predetermined time, the suspended measurement operation may be resumed again and discloses the terminal does not perform a measurement operation before lapse of a predetermined time thereby saving a battery; Jung, [0084] discloses restricting of the measurement operation means the deactivation of measurement).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shen in view of Shi and further in view of Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Jung for the purpose of providing the system with a means to save battery power by disabling the measurement of another system when the mobile device is active in a current system (Jung, Fig. 8 & [0094]-[0095] & [0112]-[0113]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G as taught by Shen) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G, wherein the process includes suppressing measurements of 5G for a predetermined period of time to save battery as taught by Jung) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G (i.e. as taught by Shen & Jung) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239952 herein after referenced as Shi) in view of Kodali et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0345185 herein after referenced as Kodali).
Regarding claim 21, Shi discloses:
A user equipment (UE), applied to a called end, wherein the UE is second UE, the second UE comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the second UE to be configured to: receive an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) domain-based voice call from a first UE, (Shi, Fig. 3A & [0049] discloses to establish an IMS voice session with MT UE 102a, user B of MO UE 102b first dials at 301 the cellphone number for user A of MT UE 102a and To begin the process of establishing the IMS voice session, an SIP Invite signal is sent (i.e. reads on receive an IMS domain based voice call) at 303 from MO UE 102b (i.e. reads on from a first UE) through IMS 318 to MT UE 102a (i.e. reads on the UE applied to a called end is a second UE); Shi, [0041] discloses node 500 may also include memory 504 and For example, memory 504 may include any other medium that can be used to carry or store desired program code in the form of instructions that can be accessed and executed by processor 502. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as the UE to include processor, memory and software in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
wherein an IMS domain-based voice bearer comprises a voice over new radio (VoNR), or an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback, (Shi, [0050] discloses Before MT UE 102a begins to ring, an SIP response signal lxx provisional response message, for instance may be sent at 305 to gNB 104a, which, unless there is a network failure, global failure, or other types of system failure, will forward the SIP response signal to IMS 318 to initiate an IMS voice session (i.e. reads on an IMS domain-based voice bearer comprises) with VoNR or EPS fallback (i.e. reads on VoNR or EPS fallback) and However, when there is a network or global SIP failure, gNB 104a may return at 307 an SIP failure message indicating a 5xx failure network or 6xx failure global to MT UE 102a. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “voice over LTE (VoLTE), or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
and wherein the first UE resides in a 5G standalone (SA) network (Shi, [0025] discloses UE 602 (i.e. reads on first UE) resides on NG-RAN 604 (i.e. reads on 5G SA network) and initiates the establishment of the mobile originating MO and/or mobile terminating MT IMS voice session with its NR serving gNB; Shi, [0022] discloses VoNR is a basic call service, which fully utilizes the SA architecture of the 5G network; Shi, Fig. 3A & [0049]-[0050] discloses to establish an IMS voice session with MT UE 102a, user B of MO UE 102b first dials at 301 the cellphone number for user A of MT UE 102a and discloses when there is a network or global SIP failure, gNB 104a may return at 307 an SIP failure message indicating a 5xx failure network or 6xx failure global to MT UE 102a. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a long term evolution (LTE) network”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
and the second UE resides in the 5G SA network; (Shi, Fig. 1 & [0043] discloses user equipment 102 (i.e. reads on second UE), which is initially connected to the 5G network (i.e. reads on 5G SA network), may be configured to switch to a fallback network when an SIP failure message is received in connection to an MT voice session; Shi, [0022] discloses VoNR is a basic call service, which fully utilizes the SA architecture of the 5G network; Shi, Fig. 3A & [0049]-[0050] discloses to establish an IMS voice session with MT UE 102a, user B of MO UE 102b first dials at 301 the cellphone number for user A of MT UE 102a and discloses when there is a network or global SIP failure, gNB 104a may return at 307 an SIP failure message indicating a 5xx failure network or 6xx failure global to MT UE 102a).
fall back to the LTE network or a circuit switched (CS) domain in response to a call being abnormally released by a network in a setup phase; start a first timer when the second UE falls back to the LTE network; suppress 5G SA after starting the first timer; (Shi, [0043] disclosesswitched domain) and Here, when user equipment 102 receives the SIP failure message in connection with an MT call, user equipment 102 may first attempt to establish a connection with the LTE network to provide the user with voice services and If the LTE network is unavailable, user equipment 102 may then attempt to connect to a Wi-Fi network, and so on, until eventually a connection to one of the fallback networks is established and User equipment 102 may bar NR communication (i.e. reads on suppress 5G SA) for telescoping lengths of time (i.e. reads on start a first timer and reads on after starting the first timer) with each new SIP failure message that is received and For example, user equipment 102 may bar NR communications for 15 minutes upon the receipt of a first SIP failure message, 30 minutes upon the receipt of a second SIP failure message, 45 minutes upon the receipt of a third SIP failure message, and so on and In this way, continuity of voice services may be provided to the user while the network attempts to fix the issue associated with the SIP failure; Shi, Fig. 4B & [0040] discloses At 426, the apparatus may bar the UE from performing NR communication for a time period with a duration associated with the number of SIP failures indicated by the counter and In other words, when the counter reaches a first number e.g., 1, MT UE 102a may set at 315a a timer that bars at 317a NR communication for a first period e.g., x minutes and Fig. 4B shows that step 426 occurs after connecting with the 1st fallback network at step 414; Shi, [0070] discloses Barring NR communication may include, for example, barring NR communication with gNB 104a, barring NR communication with a tracking area associated with gNB 104a, or disabling at 319 the NR RAT at MT UE 102a such that no NR communication can be performed with any NR cell for the duration of the timer; Shi, [0030] discloses The UE may bar NR communication for a predetermined period with each received SIP failure message and This may ensure that the user has access to voice services via a different RAT; Shi, [0060] discloses Non-limiting examples of the type of 5xx failure response that may be received by the apparatus at 408 include, e.g., 500 response server internal error, 501 response not implemented, 502 response bad gateway, 503 response service unavailable, 504 response server timeout, 505 response version too large, or 513 response message too large and More specifically, a 500 response may indicate to MT UE 102a, e.g., that the SIP server encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling the request).
Shi discloses starting a timer to bar NR communication for a period of time but fails to explicitly disclose that said barring of NR communication is cancelled upon the period of time expiring and therefore fails to disclose “and cancel suppression of 5G SA when the first timer expires and the second UE is not in a call state”.
In a related field of endeavor, Kodali discloses:
and cancel suppression of 5G SA when the first timer expires and the second UE is not in a call state (Kodali, [0031] discloses After EPS Fallback or VoNR to VoLTE, and the VoLTE call is ended (i.e. reads on the second UE is not in a call state), an “n” milli second timer is started referred to herein as FrNR timer and If Device is still in LTE connected mode and the FrNR timer has expired (i.e. reads on when the first timer expires), the FrNR timer is stopped, the LTE RRC connection is locally aborted, and re-direction to the Last-NR cell is attempted (i.e. reads on cancel suppression of 5G)).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shi to incorporate the teachings of Kodali for the purpose of providing the system with a means to return to the 5G network once the barring timer has expired (Kodali, [0031]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and added functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of starting a 5G timer after a fallback to LTE as taught by Shi) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of starting a 5G timer after a fallback to LTE, wherein after the timer expires, the UE 5G network is reselected as taught by Kodali) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of starting a 5G timer after a fallback to LTE (i.e. as taught by both Shi & Kodali) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239952 herein after referenced as Shi) in view of Kodali et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0345185 herein after referenced as Kodali) and further in view of GAO et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0239962 herein after referenced as Gao).
Regarding claim 24, Shi in view of Kodali discloses:
The UE of claim 21, (see claim 21).
wherein in response to the call being abnormally released by the network in the setup phase, the second UE is configured to: (Shi, [0043] disclosesEXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “continue to reside in the 5G SA network responsive to the second UE being in a screen- on state, the second UE is running a first-type application in a foreground, and a data flow corresponding to the first-type application is transmitted through a wireless communication network; or” and “or the CS domain”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Shi in view of Kodali discloses falling back from a 5G network to a LTE or CS network but fails to explicitly disclose the fallback due to a screen off state and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the first preset condition is any one of the following: the second UE is in a screen-off state; the second UE is in the screen-on state, the second UE is running the first-type application in the foreground, and the data flow corresponding to the first-type application is transmitted through a network other than the wireless communication network; or the second UE is in the screen-on state, and the second UE is running a second-type application in the foreground or is not running an application in the foreground.”
In a related field of endeavor, Gao discloses:
wherein the first preset condition is any one of the following: the second UE is in a screen-off state; (Gao, Fig. 5 & [0111]-[0117] discloses the disabling and enabling of a radio mode capability based on a screen off operation and a screen on operation of the user and discloses it is assumed that the user does not perform continuous data download in the case of using the 5G service normally and selects to go off screen and sleep in the case of no large data volume service in the background and discloses it is assumed that a terminal enables a power storing mode in which a screen is turned off and after the screen is turned off, the terminal detects that the amount of exchanged data is less than or equal to a first preset threshold and a 4G part is sufficient to cope with these small data communication requirements and in this case the 5G module of the terminal releases the local radio resources and discloses after the local radio resources of the 5G are released, the terminal stops reporting measurement on all the 5G cells and measurement results so as to prevent the base station from readding the 5G cell and discloses after the base station detects the release of the 5G radio resources of the terminal, all subsequent communications will go through the 4G side and discloses the user performs a screen turn on operation and when the terminal initiates a large traffic service at this time and the amount of data currently exchanged by the terminal is greater than the first preset threshold, the terminal establishes a local radio resource of the 5G and discloses after a local radio resource of the 5G is established, the terminal enables measurements on the 5G and reporting of a measurement result and a user normally performs data service of the 5G. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “the second UE is in the screen-on state, the second UE is running the first-type application in the foreground, and the data flow corresponding to the first-type application is transmitted through a network other than the wireless communication network; or the second UE is in the screen-on state, and the second UE is running a second-type application in the foreground or is not running an application in the foreground”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Shi in view of Kodali to incorporate the teachings of Gao for the purpose of providing the system with a means to conserve power by going into power saving mode according to specific criteria such as a screen off mode (Gao, Fig. 5 & [0111]-[0117]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G as taught by Shi) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G, wherein the process includes suppressing measurements of 5G when in a screen off state in order to save battery as taught by Gao) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of initiating an voice call and performing a fall back from 5G to 4G (i.e. as taught by Shi & Gao) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 25, Shi in view of Kodali and further in view of Gao discloses:
The UE of claim 24, (see claim 24).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the first-type application is a game application configured to be run by the second UE in an online manner, and the second-type application is an application other than the first-type application”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645