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 .
Remarks
The present Office Action is based upon the Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/16/2026. Claims 27-46 are now pending in the present application. Claim(s) 32-36 and 42-46 is/are withdrawn from consideration. This action is made FINAL.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 27, 29-31, 37, and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 20130170347 A1 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Rasanen US 20070281699 A1 (hereinafter Rasanen).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang discloses a method, performed by a first network node, for handling wireless devices, the first network node operating in a communications network and the method comprising (FIG. 7, for source eNB):
determining whether or not a second network node comprised in the communications network accepts to serve wireless devices of a first type (FIG. 6 and FIG. 7, par. 0183, 0186-0189 for steps 702, 704 and 705, “704: The target eNB sends a handover request response message to the source eNB… 705: The target eNB sends a handover reject message to the source eNB”); and
performing a first action based on a result of the determination (FIG. 6 and
FIG 7, par. 0189, “The target eNB may also add a time parameter to the handover reject message. When receiving the time parameter, the source eNB may re-initiate a handover request after a corresponding delay period, which is not limited here.”).
However, Zhang fails to disclose (the process is) based on whether or not the first network node receives an indication from a first wireless device comprised in the communications network indicating whether or not the second network node accepts to serve wireless devices of the first type.
In the same filed of endeavor, Rasanen discloses (the process is) based on whether or not the first network node receives an indication from a first wireless device comprised in the communications network indicating whether or not the second network node accepts to serve wireless devices of the first type (FIG. 3, par. 0043, “At step 140, the GW2 40 transmits information parameters to the UE 10 to support mobility”; par. 0044, “At step 150, the UE 10 exchanges information with the GW1 20 for mobility. Specifically, the UE 10 exchanges the information parameters with the GW1 20. At step 160, the GW1 20 sends an indication/report of the handover with the information parameters to the old policy control function, PCRF1 30.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate relaying, by a user equipment, the mobility information parameters of a new gateway to the old gateway in an inter-access handover as taught by Rasanen to the handover request response message from a target base station to a source base station as disclosed by Zhang for purpose of relaying the handover request response message from the target base station to the source base station through the UE.
Regarding claim 29, as applied to claim 28 above, Zhang discloses wherein at least one of: the indication is updatable ;one or more third conditions to which the indication is subject are updatable; the indication is specific to one or more of a cell, a frequency, a tracking area code, a Public Land Mobile Network, and a type of Radio Access Technology; the indication is based on one or more features supported by a first wireless device of the first type; the indication is based on the one or more features, the one or more features comprising whether or not the first wireless device supports 1 Receive branch or antenna port or 2 Receive branches or antenna ports; the indication further indicates one or more cells where the wireless devices of the first type are able to be served or not served; the indication indicates whether or not the second network node accepts to serve wireless devices of the first type by one of: bits presence; and a value of the indication; the wireless devices of the first type are limited in one or more features with respect to wireless devices of a second type; the wireless devices of the first type are Reduced Capability, RedCap, User Equipments (UEs); and the first action is at least one of: refraining from handing over a wireless device of the first type to the second network node; handing over the wireless device of the first type to the second network node based on one or more second conditions; and configuring one or more measurements in the wireless device of the first type accordingly (par. 0193, “when the target eNB rejects the handover request of the source eNB, the target eNB sends a handover reject message to the source eNB, and carries a reject reason and a time parameter in the handover reject message, so that the source eNB acquires the reject reason and re-initiates, according to the time parameter, a handover request after a corresponding delay period.”).
Regarding claim 30, as applied to claim 28 above, Zhang discloses wherein the first network node a first radio access network node, and the second network node is a second radio access network node, and wherein the receiving of the indication is performed according to at least one of: in an interface between the second network node and the first network node; when the interface is set up; in a message received after the interface has been set up; in one of a Served Cell Information NR IE and a Neighbour Information NR IE; in a response to a request from the first network node; with the proviso that the first network node supports wireless devices of the first type; in a handover request message; in a response to a message retrieving a UE context; in a handover procedure; and during a dual connectivity procedure (par. 0173, “701: A source eNB sends a handover request message to a target eNB”; par. 0193, “when the target eNB rejects the handover request of the source eNB, the target eNB sends a handover reject message to the source eNB, and carries a reject reason and a time parameter in the handover reject message… ”).
Regarding claim 31, as applied to claim 28 above, Zhang discloses receiving the indication from one of the second network node and the first wireless device; sending a further indication to the first wireless device or another wireless device, wherein the further indication configures one or more measurements in the first wireless device of the first type according to the received indication; and receiving a third indication from one of the second network node and the first wireless device or another wireless device, the third indication updating the first indication on whether or not the second network node accepts to serve wireless devices of the first type, and wherein the determining and the performing are repeated based on the received third indication (FIG. 7, par. 0183, 0186-0189 for steps 702, 704 and 705, “704: The target eNB sends a handover request response message to the source eNB… 705: The target eNB sends a handover reject message to the source eNB”).
Regarding claim 37, Zhang discloses a first network node for handling wireless devices, the first network node operating in a communications network and configured to (FIG. 7, for source eNB):
determine whether or not a second network node configured to be comprised in the communications network accepts to serve wireless devices of a first type (FIG. 6 and FIG. 7, par. 0183, 0186-0189 for steps 702, 704 and 705, “704: The target eNB sends a handover request response message to the source eNB… 705: The target eNB sends a handover reject message to the source eNB”); and
perform a first action based on a result of the determination (FIG. 6 and FIG 7, par. 0189, “The target eNB may also add a time parameter to the handover reject message. When receiving the time parameter, the source eNB may re-initiate a handover request after a corresponding delay period, which is not limited here”).
However, Zhang fails to disclose (the process is) based on whether or not the first network node receives an indication from a first wireless device comprised in the communications network indicating whether or not the second network node accepts to serve wireless devices of the first type.
In the same filed of endeavor, Rasanen discloses (the process is) based on whether or not the first network node receives an indication from a first wireless device comprised in the communications network indicating whether or not the second network node accepts to serve wireless devices of the first type (FIG. 3, par. 0043, “At step 140, the GW2 40 transmits information parameters to the UE 10 to support mobility”; par. 0044, “At step 150, the UE 10 exchanges information with the GW1 20 for mobility. Specifically, the UE 10 exchanges the information parameters with the GW1 20. At step 160, the GW1 20 sends an indication/report of the handover with the information parameters to the old policy control function, PCRF1 30.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate relaying, by a user equipment, the mobility information parameters of a new gateway to the old gateway in an inter-access handover as taught by Rasanen to the handover request response message from a target base station to a source base station as disclosed by Zhang for purpose of relaying the handover request response message from the target base station to the source base station through the UE.
Regarding claims 39-41, as applied to claim 37 above, the claim is rejected for the same reason(s) as set forth claims 28-31 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 27 and 37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 00 pm.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights