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
2. Applicant's arguments filed 2/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues “Voltolina does not disclose or suggest at least one of: a first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the first base station; or a second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the second base station” (see applicant remarks pgs. 7-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the previous office action, Voltolina teaches “the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE” (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5). Voltolina points out that “Embodiments described herein may include systems and/or methods that predict the likelihood of a UE receiving the same quality of service at a target node, after handover, that the UE is currently receiving as the source node. The source node may gather current activity and resource usage information about individual UEs (called UE-specific RRM information) that provide more fine grained information than the associated radio bearer parameters” (see pg. 2 lines 5-12). Therefore, Voltolina does read upon applicant’s claimed feature at least one of: a first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the first base station; or a second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the second base station.
Applicant further argues, “Further, Voltolina does not disclose or suggest receiving, by the first base station and from the second base station, a handover response message comprising a prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the second base station will succeed or fail” (see applicant’s remarks pgs. 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the previous office action, Voltolina teaches “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible” (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12). Voltolina’s indication of an that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1 is tantamount to success or failure. Therefore, Voltolina does read upon applicant’s claimed feature receiving, by the first base station and from the second base station, a handover response message comprising a prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the second base station will succeed or fail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009097906 by Voltolina et al. (provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as Voltolina).
Regarding claim 1, Voltolina teaches A method comprising:
sending, by a first base station and to a second base station, at least one handover request message associated with a wireless device (see at least Fig. 10A), wherein the handover request message comprises at least one of:
a first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the first base station; or a second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the second base station (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”); and
receiving, by the first base station and from the second base station, a handover response message (see at least Fig. 10A) comprising a prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the second base station will succeed or fail, wherein the prediction is based on at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality or the second predicted radio signal quality (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.”).
Regarding claim 2, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Voltolina teaches wherein the prediction is a first prediction of whether the connection of the wireless device with the second base station will succeed or fail, wherein the first prediction is based on at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality or the second predicted radio signal quality (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.”), and wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the first base station and to a third base station, at least one second handover request message associated with the wireless device (see at least Fig. 8A; Handover request);
receiving, by the first base station and from the third base station, a second handover response message comprising a second prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the third base station will succeed or fail, wherein the second prediction is based on at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality or a third predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the third base station; and determining, by the first base station and based on the first prediction and the second prediction, a target base station from among the second base station and the third base station (see at least Fig. 8B and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.”).
Regarding claim 4, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Voltolina teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the first base station and from the wireless device, at least one of:
a measurement of a first radio signal quality; or a measurement of a second radio signal quality (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”); and
performing at least one of:
determining, based on the measurement of the first radio signal quality, the first predicted radio signal quality; or determining, based on the measurement of the second radio signal quality, the second predicted radio signal quality (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 5, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Voltolina teaches further comprising: determining, based on the handover response message, whether to handover the wireless device (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 6, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Voltolina teaches wherein the handover response message comprises an indication of a probability that a connection of the wireless device with the second base station will fail (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 8, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Voltolina teaches wherein the handover response message comprises an indication that a connection failure between the wireless device and the second base station is based on a lack of required resources in a cell of the second base station (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.” ).
Regarding claim 9, Voltolina teaches A method comprising:
sending, by a first base station and to each of a plurality of neighboring base stations, at least one handover request message, associated with a wireless device (see at least Fig. 8A), wherein the handover request message comprises at least one of:
a first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the first base station; a second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with a second base station of the plurality of neighboring base stations; or a third predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with a third base station of the plurality of neighboring base stations (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”);
receiving, by the first base station and from the each of the plurality of neighboring base stations, a plurality of handover response messages (see at least Fig. 8B), wherein each of the plurality of handover response messages is associated with one of the plurality of neighboring base stations, and wherein each of the plurality of handover response messages comprises:
a first prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the second base station will fail, wherein the first prediction is based on at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality or the second predicted radio signal quality; and a second prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the third base station will fail, wherein the second prediction is based on at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality or the third predicted radio signal quality; and determining, by the first base station and based on the first prediction and the second prediction, a target base station from among the second base station and the third base station (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.”).
Regarding claim 11, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 9. In addition, Voltolina teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the first base station and from the wireless device, at least one of:
a measurement of a first radio signal quality; a measurement of a second radio signal quality; or a measurement of a third radio signal quality (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”); and
performing at least one of:
determining, based on the measurement of the first radio signal quality, the first predicted radio signal quality; determining, based on the measurement of the second radio signal quality, the second predicted radio signal quality; or determining, based on the measurement of the third radio signal quality, the third predicted radio signal quality (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 12, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 9. In addition, Voltolina teaches further comprising: determining, based on the plurality of handover response messages, whether to handover the wireless device (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.” ).
Regarding claim 15, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 9. In addition, Voltolina teaches wherein the each of the plurality of handover response messages comprises at least one configuration parameter of the wireless device to be used for communication with one of the plurality of neighboring base stations (see at least Fig. 8B and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.” ).
Regarding claim 16, Voltolina teaches A method comprising:
receiving, by a second base station and from a first base station, at least one handover request message, associated with a wireless device (see at least Fig. 10A), wherein the handover request message comprises at least one of:
a first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with the first base station; or a second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device for communication with a second base station (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”); and
sending, by the second base station and to the first base station, a handover response message (see at least Fig. 10A) comprising a prediction of whether a connection of the wireless device with the second base station will fail, wherein the prediction is based on at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality or the second predicted radio signal quality (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.” ).
Regarding claim 17, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 16. In addition, Voltolina teaches wherein the handover response message comprises an indication of whether a handover is accepted (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.” ).
Regarding claim 18, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 16. In addition, Voltolina teaches wherein the handover response message comprises at least one configuration parameter of the wireless device to be used for communication with the second base station (see at least Fig. 10 A and pg. 11 lines 1-12; “The handover feedback information may include, for example, an indication that, based on the received RRM information and the identified current network information for target eNB 122-2, target eNB 122-2 may not be able to support the same activity level for UE 1 10 as source eNB 122-1. In one embodiment, the indication may be provided as a degradation level. For example, a "1 " may indicate that there is low risk of degraded performance: a "2" may indicate that there is medium risk of degraded performance; and a "3" may indicate that there is a high risk of degraded performance, where source eNB 122-1 is strongly advised to modify activity levels of UE 1 10. if possible.” ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voltolina as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of US 2023/0016595 A1 by Ryden et al. (hereafter referred to as Ryden).
Regarding claim 3, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Voltolina teaches further comprising:
determining, by the first base station …, at least one of the first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device or the second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”).
Voltolina does not appear to specifically teach based on a machine learning and artificial intelligence model.
In the same field of endeavor, teaches based on a machine learning and artificial intelligence model (see at least Fig. 2 (202)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Voltolina with Ryden in order to provide improved handover of a user equipment between different nodes in a communications network (Ryden ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 9. In addition, Voltolina teaches further comprising:
determining, by the first station …, at least one of:
the first predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device, the second predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device, or the third predicted radio signal quality of the wireless device (see at least pg. 7 line 31-pg. 8 line 5; “ the RRM information may include information relating to past and/or current radio resource usage of the particular UE. For example, the RRM information may include information relating to the UE's scheduled uplink/downlink traffic, received/transmitted power levels, used resource blocks in time and/or in frequency, applied discontinuous reception/transmission (DRX) settings, used radio resources, a perceived quality of service of the UE, and/or other types of information that might be useful by a target eNB in determining a handover prediction for the UE.”).
Voltolina does not appear to specifically teach based on a machine learning and artificial intelligence model.
In the same field of endeavor, teaches based on a machine learning and artificial intelligence model (see at least Fig. 2 (202)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Voltolina with Ryden in order to provide improved handover of a user equipment between different nodes in a communications network (Ryden ¶ [0004]).
11. Claim(s) 7, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voltolina as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, in view of US 2009/0163207 A1 by Randall et al. (hereafter referred to as Randall).
Regarding claim 7, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 1.
Voltolina does not appear to specifically teach wherein the handover response message comprises at least one preferred time for a handover of the wireless device to the second base station.
In the same field of endeavor, Randall teaches wherein the handover response message comprises at least one preferred time for a handover of the wireless device to the second base station (see at least ¶ [0106]; “the characteristics processor 311 can determine a minimum preferred handover activation (or switch) time in response to the handover switch delay and can include an indication of the minimum preferred handover activation time in the radio link handover acknowledge message.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Voltolina with Randall in order to provide improved handover performance.
Regarding claim 13, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 9.
Voltolina does not appear to specifically teach wherein the each of the plurality of handover response messages comprises at least one preferred time for a handover of the wireless device to one of the plurality of neighboring base stations.
In the same field of endeavor, Randall teaches wherein the each of the plurality of handover response messages comprises at least one preferred time for a handover of the wireless device to one of the plurality of neighboring base stations (see at least ¶ [0106]; “the characteristics processor 311 can determine a minimum preferred handover activation (or switch) time in response to the handover switch delay and can include an indication of the minimum preferred handover activation time in the radio link handover acknowledge message.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Voltolina with Randall in order to provide improved handover performance.
Regarding claim 20, Voltolina teaches the method of claim 16.
Voltolina does not appear to specifically teach wherein the handover response message comprises at least one preferred time for a handover of the wireless device to the second base station.
In the same field of endeavor, Randall teaches wherein the handover response message comprises at least one preferred time for a handover of the wireless device to the second base station (see at least ¶ [0106]; “the characteristics processor 311 can determine a minimum preferred handover activation (or switch) time in response to the handover switch delay and can include an indication of the minimum preferred handover activation time in the radio link handover acknowledge message.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Voltolina with Randall in order to provide improved handover performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465