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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 2026-05-14 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2026-08-04 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2026-05-14 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Independent Claims 1 and 9:
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Shukair is silent that such ‘IMS registration’ indicates ‘whether or not a fallback operation has been triggered’” (Remarks, p. 7): Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both IMS registration and VoLTE Call Setup information are understood to be internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) information. Additionally, Shukair discloses that the procedure detected by the UE may be either a CSFB (i.e., fallback) procedure or, “in other aspects, the procedure is an LTE procedure including the exchange of one or more data packets, such as but not limited to, TAU, VoLTE Call Setup, UE capability information, RLF count inquiry, IMS registration, and LTE attach” (Shukair, Fig. 9, step 910 and ¶0092). Please also refer to Shukair, ¶0084, which states, “the UE is configured to detect a procedure executed on the UE in communication with a telecommunications network. In some embodiments, the detection may be based on the reception or transmission of messages exchanged between the UE and the source AP of the telecommunications network used to facilitate the execution of the procedure. The UE may also be configured to determine whether the detected procedure is of a type that qualifies to prevent or delay handover procedures. As described herein, a procedure executed by the UE may be preselected as a ‘qualifying procedure’ where such a procedure may be preselected as to be completed prior to executing a handover procedure in accordance with the disclosure herein. In some aspects, a qualifying procedure may be a procedure to be executed prior to interference from another procedure, for example, a handover procedure. Some qualifying procedure types include, but are not limited to, CSFB, CSFB-WCDMA, CSFB-1x, CSFB-GERAN, TAU, VoLTE call Setup, UE capability information, radio link failure (RLF) count inquiry, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) registration, and LTE attach. In some embodiments, a qualifying procedure includes an exchange of at least one or more messages between the UE and a telecommunications network. In another embodiment, a qualifying procedure may include procedures performed internally in the UE, for example, where the UE may process a signal internally to perform a procedure (e.g., perform a measurement) and process the signal completely within the UE. In some aspects, the qualifying procedure includes processing a signal internal to the UE, the signal being indicative of a procedure executed with the UE. The preselected list of qualifying procedures may be stored in a database or memory of the UE and accessed by a processor based on any detected procedure” (emphasis added). Thus, when Shukair’s UE detects either a VoLTE or an IMS registration procedure (as opposed to detecting a CSFB, i.e. fallback, procedure), it is receiving IMS voice call type information which indicates that a fallback operation has not been triggered (i.e., of the preselected list of qualifying procedures, the UE has detect one that is not a fallback procedure), as required by the independent claims. Thus, Shukair discloses “determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information indicating whether or not a fallback operation has been triggered”.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Shukair fails to disclose ‘selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information occurs as a result of a determination that redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility’” (Remarks, p. 8, emphasis in original): Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shukair discloses that “The UE checks if the procedure is a qualifying procedure and prevents or delays the handover procedure by preventing the exchange of one or more messages between the UE and source AP configured to effectuate the handover. For example, the UE may delay transmitting a measurement report to the source AP” (Shukair, ¶0101, referring to block 960 of Fig. 9, emphasis added). Thus, Shukair discloses preventing the transmission of the measurement report based on two conditions: one, that the procedure is a qualifying procedure; and two, that the one or more messages prevented from being exchanged between the UE and source AP (i.e., a measurement report from the UE) are configured to effectuate the handover. Prior to this step, in step 930 of Fig. 9, Shukair’s UE “detects one or more handover events indicative of one or more handover procedures that transition the UE from the source AP to a target AP,” for example events A1-5, (Shukair, ¶¶0095-0096). Thus it is clear that Shukair’s UE is aware that the measurement report, if sent, would cause a handover that would interfere with the qualifying procedure (e.g., VoLTE Call Setup), and therefore the measurement report should be prevented (or delayed till after completion of the qualifying procedure) so as to prevent interrupting the qualifying procedure (Shukair, ¶¶0101-0102).
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Shukair’s disclosure of a ‘delay transmitting a measurement report’ cannot read on ‘disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information’ as presently claimed, since ‘delay transmitting a measurement report’ in Shukair means to transmit the measurement report later, while the claimed ‘disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information’ means not to transmit the measurement report information” (Remarks, p. 9, emphasis in original): Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “disablement of the transmission of the measurement report” would not exclude re-enablement of the transmission of the measurement at a later time. Regardless, Shukair discloses that “delaying the handover procedure serves to permit the exchange of each message or signal necessary to complete a qualifying procedure. In this way, the handover procedure does not interfere with the completion of the qualifying procedure. In some aspects, the UE may determine to delay the handover procedure, and permit the handover procedure to be executed following the completion of the qualifying procedure. In other aspects, the UE may determine to not perform the handover procedure following the qualifying procedure, because the handover procedure may no longer be necessary for the continued operation of the UE” (Shukair, ¶0102, emphasis added). Thus, Shukair’s UE may prevent the transmission of the measurement report in order to avoid a handover interrupting the qualifying procedure and subsequently determine to not perform the handover procedure--i.e., Shukair’s UE may choose to not transmit the measurement report information rather than “transmit the measurement report later” as alleged by applicant. Thus, Shukair discloses “selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information occurs as a result of a determination that redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility”.
For these reasons, the rejections of independent claims 1 and 9 (and dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15) under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Independent Claim 16:
Regarding applicant’s arguments that “Lin fails to disclose ‘further determining whether the UE transmitted a measurement report prior to receipt of the handover instruction’” (Remarks, p. 13, emphasis in original) and that “Shukair fails to disclose ‘upon a determination that no measurement report was transmitted by the UE, ignoring the handover instruction and continuing with the VoIP call setup procedure’” (remarks, p. 14, emphasis in original): examiner finds applicant’s arguments persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 16-20 are therefore withdrawn and claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following responses to applicant’s other arguments regarding claim 16 are included for the sake of completeness and in the interest of compact prosecution.
Regarding applicant's argument that "block 930 in Shukair cannot read on 'receipt of a handover instruction’ … [because] 'handover instruction' is a directive command to instruct handover" (Remarks, pp. 10-11, emphasis in original): Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shukair discloses, "At block 930, the UE detects one or more handover events indicative of one or more handover procedures that transition the UE from the source AP to a target AP. In some embodiments, the UE may detect, at the receiver, one or more handover events including, but are not limited to, measurement events (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, etc.)). In some embodiments, the UE may detect a handover event by receiving a handover configuration request transmitted to the UE due to a mobility event, where the UE is moving between geographic regions served by different APs (e.g., an intra-RAT handover). In other aspects, the handover configuration requests are transmitted due to a transition of the UE from a first RAN to a second RAN (e.g., an IRAT handover)" (Shukair, ¶0095, emphasis added). Thus, Shukair discloses that the UE receives a handover instruction in block 930 of Fig. 9.
Regarding applicant's argument that "in Shukair, the detection of the qualifying procedure … is a prerequisite for delaying or preventing transmission of the handover command … and cannot be reordered" (Remarks, p. 11): Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Shukair's detection of the qualifying procedure is a prerequisite for delaying transmission of the measurement report, i.e. block 960 of Figure 9, because the reason for preventing transmission of the measurement report (which would trigger the handover) is to avoid the handover procedure from interrupting the qualifying procedure (please see Shukair, ¶¶0101-0102). However, examiner disagrees that the detection of the qualifying procedure is a prerequisite for delaying or preventing transmission of the handover command, as alleged by applicant. In ¶0096, Shukair identifies reasons why one might want to prevent a handover in order to avoid the handover from interrupting the qualifying procedure; this is revisited in ¶0101, in which Shukair states, "In some aspects, the UE delays or prevents the handover procedure when the qualifying procedure and handover procedure are executed in parallel. In other aspects, the UE can delay a handover procedure that is triggered in conjunction or as part of a qualifying procedure (e.g., an IRAT handover during a CSFB procedure). The handover procedure may be triggered simultaneously or near in time with the qualifying procedure, and may be executed in parallel" (emphasis added). Rather than violating the technical solution and the technical effect of Shukair, this is precisely the point of Shukair's disclosed method/apparatus. It is clear from this reasoning, in conjunction with Shukair's disclosure that "Those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that other components may be used to implement one or more of the steps described herein. Although blocks may be described as occurring in a certain order, the blocks can be reordered" (Shukair, ¶0091, emphasis added), that the detecting of the handover instruction may occur in conjunction with the qualifying procedure. Thus, Shukair discloses "pursuant to receipt of a handover instruction, determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a radio access technology (RAT) of a serving cell and internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) voice call type information indicating whether or not a fallback operation has been triggered…" as required by independent claim 16.
Regardless of the preceding two arguments drawn to claim 16, because applicant’s arguments against Lin and the combination of Lin and Shukair are persuasive, the rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 16-20 are withdrawn and claims 16-20 are allowed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0055197 to Shukair et al. (“Shukair”).
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 9), Shukair discloses a method (Fig. 9 and ¶0090-103), comprising: determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a radio access technology (RAT) of a serving cell and internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) voice call type information indicating whether or not a fallback operation has been triggered (Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0090 and ¶0092. Please also refer to ¶0084) ; and upon a determination that the UE is performing a VoIP call setup, selectively disabling transmission of measurement report information to a network in which the UE is operating until the VoIP call setup procedure is complete (Fig. 9, block 960; ¶0090 and ¶0101-2); wherein selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information occurs as a result of a determination that redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility (Fig. 9, block 960; ¶0090 and ¶0101-3; please also see Fig. 9, step 930, ¶¶0095-0096, and ¶0084).
Shukair also discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 3 and ¶0042-46, UE 350), comprising: a processor (Fig. 3 and ¶0042-46, processors 360, 370, 394, 390, 382, and/or 380); and a memory unit including computer code (Fig. 3 and ¶0042-46, memory 392 and measurement reporting module 391) that when executed causes the processor to perform the above method. Thus, claim 9 is similarly rejected.
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claim 10), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the VoIP call setup procedure comprises one of a voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call setup procedure, a voice over new radio (VoNR) call setup procedure, or an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback call setup procedure (Shukair, Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0092).
As to claim 3 (and similarly applied to claim 11), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising re-enabling the transmission of the measurement report information upon completion of the VoIP call setup procedure (Shukair, Fig. 9 and ¶0102, “the UE may determine to delay the handover procedure, and permit the handover procedure to be executed following the completion of the qualifying procedure”).
As to claim 7 (and similarly applied to claim 15), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the UE is performing a VoIP call setup procedure comprises detecting VoIP call setup messages or operations involving the UE (Shukair, Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0092).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0055197 to Shukair et al. (“Shukair”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0352492 to Dang et al. (“Dang”).
As to claim 4 (and similarly applied to claim 12), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1.
Shukair does not disclose: wherein the measurement report information comprises series A-type events and series B-type events.
However, Dang discloses: wherein the measurement report information comprises series A-type events and series B-type events (Dang, Fig. 3 and ¶0157-8).
Shukair and Dang are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: hand-off or reselection arrangements, control for completing hand-off, and/or determination of parameters used for hand-off, e.g. hand-off measurements, scheduling of hand-off measurements, and/or resource reservation for handover; and/or scheduling and/or transmission of hand-off measurement information, e.g. measurement reports. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shukair to incorporate the teachings of Dang to include: wherein the measurement report information comprises series A-type events and series B-type events. Doing so would “[ensure] a smooth handover of the user equipment from the serving cell to another cell” (Dang, ¶0022).
As to claim 5 (and similarly applied to claim 13), Shukair in view of Dang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the measurement report information comprises measured parameter values corresponding to one or more of the series A-type events and series B-type events (Dang, Fig. 3 and ¶0157-166).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0208267 to Jung et al. (“Jung”).
As to claim 6 (and similarly applied to claim 14), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1.
Shukair does not disclose: wherein the measurement report information comprises an entirety of information captured in a measurement report.
However, Jung discloses: wherein the measurement report information comprises an entirety of information captured in a measurement report (Fig. 8, step S834; and ¶0185).
Shukair and Jung are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: hand-off or reselection arrangements, control for completing hand-off, and/or determination of parameters used for hand-off, e.g. hand-off measurements, scheduling of hand-off measurements, and/or resource reservation for handover; and/or scheduling and/or transmission of hand-off measurement information, e.g. measurement reports. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shukair to incorporate the teachings of Jung to include: wherein the measurement report information comprises an entirety of information captured in a measurement report. Doing so would “[allow] a UE to perform a measurement and to report a result thereof” (Jung, ¶0167), and “time and cost required for the network optimization [could] be minimized” (Jung, ¶0168).
References Cited
Dang, Shujun et al. (2018). Cell signal strength prediction method, cell signal strength reporting method, and user equipment (US 2018/0352492 A1). Filed 2015-10-29.
Jung, Sunghoon et al. (2015). Measurement report method in wireless communication system and apparatus for supporting same (US 2015/0208267 A1). Filed 2013-08-05.
Shukair, Mutaz Zuhier Afif et al. (2017). Methods and apparatus for reducing handover signaling during wireless communication procedures (US 2017/0055197 A1). Filed 2015-08-21.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bernhard et al. (2008). Selecting a target cell for a blind handover (US 20080102834 A1). Filed 2006-10-31.
Bernhard et al. (2008). Selecting a handover algorithm (US 20080101311 A1). Filed 2006-10-31.
Cheng, Peng (2024). Techniques for indicating a frequency band during blind handover (US 20240015613 A1). Filed 2020-10-08.
Dalsgaard et al. (2015). Delivery of measurements (US 20150382221 A1). Filed 2013-03-01.
Dalsgaard et al. (2015). Inhibiting the transmission of measurement reports from a ue when a ue is in an inactive mode and applies drx (US 2015/0365859 A1). Filed 2013-01-18.
Furuskog, Johan (2018). Reference signal tracking in a wireless communication system (US 2018/0109297). Filed 2017-05-24.
Hamalainen, Seppo et al. (2005). Control of interfrequency handovers (US 20050277415 A1). Filed 2005-05-26.
Jeon, Jeongho et al. (2022). Handover reliability enhancement in wireless communication (US 2022/0124580 A1). Filed 2021-10-11.
Jeong, Kyeong In et al. (2013). Method and device for performing and controlling user equipment measurement in multiple carrier aggregated mobile communication system (US 2013/0051274 A1). Filed 2011-05-04.
Johansson et al. (2015). Failure event report for initial connection setup failure (US 9167447 B2). Filed 2013-02-28.
Latheef, Fasil Abdul et al. (2020). Method and apparatus for executing conditional handover in wireless communication network (US 2020/0351744 A1). Filed 2020-03-30.
Lin, Bo et al. (2020). Cell handover method, method for determining uplink transmit power, and apparatus (US 2020/0059847 A1). Filed 2019-10-25.
Lu, Qianxi et al. (2022). Method and device for conditional handover (US 2022/0007244 A1). Filed 2021-09-21.
Mok, Youngjoong et al. (2020). Method and device for changing wireless path in wireless communication system (US 2020/0128470 A1). Filed 2018-03-23.
Park, Soon Gi et al. (2016). Method and apparatus of mobility management in small cell environment (US 2016/0007243 A1). Filed 2014-08-08.
Sun, Yanliang et al. (2022). Cell camping method, device, and system (US 2022/0240133 A1). Filed 2022-04-08.
Sarkar, Debasish et al. (2016). Intelligence in handover assessment for lte/volte calls to improve retainability (US 9,253,704 B1). Filed 2014-09-25.
Viering, Ingo et al. (2023). Variable time-to-trigger value for transmission of measurement report for wireless networks (US 2023/0199590 A1). Filed 2020-05-05.
Vikberg, Jari et al. (2011). Returning user equipment to a source radio access network (US 20110188468 A1). Filed 2010-02-02.
Wen, Yongming (2014). Blind handover or blind redirection method and system (US 20140228029 A1). Filed 2011-12-14.
Yang et al. (2016). Inter-RAT and Intra-RAT Measurement Reporting (US 2016/0353340 A1). Filed 2015-07-17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
