DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 05/21/2026.
Claims 1-30 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1-8, 10, 13-15, 18, 20-22, 24, and 26-30 have been amended.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Each of claims 26-30 were rejected under §101 for the claimed invention being directed to non-statutory subject matter in the previous Office Action. These claim rejections are withdrawn herewith as Applicant has appropriately amended each of claims 26-30 to cure this deficiency.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 10, 18, and 26, Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the amended claim feature of: “re-initiate, prior to expiration of the timer based on the first duration, the TAU procedure based on an occurrence of a timer modification event.”1 Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. Applicant further contests that Lee does not teach the amended “…timer modification event that include at least one of: an increase in a signal quality for the second cell of the second RAT, a measured signal quality of the second cell satisfying a quality threshold, or performance of a cell reselection procedure to establish a connection with a third cell using the second RAT.”2 See Id. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s second argument2, above, has effectively been rendered moot, as Lee is not presently relied upon in the instant Office Action to reject the newly amended claim features at issue. As such, Applicant is referred to the current rejection of its independent claims, under §103, which is based on the new combination of Burugupalli with Lee.
With respect to Applicant’s initial argument1 against Lee, the Examiner maintains that Lee fairly teaches/suggests: re-initiating a TAU procedure based on a timer modification event, prior to expiration of the timer based on the first duration.
Lee describes its UE initiating a TAU procedure for performing handover or redirection to transition to an LTE cell from a NR cell (or vice-versa) (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0119], [0123], [0126], [0131], and [0133]. Further, Lee teaches a timer that can be initiated upon TAU failure, where the timer can have a set duration associated with a particular failure type/cause. The different failure types can also have different failure timer durations (paras. [0137]-[0139] and [0141]-[0144]; Table 1 blocks 1118 and 1120 of Fig. 11, and block 1230 of Fig. 12). Lee additionally describes a scenario where its UE can perform an RAT switch process with the TAU procedure (from NR to LTE, or vice versa), as depicted in Fig. 8 and block 2510 of Fig. 25.
As one example, a failure corresponding to 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, and when a new call is requested via VoLTE, while the timer is still running, at block 2540, the timer can be modified/reset and a UE may camp on a stored LTE cell and again perform the TAU procedure, as depicted in Fig. 28 (paras. [0131], [0142], [0182], [0196]-[0199], and [0205]; and Figs. 8, 25, and 28). In this context, Lee describes reinitiating its Tau procedure, and the Examiner interprets this timer modification event to be equivalent to resetting the first timer during the first duration.
Therefore, Lee fairly reads on the contested claim feature of “re-initiat[ing], prior to expiration of the timer based on the first duration, the TAU procedure based on an occurrence of a timer modification event.” Applicant also argues that: Fig. 25 of Lee “does not address the ‘reinitiate … the TAU procedure’ and instead addresses ‘perform VoLTE connection,” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is clearly described in para. [0205] of Lee, when a call setup is triggered in a UE for a stored LTE cell, as described in context with the “perform VoLTE connection” process of block 2540 in Fig. 25, which is referenced in the description of Fig. 28, at para., [0205], prior to the first timer expiring (block 2540), the UE may camp on a stored LTE cell and the UE may again perform a TAU procedure (i.e., reinitiating a TAU procedure), as depicted in blocks 2802, 2806 and 2810-2814 of Fig.28. Thus, Lee describes the process of Fig. 25 being connected to the process of Fig. 28, where a TAU procedure for the same stored LTE cell is re-initiated, prior to the timer expiring.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments provided for independent claims 1, 10, 18, and 26, are determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection (i.e., the combination of Burugupalli with Lee) provided in the instant Office Action.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
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 Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) 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. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
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, 5, 8-12, 14, 17-19, 21, 24-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2022/0217184 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee-184”) in view of US PG Pub. 2019/0082393 A1, Burugupalli et al. (hereinafter “Burugupalli”).
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, prior to expiration of the timer based on the first duration, the TAU procedure based on an occurrence of a timer modification event (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).
However, Lee-184 does not explicitly teach:
the timer modification event including at least one of:
an increase in a signal quality for the second cell of the second RAT,
a measured signal quality of the second cell satisfying a quality threshold, or
performance of a cell reselection procedure to establish a connection with a third cell using the second RAT.
Burugupalli does teach:
a timer modification event including at least one of:
an increase in a signal quality for a second cell of a second RAT,
a measured signal quality of a second cell satisfying a quality threshold, or
performance of a cell reselection procedure to establish a connection with a third cell using a second RAT (paras. [0065], [0067], [0069], [0073] and [0080]-[0081]; and Figs. 6 and 8 —in the event a RLF, a TAU timer can be delayed/modified under certain conditions —in one RLF scenario, a UE can determine if a current link quality still exceeds a quality threshold (i.e., via a UE measuring RSRP, RSCP, SINR, RSSI, etc.), and when the current link is determined to still have good quality based on quality measurements compared to the threshold, a TAU timer can be reset, thereby extending a total duration for TAU timer; thereafter, the UE can reselect to the same cell —alternatively, if the current link is determined to have poor signal quality based on the quality threshold comparison, a reselection procedure to another cell can take place requiring a TAU modification —the alternative claim terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
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 fallback TAU procedure (from NR to LTE) including starting/driving a TAU timer to a first duration via, time reset, while the TAU timer is still running, to further include a TAU timer modification event based on a current cell/RAT’s measured signal quality compared to an acceptable quality threshold after a RLF event, as taught by Burugupalli.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consider cell quality after RLF for determining whether to reestablish a connection to serving cell or to instead reselect to a new cell, as recognized by Burugupalli (paras. [0065], [0067], [0069]-[0073] and [0080]-[0081]; and Figs. 6 and 8).
With respect to claim 2, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is 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 (Lee-184: 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 in view of Burugupalli teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein 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 (Lee: 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 5, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 does not explicitly teach:
measuring a signal quality of a connection with the second cell, wherein the occurrence of the timer modification event comprises the measured signal quality satisfying a quality threshold.
Burugupalli does teach:
measuring a signal quality of a connection with the second cell, wherein the occurrence of the timer modification event comprises the measured signal quality satisfying a quality threshold (paras. [0065], [0067], [0069], [0073] and [0080]-[0081]; and Figs. 6 and 8 —in the event a RLF, a TAU timer can be delayed/modified under certain conditions —in one RLF scenario, a UE can determine if a current link quality of another second cell exceeds a quality threshold (i.e., via a UE measuring RSRP, RSCP, SINR, RSSI, etc.), and when the current link is determined to still have good quality based on quality measurements compared to the threshold, a TAU timer can be reset, thereby extending/modifying a total duration associated with a TAU 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 fallback TAU procedure (from NR to LTE) including starting/driving a TAU timer to a first duration via, time reset, while the TAU timer is still running, to further include a TAU timer modification event based on a current cell/RAT’s measured signal quality compared to an acceptable quality threshold, as taught by Burugupalli.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consider cell quality for determining whether to reestablish a connection to serving cell or to instead reselect to a new cell, as recognized by Burugupalli (paras. [0065], [0067], [0069]-[0073] and [0080]-[0081]; and Figs. 6 and 8).
With respect to claim 8, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor are further configured to reset the timer to the first duration when re-initiation 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 in view of Burugupalli teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Lee-184: 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 §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, 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 §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, 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 §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
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 Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, 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 §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, 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 §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
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 Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 24, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 24 is likewise rejected §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, 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 §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium (paras. [0057]-[0059]; and memory 130 of Fig. 1). As such, claim 26 is likewise rejected §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
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 Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 30, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. As such, claim 30 is likewise rejected §103 based on Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
Claims 4, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, in further view of US PG Pub 2012/0218889 A1, Watfa et al. (hereinafter “Watfa”).
With Respect to claim 4, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli does not explicitly 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 in view of Burugupalli’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 Burugupalli and 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 Burugupalli and Watfa, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
Claims 6, 15, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli, in further view of US Patent No. 9,363,838 B2, Jung et al. (hereinafter “Jung”).
With respect to claim 6, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli 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 in view of Burugupalli’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 Burugupalli and 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 Burugupalli and 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 Burugupalli and 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 Burugupalli, in further view of US PG Pub. 2016/0212782 A1, Ko et al. (hereinafter “Ko”).
With respect to claim 7, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Lee-184 in view of Burugupalli 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 in view of Burugupalli’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 Burugupalli and 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 Burugupalli and 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 Burugupalli and Ko, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights