DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 29, 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’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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 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, 2, 8, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2024/0172069 A1 (hereinafter “Fujishiro”), alternatively in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0361059 A1 (hereinafter “He”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0038753 A1 (hereinafter “Tan”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8: Fujishiro teaches a method of managing handover for a reduced capability device, the method comprising:
determining that one or more available access nodes support reduced capability devices for a handover operation for the reduced capability (RedCap) device (see, e.g., [0005]-[0006], [0107]-[0111]; cells supporting reduced capability UEs are determined);
measuring a signal strength of the one or more available access nodes that support reduced capability devices (see, e.g., [0053]-[0055], [0078], [0081], [0109]; the UE performs measurements on prospective cells);
selecting a target access node based in part on the signal strength of the one or more available access nodes that support reduced capability devices; and moving the reduced capability device to the target access node (see, e.g., [0005]-[0006], [0107]-[0111]; note selection/reselection).
Fujishiro teaches selecting/reselecting an access node, but does not explicitly state the feature of “moving the reduced capability device to the target access node.” To the extent the said feature is not inherent to Fujishiro, it is nevertheless taught in He. He teaches a system that significantly overlaps many of the teachings of Fujishiro, including the said feature (see, e.g., figure 5, [0006]-[0010], [0083]-[0084]; note measurements on determined cells that support a RedCap category for 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 He, such as the signaling or handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro, in order to improve radio resource management.
Fujishiro alternatively modified by He does not explicitly state receiving an affirmative parameter regarding capability, and therefore does not explicitly state “receiving an affirmative parameter from the target access node that it is capable of supporting reduced capability devices; and responsive to receiving the affirmative parameter, performing a handover.” However, this feature is taught by Tan (see, e.g., [0081]-[0088]). 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 Tan, such as the signaling or handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, in order to ensure capability prior to handover.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the system of claim 8.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 17: Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, further teaches wherein determining that the one or more available access nodes support reduced capability devices comprises: determining that a RedCap parameter indicates that the one or more available access nodes is capable of supporting reduced capability devices (see, e.g., Fujishiro [0005]-[0006], [0107]-[0111]; and/or He [0006]-[0011]; note RedCap parameter or information that indicates capability and/or incapability). 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 system and method of claims 9 and 17, respectively.
Regarding claims 15: Fujishiro teaches a method of managing handover for a reduced capability device, the method comprising:
determining a candidate list of one or more available access nodes for the reduced capability device; forming a target list of one or more available access nodes by eliminating from the candidate list of one or more available access nodes any of the one or more available access nodes that do not support reduced capability devices (see, e.g., [0005]-[0006], [0107]-[0111]; cells supporting reduced capability UEs are determined; candidate lists are updated in consideration of RedCap function);
measuring a signal strength of each of the one or more available access nodes on the target list (see, e.g., [0053]-[0055], [0078], [0081], [0109]; the UE performs measurements on prospective cells);
selecting a target access node from the target list based in part on the signal strength of the one or more available access nodes on the target list; and moving the reduced capability device to the target access node (see, e.g., [0005]-[0006], [0107]-[0111]; note selection/reselection).
Fujishiro teaches selecting/reselecting an access node, but does not explicitly state the feature of “moving the reduced capability device to the target access node.” To the extent the said feature is not inherent to Fujishiro, it is nevertheless taught in He. He teaches a system that significantly overlaps many of the teachings of Fujishiro, including the said feature (see, e.g., figure 5, [0006]-[0010], [0083]-[0084]; note measurements on determined cells that support a RedCap category for 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 He, such as the signaling or handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro, in order to improve radio resource management.
Fujishiro alternatively modified by He does not explicitly state receiving an affirmative parameter regarding capability, and therefore does not explicitly state “receiving an affirmative parameter from the target access node from the target list that it is capable of supporting reduced capability devices; and responsive to receiving the affirmative parameter, performing a handover.” However, this feature is taught by Tan (see, e.g., [0081]-[0088]). 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 Tan, such as the signaling or handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, in order to ensure capability prior to handover.
Regarding claim 16: Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, further teaches determining that the reduced capability device should perform a handover operation to connect to a different access node (see, e.g., Fujishiro [0005]-[0006], [0107]-[0111]; note selection/reselection; and/or He [0006]-[0010], [0083]-[0084]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 15 is applicable to claim 16.
8. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro, alternatively in view of He, in further view of Tan, and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0245259 A1 (hereinafter “Marcum”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 18 Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, does not explicitly state wherein the RedCap parameter is manually set. To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, it is nevertheless taught in Marcum (see, e.g., [0035], [0045], [0052]). 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 Marcum, such as the configuring or handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, in order to minimize service interruption.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the system and method of claims 10 and 18, respectively.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 19: Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, further teaches “an analysis of one or more of: whether the one or more available access nodes is reduced capability device enabled, whether the one or more available access nodes is restricted to bandwidth greater than 20MHz, and whether idle mode cell reselection is allowed for the one or more available access nodes,” but does not explicitly state “wherein the RedCap parameter is automatically set.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, it is nevertheless taught in Marcum (see, e.g., [0035], [0045], [0052]). 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 Marcum, such as the configuring or handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, in order to conserve processing resources.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 4 is applicable to the system and method of claims 11 and 19, respectively.
9. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro, alternatively in view of He, in further view of Tan, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0254636 A1 (hereinafter “Cui”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12: Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan does not explicitly state wherein the one or more available access nodes are on a same frequency as the reduced capability device. However, this feature is taught by Cui (see, e.g., [0028], [0039]). 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 Cui, such as the handover functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, in order to improve resource utilization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 5 is applicable to the system of claim 12.
10. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro, alternatively in view of He, in further view of Tan, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0031100 A1 (hereinafter “Santhanam”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20: Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, does not explicitly state upon determining that none of the one or more available access nodes support reduced capability devices, instructing the reduced capability device to fall back to an LTE connection. However, this feature is taught by Santhanam (see, e.g., [0005], [0077], [0087], [0096]). 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 Santhanam, such as the signaling and/or fallback functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, in order to capitalize on available RAT services.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 6 is applicable to the system and method of claims 13 and 20, respectively.
11. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro, alternatively in view of He, in further view of Tan, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0155448 A1 (hereinafter “Do”).
Regarding claim 7: F Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, does not explicitly state wherein the reduced capability device has a maximum bandwidth of 20MHz. However, this feature is taught by Do (see, e.g., [0110]-[0111], [0180], [0185]). 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 Do, such as the said device configuration or functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, in order to provide a simpler, lower cost device.
Regarding claim 14: Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, does not explicitly state wherein the reduced capability device has a downlink limited to a maximum of 2 MIMO layers. However, this feature is taught by Do (see, e.g., [0115], [0118], [0182]). 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 Do, such as the said device configuration or functionality, within the system of Fujishiro alternatively modified by He, and further Tan, in order to provide a simpler, lower cost device.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. 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