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 .
Amendments of 05/14/2026 is/are entered.
Claims 1-18, 20, 22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented 05/14/2026 have been fully considered.
In Remarks, pages 7-8, Applicant argues that reference of record Dahlen fails to disclose information indicating that one or more bearers for a terminal device cannot be handed over to one or more radio access technologies (RATs) different than long term evolution (LTE). Applicant contends that Dahlén fails to disclose the claimed information because it only teaches UE-level restrictions (forbidden inter-RATs and forbidden frequencies for the UE) rather than bearer-level restrictions.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Claim 1 does not require the recited “information” to identify specific individual bearers (i.e. whether by ID or any indicia/index etc.) in granular level or to provide a list of specific bearer identifiers, or to impose different restrictions on different bearers. The claim uses the open-ended phrase “indicating one or more bearers.” Under this claim construction, this language can be reasonably satisfied by any information that indicates a restriction applicable to any number of the UE’s bearers, including all of them. Nothing in the claim requires granular or selective bearer filtering.
The instant claim language defines the claimed “information” limitation by the result it indicates — that one or more bearers of the terminal device cannot be handed over to one or more non-LTE RATs — rather than by any particular structure, format, or content that the information must have. It is improper to import unclaimed limitations from the specification into the claims. If Applicant intended the claim to be limited to granular, bearer-specific restriction information, clearer claim language was required.
Furthermore, Dahlen discloses that the access network node (eNB) receives from the MME area and access restriction information that includes forbidden inter-RATs and forbidden frequencies (including frequencies of inter-RATs). See, e.g., ¶0042, 0044, 0047. This information indicates that the UE is restricted from those RATs’s channel frequencies. Under BRI, information that certain RATs are forbidden for the UE is information that indicates that one or more (or all) of the UE’s bearers cannot be handed over to those RATs. The practical effect of the claimed information is the same: the base station/eNB treats handover of the UE’s traffic (its bearers) to the restricted RATs as not permitted.
With respect to ¶0042 of reference of record, Applicant contends that Dahlen makes no disclosure of one or more bearers and that UE-level restrictions are “completely different” from bearer-level restrictions. This alleged distinction is not required/reflected by the claim language. As explained above, the claim does not demand bearer-specific identification or granular filtering. The forbidden inter-RAT / forbidden frequency information disclosed in ¶0042 satisfies the claimed “information indicating that one or more bearers … cannot be handed over to one or more RATs different than LTE” under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Turn now to the reference ¶0044, Applicant acknowledges that Dahlen discloses receipt of an access restriction list for a UE that includes forbidden inter-RATs and forbidden frequencies, receipt of measurement reports, and a determination of whether a target cell is allowed for handover by checking the target cell’s frequency against the forbidden frequencies. Applicant argues that this still fails to teach information indicating restrictions for the one or more bearers of the UE. Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive for the same reason: the claim does not require the information to be framed as restrictions on specifically identified bearers. Dahlen’s information indicating that certain RATs/frequencies are forbidden for the UE intrinsically indicates that the UE’s bearers cannot be handed over to those RATs. The subsequent determination of whether to perform the handover based on that information is also disclosed.
With respect to ¶0047, Applicant similarly argues that the disclosure of measurement control construction based on forbidden frequencies for the UE, and the forwarding of area/access restriction information in a handover request, still fails to teach bearer-level information. The same response applies. The claim language is directed to the indicated result of the information, not to a requirement of granular bearer identification. Dahlen’s disclosure meets the claim as written.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Dahlen (US 2011/0117916).
As to claim 1:
Dahlen discloses:
A method performed by an access network node, comprising: receiving, from a mobility management entity MME) information indicating that one or more bearers for a terminal device cannot be handed over to one or more radio access technologies (RATs) different than long term evolution (LTE); (¶00042, 0044, 0047, at an access network node such as base station 13, receiving information from MME, wherein the information indicating restrictions indicating frequencies of a plurality of inter-RATs forbidden to the UE. Since a plurality of RATs are indicated in the information, at least one of them is non-LTE. See also ¶0041, target systems includes other various RATs, for example W-CDMA.)
and determining whether to perform a packet switched (PS) handover for the terminal device based on the information. (See ¶042, 0045, 0047, Fig. 1, based on the information provided, the base station decides whether the UE is to be handover to one of the neighboring network, which is packet switch network (i.e. eNB))
As to claim 12:
Dahlen discloses:
A method performed by a mobility management entity (MME) comprising: sending, to an access network node, information indicating that one or more bearers for a terminal device cannot be handed over to one or more radio access technologies (RATs) different than long term evolution (LTE). (¶00042, 0044, 0047, sending by an MME to an access network node such as base station 13, information from MME, wherein the information indicating restrictions indicating frequencies of a plurality of inter-RATs forbidden to the UE. Since a plurality of RATs are indicated in the information, at least one of them is non-LTE. See also ¶0041, target systems includes other various RATs, for example W-CDMA.)
As to claim 20:
Dahlen discloses:
An access network node comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, the at least one memory containing instructions executable by the at least one processor, (¶0040, implemented as device with processor/memory) whereby the access network node is operative to: receive, from a mobility management entity MME) information indicating that one or more bearers for a terminal device cannot be handed over to one or more radio access technologies, RATs, different than long term evolution, LTE; (¶00042, 0044, 0047, at an access network node such as base station 13, receiving information from MME, wherein the information indicating restrictions indicating frequencies of a plurality of inter-RATs forbidden to the UE. Since a plurality of RATs are indicated in the information, at least one of them is non-LTE. See also ¶0041, target systems includes other various RATs, for example W-CDMA.)
and determine whether to perform a packet switched, PS, handover for the terminal device based on the information. (See ¶042, 0045, 0047, Fig. 1, based on the information provided, the base station decides whether the UE is to be handover to one of the neighboring network, which is packet switch network (i.e. eNB))
As to claim 22:
Dahlen discloses:
A mobility management entity (MME), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, the at least one memory (¶0040, implemented as device with processor/memory) containing instructions executable by the at least one processor, whereby the MME is operative to: send, to an access network node, information indicating that one or more bearers for a terminal device cannot be handed over to one or more radio access technologies (RATs) different than long term evolution (LTE). (¶00042, 0044, 0047, sending by an MME to an access network node such as base station 13, information from MME, wherein the information indicating restrictions indicating frequencies of a plurality of inter-RATs forbidden to the UE. Since a plurality of RATs are indicated in the information, at least one of them is non-LTE. See also ¶0041, target systems includes other various RATs, for example W-CDMA.)
As to claim 2:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1, further comprising: determining how to perform the PS handover for the terminal device based on the information. (See ¶0045, the source base station formulates handover procedure to another eNB in accordance with the received restriction information from eNB, see also ¶046-0047)
As to claims 3, 13:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 12, wherein the information indicates that the one or more bearers for the terminal device cannot be handed over to 2nd generation, 2G/3rd generation, 3G, or 5th generation, 5G. (See ¶0045, a plurality of forbidden bearers of various inter-RATs, See ¶039-0041, possible inter-RATs includes UMTS/LTE, W-CDMA and others)
As to claim 8:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein determining whether to perform a PS handover for the terminal device based on the information comprises: when the information indicates that none of the one or more bearers can be handed over to 2G/3G or 5G. (¶0045-0047, a list of inter-RATs that cannot be handover is included in the information from MME, See ¶039-0041, possible inter-RATs handover determination includes UMTS/LTE, W-CDMA)
determining not to perform a PS handover to 2G/3G or 5G for the one or more bearers; and/or when the information indicates that at least one of the one or more bearers can be handed over to 2G/3G or 5G, determining to perform a PS handover to 2G/3G or 5G for the at least one bearer. (See ¶0045, “The source eNB 13 determines 56 whether the carrier frequency used by the identified target cell is forbidden according to the stored area and restriction information in the UE 12 context. If the identified carrier frequency is allowed, handover request with the stored area and access restriction area information is sent 57 to the target eNB 14 and, after target eNB has acknowledged 58 the handover, a handover command 59 is sent to the UE” See also ¶0046-0047)
As to claim 10:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 2, wherein determining how to perform the PS handover for the terminal device based on the information comprises: determining a target radio access network (RAN) for the PS handover based on the information. (See ¶0045, “The source eNB 13 determines 56 whether the carrier frequency used by the identified target cell is forbidden according to the stored area and restriction information in the UE 12 context. If the identified carrier frequency is allowed, handover request with the stored area and access restriction area information is sent 57 to the target eNB 14 and, after target eNB has acknowledged 58 the handover, a handover command 59 is sent to the UE” See also ¶0046-0047)
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlen (US 2011/0117916) in view of Isokangas et al. (US 2020/0059836).
As to claims 4, 14:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1/12, wherein the one or more bearers comprise at least one first bearer established in LTE; and wherein the information indicates that the at least one first bearer cannot be handed over to 2G/3G. (See ¶0045, a plurality of forbidden bearers of various inter-RATs, See ¶039-0041, possible inter-RATs includes UMTS/LTE, W-CDMA and others of 2 or 3G)
Dahlen, however does not explicitly state the bearer(s) as and capable of interworking with 5th generation system (5GS).
Isokangas, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least method 500, ¶0092-0093 wherein bearers of a LTE access networks in handover interworking with a 5G radio access network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the bearers of access networks in Dahlen as being able to interwork with 5G system. As Dahlen is concerned with managing inter-RAT handovers, an interworking with 5G networks allows for backward/forward compatibility for seamless roaming for users.
As to claims 5, 15:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1/12, and in at least ¶0045-0047, 0100 discloses the one or more bearers comprise at least one second bearer established in LTE and incapable of interworking with 5Gs, namely GSM, WCDMA which cannot directly interwork with 5G networks.
Dahlen is silent on wherein the information indicates that the at least one second bearer cannot be handed over to 5G.
Isokangas, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least method 500, ¶0092-0093 wherein bearers of an LTE access networks roaming with neighbor networks a 5G radio access network.
Recall that Dahlen discloses the information from MME includes certain bearers of neighbor networks forbidden to the UE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the forbidden bearers of access networks in Dahlen can include 5G system. As Dahlen is concerned with managing inter-RAT handovers, forbidding 5G networks insures the access networks to be informed of UE with class access restrictions or compatibility issues should be attempted for handover to a 5G networks.
As to claims 6, 16:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1/12, and wherein the information indicates that the at least one third bearer cannot be handed over to 2G/3G. (See ¶0045, a plurality of forbidden bearers of various inter-RATs, See ¶039-0041, possible inter-RATs includes UMTS/LTE, W-CDMA and others of 2 or 3G)
Dahlen however is silent on wherein the one or more bearers comprise at least one third bearer handed over from 5G to LTE.
Isokangas, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least method 0073, 0074 wherein bearers of an LTE access networks can handover back and forth with a 5G network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the bearers of access networks in Dahlen as being able to interwork with 5G system. As Dahlen is concerned with managing inter-RAT handovers, an interworking with 5G networks allows for backward/forward compatibility for seamless roaming for users.
As to claims 7, 17:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1/12, wherein the one or more bearers comprise at least one fourth bearer handed over from 2G/3G to LTE; (See ¶039-0041, possible inter-RATs handover includes UMTS/LTE, W-CDMA)
Dahlen however is silent on wherein the information indicates that the at least one fourth bearer cannot be handed over to 5G.
Isokangas, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least method 500, ¶0092-0093 wherein bearers of an LTE access networks roaming with neighbor networks a 5G radio access network.
Recall that Dahlen discloses the information from MME includes certain bearers of neighbor networks forbidden to the UE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the forbidden bearers of access networks in Dahlen can include 5G system. As Dahlen is concerned with managing inter-RAT handovers, forbidding 5G networks insures the access networks to be informed of UE with class access restrictions or compatibility issues should be attempted for handover to a 5G networks.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlen (US 2011/0117916) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2015/0237544).
As to claim 9:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 8, wherein, however is silent on the PS handover is associated with a single radio voice call continuity procedure.
However, handover to extend a call is well established in the art. As evidenced in Jeong, who, in a related field of endeavor, also discloses a handover between different RANs of different RATs in order to extend or improve a call. (See Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶077-0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the handover in Dahlen can be associated with a voice call continuity procedure. Due to mobility nature of a user as well as QoS requirement of call service, a handover procedure in this situation protect against call setup failures and degradation of call quality (See at least ¶0019 of Jeong).
As to claims 11, 18:
Dahlen discloses all limitations of claim 1/12, however is silent on the information is received in one of: an evolved radio access bearer (E-RAB) Setup Request; an Initial Context Setup Request; or a Handover Request.
Jeong, in a related field of inter-RAT handovers, discloses a list of restricted bands can be contained in a S1 message such as ICS request from MME (See ¶0132, 0140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the information from MME can be conveyed in such an S1 message. Since initial context setup is the first contact between MME and eNB, relaying such a list in way allows the eNB to have early access to the context, thus allowing timely handover decision. Furthermore, this practice is part of 3GPP standard (3GPP Release 9 (see 3GPP TR 23.830, ver. 9.0.0 for section 6.3.6.2.1)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,206,148 - Methods and apparatus for providing a handover of fewer than all bearers associated with a user equipment are disclosed. An example method includes establishing a connection for fewer than all bearers associated with the user equipment, via a selective handover procedure, and receiving, from a source base station or a user equipment, a handover completion message for the fewer than all bearers associated with the user equipment. The example method further includes sending, to a core network node, a request to switch a path for the fewer than all bearers, the request comprising an information element providing an indication of whether or not a control interface connection between the source base station and the core network node should continue to be maintained, and thus not switched to the target base station. In some embodiments, but not all, an acknowledgement message is subsequently received, in response to the request..
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, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights