DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 24, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the Office has failed to examine the claims fully, stating the previous Office action failed to impart the limitation that the wireless device “does not support NRDC” with respect to the transitioning step (Remarks, p. 7). Applicant goes on to state Zhu “makes no reference to NRDC at all.”
The Examiner has carefully considered these points. While the Examiner agrees that the term “NRDC” is not explicitly recited in Zhu, the concept of dual connectivity in the 5G network therein is at least implied (note, e.g., the source and secondary gNBs of figure 2). Zhu, however, does not explicitly state that the capability information used to facilitate standalone to non-standalone access considers this information. Nevertheless, Wiszniewski explicitly describes wherein a RAN node operation considers NRDC capability (or not) ([0090]). Applicant’s said argument does not address Wiszniewski. This is therefore an argument against Zhu individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As set forth in the previous Office action, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Wiszniewski, such as the signaling and/or support indication functionality, within the system of Zhu, in order to improve resource utilization. Zhu is concerned with standalone to non-standalone (or vice versa) transitions. NRDC is a form of standalone functionality, and NRDC capability would have been an obvious piece of information to include in the signaling of Zhu in order ensure resource optimization.
Applicant then argues Zhu, Wiszniewski, and Guha do not disclose or suggest “responsive to the wireless device having the threshold strength of mmWave coverage, transitioning the wireless device that does not support NRDC to another access node to allow for the mmWave coverage” (Remarks, p. 8). First, the Examiner respectfully notes that Zhu teaches consideration of mmWave support, at the least because EN-DC capability is indicated for transitions ([0031]). Second, as noted in the previous Office action, Zhu modified by Wiszniewski does not explicitly state “determining, based on the measurement report, that the wireless device is in a location having a threshold strength of mmWave coverage,” and as such Guhu was relied upon. Applicant does not address Guha. Instead, Applicant argues that Wiszniewski fails to teach threshold [considerations] and transitioning the wireless device (Remarks, p. 8). These are again arguments against the references individually instead of against the combination of references.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0078687 A1 (hereinafter “Zhu”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0373301 A1 (hereinafter “Wiszniewski”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0076441 A1 (hereinafter “Guha”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Zhu teaches a method comprising:
receiving a capability report and a measurement report from a wireless device; and transitioning the wireless device to another access node to allow for [a] mmWave coverage (see, e.g., figure 2, [0031], [0041], [0077], [0127], [0182], [0186]; access node transitioning or handover considers received device capabilities and measurements, including standalone or non-standalone capabilities).
Zhu does not explicitly state “determining based on the capability report that the wireless device supports millimeter wave (mmWave) coverage, but does not support new radio dual connectivity (NRDC).” However, in a similar field of endeavor, this feature is taught by Wiszniewski (see, e.g., [0085]-[0090]; note also overlapping teaching with respect to reporting and handover). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Wiszniewski, such as the signaling and/or support indication functionality, within the system of Zhu, in order to improve resource utilization.
Zhu modified by Wiszniewski does not explicitly state “determining, based on the measurement report, that the wireless device is in a location having a threshold strength of mmWave coverage,” and therefore doesn’t explicitly state that the transitioning is “responsive to the wireless device having the threshold strength of mmWave coverage.” However, in a similar field of endeavor, this feature is taught by Guha (see, e.g., [0049]-[0051], [0056], [0063]; note mmWave signal strength determination). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Guha, such as the signaling and/or state functionality, within the system of Zhu modified by Wiszniewski, in order to maintain quality of service for devices traversing multiple radio access technologies.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the system of claim 11.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 13, and 19: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha further teaches storing threshold criteria for determining that the wireless device is in a location having the threshold strength of mmWave coverage (see, e.g., Guha [0049]-[0051], [0056], [0063]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the systems and medium of claims 12, 13, and 19, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha further teaches receiving the capability report and the measurement report at a 5G standalone access node (see, e.g., Zhu [0031], [0181], [0182], [0186]; Wiszniewski [0085]-[0090]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the system of claim 14.
Regarding claims 4 and 15: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha further teaches wherein transitioning the wireless device to another access node comprises handing the wireless device over to a long term evolution (LTE) eNodeB in a 5G non-standalone cell (see, e.g., Zhu figure 2, [0031], [0181], [0182], [0186]; Wiszniewski [0085]-[0090]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 4 is applicable to the system of claim 15.
Regarding claims 5 and 16: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha further teaches providing LTE as a main cell group (MCG) and mmWave as a secondary cell group (SCG) (see, e.g., Zhu [0031]-[0033]; Wiszniewski [0002], [0005], [0085]-[0090]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 5 is applicable to the system of claim 16.
Regarding claims 6 and 17: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha further teaches triggering a handover of the wireless device from a 5G standalone access node to 5G non-standalone access node having mmWave coverage (see, e.g., Zhu [0031], [0181], [0182], [0186]; Wiszniewski [0085]-[0090]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 6 is applicable to the system of claim 17.
8. Claims 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Wiszniewski, in further view of Guha, and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2023/0362752 A1 (hereinafter “Vivanco”) or U.S. Publication No. 2024/0121572 A1 (hereinafter “Ramchandran”).
Regarding claims 7 and 18: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha substantially teaches the method as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the measurement report comprises wireless device feedback for which synchronization signal block (SSB) beam is strongest. However, this feature is taught by Vivanco (see, e.g., [0028], [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Vivanco, such as the beam functionality, within the system of Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha, in order to determine coverage(s).
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Ramchandran (see, e.g., [0088], [0222]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ramchandran, such as the beam functionality, within the system of Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha, in order to determine coverage(s).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 7 is applicable to the system of claim 18.
Regarding claim 8: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski, Guha, and either Vivanco or Ramchandran further teaches comparing the wireless device feedback with a stored correlation of SSB beams with mmWave coverage (see, e.g., Vivanco [0028], [0029]; or Ramchandran [0088], [0222]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 7 is applicable to claim 8.
9. Claims 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Wiszniewski, in further view of Guha, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0359790 A1 (hereinafter “Ingale”).
Regarding claim 9: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha substantially teaches the method as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the measurement report includes channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) feedback reporting precoding matrix indicator (PMI) values. However, this feature is taught by Ingale (see, e.g., figure 2, [0044]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ingale, such as the feedback functionality, within the system of Zhu modified by Wiszniewski and Guha, in order to determine coverage(s).
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Zhu modified by Wiszniewski, Guha, and either Vivanco or Ramchandran further teaches comparing the received PMI values to stored information correlating PMI values with mmWave coverage (see, e.g., Ingale figure 2, [0044]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 9 is applicable to claim 10.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 10 is applicable to the medium of claim 20.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights