DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response filed 1/7/2026 is acknowledged.
No claims are amended, cancelled, or added.
Claims 1-28 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1- 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US20210051530A1; “Venk”) in view of Xu et al. (US 20230362211A1; “Xu”) and Chou et al. (US20120322504A1; “Chou”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 22,
Venk (Title: 5G NR voice call EPS fallback enhancements) discloses a method (Fig. 10B) of operating a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 10B, UE 900; Fig. 3), comprising a memory/CRM (Fig. 3, memory 306; paragraph 34), a communication interface (Fig. 3, circuitry 329/330 and antennas 335-338), and at least one processor/means (Fig. 3, processor 302) communicatively coupled to the memory/CRM and the communication interface, configured to execute instructions to cause the UE setting up an evolved packet system fallback (EPSFB) call procedure (Fig. 10B, step 1018; paragraph 104-109; session modification including EPS fallback) that is associated with network-configured inter-frequency measurements to be performed by the UE at a first inter-frequency measurement interval (Fig. 10B, step 1032; inter-RAT measurements).
Venk does not expressly disclose puncturing some or all of the network-configured inter-frequency measurements during the EPSFB call procedure.
However, further analogous art to Xu (Title/Provisional: Method and Apparatus to Disable Measurement Report during Call Setup) discloses similar method of EPS fallback (Fig. 4B, step 444-446; session modification including EPS fallback) where measurement report solicitation is “optional” (Fig. 3, step 446; “disabling” of measurement report) and Chou (Title: method for selecting optimal RAT) discloses puncturing some or all of the network-configured inter-frequency measurements (Fig. 3; paragraph 27-28; inter-RAT change procedure to camp on optimal cell by using punctured time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Venk by puncturing some or all of the network-configured inter-frequency measurements during the EPSFB call procedure, as shown by Xu and Chou, thereby ensuring communication continuity with improved throughput.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, and 27,
The combination of Venk, Xu, and Chou discloses determining at least one performance parameter comprises a signal quality or link quality between the UE and a serving cell of the UE, wherein the puncturing is based in part upon the determination (Xu: paragraph 25, 41-48; Fig. 4A, step 424; ; RSRP/RSRQ threshold; measurement report sent if below threshold, meaning measurement report is disabled if quality of serving cell is above threshold). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, and 25,
The combination of Venk, Xu, and Chou discloses at least one performance parameter comprises one or more of the network-configured inter-frequency measurements that are measured with respect to one or more neighbor cells (Xu: paragraph 28, 40-48; events based on neighbor cell measurement). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, and 26,
The combination of Venk, Xu, and Chou discloses one or more results associated with the one or more network-configured inter-frequency measurements are below a measurement threshold (Xu: Fig. 4A, step 420; paragraph 48; RSRP/RSRQ threshold) extending the measurement interval in response to the one or more results being below the measurement threshold (Xu: Fig. 4A, step 424; paragraph 48; enabling further measurement reporting when measurement < threshold = extending measurement interval). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21, and 28,
The combination of Venk, Xu, and Chou discloses the signal quality or the link quality between the UE and the serving cell of the UE is greater than or equal to a threshold, and puncturing all of the network-configured inter-frequency measurements during the EPSFB call procedure at least while the signal quality or the link quality remains greater than or equal to the threshold (Xu: paragraph 25, 41-48; Fig. 4A, step 424; measurement report sent if below threshold, meaning measurement report is disabled if quality of serving cell is above threshold). See motivation above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8 of the Response, Applicant contends the claims recite “inter-frequency measurements to be performed by the UE at a first inter-frequency measurement interval...during the EPSFB call procedure”. Applicant characterizes Fig. 10B as inter-RAT measurement performed before the EPS core is involved, not “during the EPSFB call procedure”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited disclosure of Venk in Fig. 10B occurs “during the EPSFB call procedure” even if the call procedure has not completed. Applicant’s remarks also fails to consider the claim language where the UE is “setting up an EPSFB call procedure” that is associated with the network-configured inter-frequency measurements. Therefore, rejections based on the combination of Venk, Xu, and Chou are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-9 of the Response, Applicant contends Fig. 10B, step 1032 represents one single instance (emphasis by Applicant) of an inter-frequency measurement that does not constitute “measurements performed by the UE at a first inter-frequency measurement interval” as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the single step 1032 in Fig. 10B of Venk is representative of the interval for performing any and all necessary inter-RAT measurements, as clarified in paragraph 109 describing that the UE 902 performs “inter-RAT measurements” (plural) at step 1032 of the procedure. Therefore, rejections based on the combination of Venk, Xu, and Chou are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 9 of the Response, Applicant contends the Provisional Application establishing Xu as prior art is not supportive of the cited language such as “session”, “solicitation”, such that Xu should be removed as prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At least paragraphs 8-12 of the Provisional Application, as well as the Title, supports the cited disclosure of Xu of disabling inter-frequency measurement reporting during EPS fallback that is relied upon to modify Venk. Therefore, the cited disclosure is properly supported by the Provisional Application establishing Xu as prior art such that rejections based on Venk, Xu, and Chou are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 9-10 of the Response, Applicant contends Chou performing puncturing to facilitate inter-frequency measurement rather than puncturing of an inter-frequency measurement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chou is relied upon to expressly disclose “puncturing” with respect to inter-frequency measurement as the means to disable the reporting of those measurements, as shown through the combination of Venk and Xu. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, rejections based on Venk, Xu, and Chou are properly maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477