DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 10/05/2023.
Claims 1-30 are pending for Examination.
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 Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 10/05/2023 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant application, each of claims 18-24 recites the term “means for,” where the UE device comprises the means for performing an action, but the means for language is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, each of claims 18-24 are being interpreted under the provisions of §112(f), in terms of the apparatus 802 hardware components depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 8, and as described in the corresponding specification description.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, each of claims 26-30 recites a: “computer-readable medium,” that may be interpreted to correspond to a signal or any other transitory communications medium capable of comprising instructions, code, software, etc., as the term “computer-readable medium” is described in Applicant’s disclosure to include: “any available media that can be accessed by a computer,” or “any other medium that can be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions or data structures that can be accessed by a computer.”
As such, claims 26-30 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because they may be interpreted to be directed to a medium, such as a signal, which is capable of carrying computer executable code or instructions. To cure this deficiency, Applicant should amend each of claims 26-30 to alternatively recite a: “non-transitory computer-readable medium….”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-12, 17-19, 24-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0217184 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee-184”).
With respect to claim 1, Lee-184 teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor (paras. [0053]-[0058] and [0121]; and UE device 101 with processor 120 and memory 130 of Fig. 1) coupled to the memory and configured to:
initiate a tracking area update (TAU) procedure when performing a change from a first cell associated with a first radio access technology (RAT) to connect to a second cell associated with a second RAT different than the first RAT (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0119], [0123], [0126], [0131], and [0133]; TAU procedure 622-1 of Fig. 6 and Figs. 8-9 —a UE can initiate a TAU procedure when performing a handover or redirection procedure, i.e., an EPS/RAT fallback, to transition from a NR/LTE cell to an LTE/NR cell);
initiate a timer when the TAU procedure fails, the timer associated with a first duration (paras. [0137]-[0138] and [0141]-[0144]; blocks 1118 and 1120 of Fig. 11, and block 1230 of Fig. 12 —a timer may be initiated upon a TAU procedure failure, and the timer may have a set duration associated with a type/cause of call failure); and
re-initiate the TAU procedure based on an occurrence of a timer modification event, the re-initiating of the TAU procedure occurring before the first duration associated with the timer expires (paras. [0131], [0142], [0182], [0196]-[0199], and [0205] and Figs. 8, 25 and 28 —initially, a UE can perform an EPS fallback process with the TAU procedure (from NR to LTE), as depicted in Fig. 8 and block 2510 of Fig. 25 —a disconnect/interruption from LTE can lead to starting/driving a timer for a first duration, at block 2520, and a connection to a NR network can take place, at block 2530 —when a new call is requested via VoLTE, while the timer is still running, at block 2540, the timer can be reset and a UE may camp on a stored LTE cell and again perform the TAU procedure, as depicted in Fig. 28; thus, reinitiating the Tau procedure (from NR to LTE) —the Examiner interprets the timer modification event to be resetting the first timer during the first duration).
With respect to claim 2, Lee-184 teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are configured to perform the change from the first cell to the second cell as part of an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback due to a Voice over NR (VoNR) call, a Voice over Long- Term Evolution (VoLTE) call or a video telephony (VT) call (para. [0196] and Fig. 25 —EPS fallback, from a NR cell to an LTE cell, can occur due to a received change request associated with a VoLTE call).
With respect to claim 3, Lee-184 teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are configured to perform the change from the first cell to the second cell in response to receiving a redirection command from a network (paras. [0126]-[0128], [0132]-[0133] and [0135] —the network can send the UE a redirect command, i.e., an RRC Release message including “redirectedCarrierInfo;nr-r15” to cause the UE to switch cells).
With respect to claim 8, Lee-184 teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to reset the timer to the first duration when the re-initiating of the TAU procedure is successfully completed (paras. [0142], [0161]-[0162], and [0181]-[0182]; and 1534 of Figs. 15A-B —after successfully completing EPS fallback, depicted in Figs. 8 to include a TAU procedure a timer can be reset to its initial duration).
With respect to claim 9, Lee-184 teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (paras. [0053]-[0058] and [0121]; and UE device 101 with processor 120 coupled to transceiver/communication module 190 of Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 10 is directed to a method performed at a UE. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 24, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 24 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
With respect to claim 25, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 9. As such, claim 25 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 9.
With respect to claim 26, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 26 is direct to a computer-readable medium (paras. [0057]-[0059]; and memory 130 of Fig. 1). As such, claim 26 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 30, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 30 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Lee-184, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
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 4, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-184 in view of US PG Pub 2012/0218889 A1, Watfa et al. (hereinafter “Watfa”).
With Respect to claim 4, Lee-184 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach:
wherein the timer modification event comprises an increase in signal quality for the second cell.
Watfa does teach:
a timer modification event comprising an increase in signal quality for a second cell (paras. [0102]-[0103], [0117], [0136], [0203], and [0315]—a WTRU can be configured to reset or modify a duration of a backoff timer and perform cell selection to a CSG/eNB cell, based at least in part on a congestion level improvement thereof).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee-184’s timer modification event with the modification of a backoff timer considering congestion improvement at a target cell, as taught by Watfa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for faster connection to a target cell when prohibited (backoff timer) conditions improve, as recognized by Watfa (paras. [0102]-[0103], [0117], [0136], [0203], and [0315]).
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Watfa, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Watfa, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
Claims 5, 14, 21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-184 in view of US PG Pub 2022/0353934 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee-934”).
With respect to claim 5, Lee-184 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 does not explicitly teach:
measuring a signal quality of a connection with the second cell, and
wherein the occurrence of the timer modification event comprises the measured signal quality satisfying a quality threshold.
Lee-934 does teach:
measuring a signal quality of a connection with a second cell (paras. [0117]-[0121] —a UE can be configured to measure a signal quality of a connection to another cell in a multi-RAT system), and
wherein the occurrence of the timer modification event comprises the measured signal quality satisfying a quality threshold (paras. [0117]-[0121], [0126], [0184]-[0186], and [0214] —when the measured quality of the cell satisfies a quality threshold, reporting can take place including event identification and a time to trigger —the timer modification event can be associated with initiating of the timer).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee-184’s timer modification event with signal quality measurement triggering for another cell, as taught by Lee-934.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for improved connection to another cell by considering real-time cell/signal quality measurements, as recognized by Lee-934 (paras. [0117]-[0121], [0126], [0184]-[0186], and [0214]).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Lee-934, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 21, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 21 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Lee-934, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 27, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 27 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Lee-934, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
Claims 6, 15, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-184 in view of US Patent No. 9,363,838 B2, Jung et al. (hereinafter “Jung”).
With respect to claim 6, Lee-184 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 does not explicitly teach:
performing a cell reselection procedure to establish a connection with a third cell using the second RAT, and
wherein the occurrence of the timer modification event comprises the performing of the cell reselection procedure.
Jung does teach:
performing a cell reselection procedure to establish a connection with a third cell using the second RAT (col. 8, ln. 48 to col. 9, ln. 25, col. 11, ln. 24 to col. 12, ln. 58; and S440 of Fig. 4 —a UE can be configured to perform a cell reselection to a neighbor cell of another RAT based on quality measurement and cell ranking determinations), and
wherein the occurrence of the timer modification event comprises the performing of the cell reselection procedure (col. 11, ln. 24 to col. 12, ln. 58, col. 14, lines 34-45; and S440 of Fig. 4 —a UE can start a validity timer, i.e., a timer modification event, in association with performing a cell reselection procedure to the neighbor cell).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee-184’s timer modification event with cell reselection to a neighbor cell of another RAT, as taught by Jung.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for improved cell reselection to a neighbor cell of another RAT based on various priority determinations, as recognized by Jung (col. 8, ln. 48 to col. 9, ln. 25, col. 11, ln. 24 to col. 12, ln. 58, col. 14, lines 34-45).
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Jung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 22, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 22 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Jung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 28, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 28 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Jung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
Claims 7, 16, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-184 in view of US PG Pub. 2016/0212782 A1, Ko et al. (hereinafter “Ko”).
With respect to claim 7, Lee-184 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 does not explicitly teach:
re-initiating the TAU procedure after the first duration associated with the timer expires.
Ko does teach:
re-initiating a TAU procedure after the first duration associated with a timer expires (paras. [0055]-[0056], and [0061]; and Figs. 6A-B and 7A —after a T3411 timer timeout a TAU procedure can be re-initiated).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee-184’s timer expiration to include restarting a TAU procedure when the timer expires, as taught by Ko.
The motivation for doing so would have been improve redundancy by reattempting a TAU procedure after timer expiration, as recognized by Ko (paras. [0055]-[0056], and [0061]; and Figs. 6A-B and 7A).
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Ko, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 23, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 23 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Ko, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 29, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 29 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Ko, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2023/0422159 A1, Lee et al.: teaches various TAU registration procedure and corresponding timer-based processes related to the instant application.
US PG Pub 2021/0345185 A1, Kodali et al.: teaches various TAU registration procedure and corresponding timer-based processes related to the instant application.
US PG Pub 2023/0254733 A1, Park et al.: teaches various TAU registration procedure and corresponding timer-based processes related to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418