CTFR 18/333,789 CTFR 66989 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1,8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. 2007/0032237 to Chang in view of Pub. 2014/0185475 to Ji . Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Chang teaches a method of operating a wireless access node to steer a wireless user device to a Radio Access Technology (RAT) type, the method comprising: wirelessly receiving a measurement report from a wireless user device that comprises a first measured signal strength for a first RAT type and a second measured signal strength for a second RAT type; (see Figs. 5 to 7, steps 501, 503, 709, 711 as described in sections [0093]-[0095] and [0112]-[0114], which teach that a handoff controller receives the mobile station MS signal strength measurements from the two different RATs); applying a calibration factor to the second measured signal strength to normalize the second measured signal strength with the first measured signal strength; (see steps 507, 509 and 713 as in sections [0096]-[0097] and [0113], which teach the handoff controller compensating the different network signal strengths); comparing the normalized second measured signal strength to the first measured signal strength (see steps 515 and 715 in sections [0099] and [0113], which teach the handoff controller comparing the different network signal strengths); and wirelessly transferring an attachment instruction to the wireless user device to attach the to the first RAT type or the second RAT type based on the comparison (see step 717 in Fig. 7 in section [0114], which teaches transmitting a handoff command instruction (recited “attachment instruction”) to the MS based on the result of the comparison). Regarding the feature “wherein a first sampling rate for the first measured signal strength is different than a second sampling rate for the second measured signal strength”, although section [0132] of Chang teaches the “MS measuring the signal strength of the BSs in predetermined intervals”, Ji is added. In an analogous art, Ji teaches a user equipment UE, which measures signals strengths of the current cell and neighboring cells. As mentioned in sections [0044] to [0047], the current and neighbor cells may be of different RATs (listed in these sections). Section [0086] explicitly mentions that the frequency or rate at which signal strength measurements are performed may be changed, “ For example ,… neighboring cells could be evaluated for signal strength, SNR, etc., in order to determine a scaling factor (e.g., a rate at which cell measurements are performed /a proportion of DRX cycles in which to perform cell measurements) for future measurements of those cells (e.g., individually and/or according to cell groupings). See also section [0115]. Therefore, as both Chang and Ji teach measuring signal strengths of different RATs, and as Ji explicitly teaches that the “sampling rates of the first and second cell and/or RATs are different”, it would have been obvious to modify the sampling intervals of Chang in the manner taught by Ji, for any number of reasons, such as reducing sampling when values seem constant, or reducing rates for unprioritized cells . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim s 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2010/0054179 to Meyer . Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 which recite “wherein applying the calibration factor to the second measured signal strength comprises modifying the second measured signal strength based on the difference between the first sampling rate and the second sampling rate to generate the normalized second measured signal strength”, as Chang and Ji do not teach this feature, Meyer is added. In an analogous art, Meyer teaches a user equipment UE which measures signals strengths of access points in a handover process (see Fig. 3). As shown in the formula of Fig. 7 and as described in section [0054], the age of a signal strength (RSSI) measurement is multiplied by an age factor. As the age of the measurement indicates the rate at which the signal is measured (high age indicate lower rate of measurement), the teachings of Meyer may be interpreted to read on the features of claim 2. Therefore, as Chang/Ji teach and Meyer teach measuring and compensating of signal strengths of different RATs, and as Meyer teaches that the “compensation is due to the different sampling rates (ages) of the measurements”, it would have been obvious to modify the compensating factors of Chang/Ji in the manner taught by Meyer, for the reasons as in Meyer, which are that the age and/or frequency of measuring signal strengths must be accounted for. Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18 which recite “wherein wirelessly transferring an attachment instruction to the wireless user device to attach to the first RAT type or the second RAT type based on the comparison comprises: wirelessly transferring the attachment instruction that directs the wireless user device to attach to the first RAT type when the first measured signal strength exceeds the normalized second measured signal strength; and wirelessly transferring the attachment instruction that directs the wireless user device to attach to the second RAT type when the normalized second measured signal strength exceeds the first measured signal strength”, see the handoff controller in Figs. 5-7 of Chang which select the first or second network based on their compensated values of signal strength (where Chang implicitly would select the highest compensated signal strength value), where Meyer explicitly teaches selecting the highest signal strength value . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim s 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Meyer and U.S. Pub. 2025/0203399 to Cheema . Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17 which recite “further comprising accessing a calibration factor table to determine the calibration factor based on the difference between the first sampling rate and the second sampling rate”, Meyer and Cheema are added. As described above, Meyer teaches adjusting a calibration factor based on signal measuring rate/age, however, Meyer uses a formula and not a stored table. In an analogous art, Cheema teaches a signal strength compensation table, where the compensation models are also based on ages (see section [0118]). Therefore, as Chang/Ji teach and Meyer/Cheema teach measuring and compensating of signal strengths of different RATs, as Meyer teaches that the “compensation is due to the different sampling rates (ages) of the measurements” and Cheema teaches the use of tables, it would have been obvious to modify the compensating factors of Chang/Ji in the manner taught by Meyer and Cheema, for the reasons as in both Meyer and Cheema, which are that the age and/or frequency of measuring signal strengths must be accounted for . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim s 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2020/0314704 to Abdel Shahid . Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19 which recite “wherein: receiving the first measurement report and the second measurement report from the wireless user device comprises receiving a B2 measurement report that comprises the first measured signal strength and the second measured signal strength; and comparing the normalized second measured signal strength to the first measured signal strength comprises comparing the first measured signal strength and the normalized second measured signal strength to a B2 handover threshold”, although Chang teaches the features of receiving the measurement report which contains the first and second signal values and comparing the normalized second signal to the first signal (to determine handoff), as Chang does not explicitly teach a “B2” measurement report, Abdel Shahid is added. In an analogous art, Abdel Shahid teaches a user equipment UE which has dual access to different RATs (see Fig. 3). As described in section [0135], Abdel Shahid teaches that the B2 signal reports from the UE indicate that the first RAT signal strength is below the threshold and the second RAT signal strength is above the threshold, so a handoff to the second RAT is instigated. Therefore, as both Chang and Abdel Shahid teach UEs sending measurement reports of signal strengths of different RATs, and as Abdel Shahid explicitly teaches that the report is a B2 report, it would have been obvious to modify the report and handover process of Chang to use a B2 report, as the B2 scenario is a conventionally known situation of conditions that exist when UE transitions between RATs. Regarding claims 7 and 14 which recite “wherein the first RAT type comprises Long Term Evolution (LTE) and the second RAT type comprises Fifth Generation New Radio (SGNR)”, see section [0002] of Abdel Shahid, which teaches that the RATs used include LTE and 5GNR, as recited . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim s 1,8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2014/0274095 to Saito . Regarding claims 6, 13 and 16 which recite “wherein: receiving the first measurement report and the second measurement report from the wireless user device comprises receiving a B1 measurement report that comprises the first measured signal strength and the second measured signal strength; and comparing the normalized second measured signal strength to the first measured signal strength comprises comparing the normalized second measured signal strength to a B1 addition threshold”, as Chang does not explicitly teach a “B1” measurement report, Saito is added. In an analogous art, Saito teaches a user equipment UE which has dual access to different RATs and performs handoffs based on detected signal strength. See Figs. 9A and 9B, which show the B1 inter RAT handover threshold. As described in section [0087], Saito teaches that the B1 signal reports from the UE are used to determine that the first RAT signal strength is below the threshold and the second RAT signal strength is above the threshold, so a handoff to the second RAT is instigated. Therefore, as both Chang and Saito teach UEs sending measurement reports of signal strengths of different RATs, and as Saito explicitly teaches that the report is a B1 report, it would have been obvious to modify the report and handover process of Chang to use a B1 report, as the B1 scenario is a conventionally known situation of conditions that exist when UE transitions between RATs . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5-1-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments focus on the first recited feature of claim 1 and assert that “Chang does not teach what the Office Action asserts” . Regarding the “sampling rates”, Applicant sets forth that “Chang does not recognize this as a problem”. In response to these points the Examiner points out that the claim however does not require that “the sampling rate is determined as a problem”. The claim language only requires that signals from different networks are compensated when comparing signals in handover determinations. This is shown in Chang. The fact that the different types of network signals may be sampled at different rates (as recited in a passive wherein clause) is shown in Ji. Regarding Applicant’s arguments relating to Ji (which state that Ji does not teach the recited compensating for signal strengths in the two different types of wireless networks), Ji is not added to show the compensation of signals received from different networks (as this feature is taught by Chang). Therefore, as Applicant’s arguments appear to address the references singly and not in combination as applied, they are not persuasive. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays. 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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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. /STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 2 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 3 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 4 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 5 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 6 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 7 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 8 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 9 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 10 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/333,789 Page 11 Art Unit: 2646
Prosecution Insights