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 .
This Office Action is in response to initial filing on 01/18/2024.
Claims 1- 20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/18/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 1, 2, 12, 13 , 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tairan et al (WO 2021207933) in view of Centonza et al (US 20140155065).
Regarding claim 1, Tairan discloses a method comprising:
tracking Inter-radio access technology (IRAT) transitions within a network (… the IRAT counter may track a total number of counted IRAT to 4G events, such as a total number of detected IRAT to 4G events associated with a potential IRAT ping-pong condition, see [0096], Figure 5);
comparing a number of IRAT transitions per user to a threshold (In determination block 512, the processor may determine whether the IRAT counter exceeds a maximum counter value. The maximum counter value may be any value selected to avoid IRAT ping-pong, such as 1, 2, or more, see [0097] and Figure 5);
identifying excessive IRAT transitions based on the comparison (the processor may determine whether the IRAT counter exceeds a maximum counter value. [0097]).
Tairan does not expressly disclose generating a recommendation for optimization based on the identification.
However, Centonza discloses generating a recommendation for optimization based on the identification (The RNC may also send the handover report to a base station serving the first cell to allow that base station to adjust mobility or handover settings associated with the second cell and/or target RAT network to avoid a future hand over of the UE connection to the second cell. [0017]; the control node adjusts handover or mobility parameters associated with the third cell and/or with the source RAT network, which are used to configure UE measurements and report triggering. [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tairan with the teachings in Centonza, the rationale being to ensure to include indication of configuration(s) or corresponding resources for connection related to the target base station of second RAT as taught by Martin in order to decrease unnecessary handover "ping-pongs," diminish service degradation, and improve network resource efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Tairan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising tracking the IRAT transitions in conjunction with at least one correlating variable (track a total number of counted IRAT to 4G events, such as a total number of detected IRAT to 4G events associated with a potential IRAT ping-pong condition, [0096]).
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Tairan, Figure 2 includes a processor 212 and memory 220).
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Tairan, “A method to avoid IRAT ping-pong and save power,” Title).
Regarding claim 19, in the obvious combination, Centonza discloses further comprising generating different recommendations based on different correlating variables (The RNC may also send the handover report to a base station serving the first cell to allow that base station to adjust mobility or handover settings associated with the second cell and/or target RAT network to avoid a future hand over of the UE connection to the second cell, [0017]).
Claims 3, 5-11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tairan et al (WO 2021207933) in view of Centonza et al (US 20140155065) further in view of Agiwal et al (US 10470160).
Regarding claim 3, Tairan in view of Centonza does not disclose identifying IRAT transitions per user by wireless device type, wherein a wireless device type is the correlating variable. However, Agiwal discloses identifying IRAT transitions per user by wireless device type, wherein a wireless device type is the correlating variable (linking a first device and a second device to each other on the basis of unique identification information of the first and second devices by a cellular network; preparing a paging message on the basis of a paging record including identification information of the second device by the cellular network; col. 3, ll. 37-46 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tairan in view of Centonza with the teachings in Agiwal in order to allow the new network to verify the user's identity, authorize services, and maintain session continuity when moving between coverage areas of different technologies.
Regarding claim 5, in the obvious combination, Agiwal discloses further comprising identifying IRAT transitions per user at a subscriber level by international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) (The link between the primary smart device and the secondary smart device in a core network, based on a unique identifier, such as IMSI, IMEI, or GUTI, may be performed based on the unique identifiers or a combination of unique identifiers defined by some other users or operators col. 7, ll. 37-44), wherein the IMSI is the correlating variable (e.g., IMSI).
Regarding claim 6, in the obvious combination, Tairan discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising identifying IRAT transitions per user by cell site, wherein the cell site is the correlating variable (the IRAT counter may track a total number of counted IRAT to 4G events, such as a total number of detected IRAT to 4G events associated with a potential IRAT ping-pong condition, Tairan [0096]).
Regarding claim 7, in the obvious combination, Tairan discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising identifying IRAT transitions per user by radio frequency (RF) band, wherein the RF band is the correlating variable (the wireless device performs an IRAT to 2G/3G by scanning 2G/3G frequencies to identify a suitable 2G/3G cell, Tairan [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, in the obvious combination, Centonza discloses further comprising performing the optimization based on the correlating variable to minimize IRAT transitions (The RNC may also send the handover report to a base station serving the first cell to allow that base station to adjust mobility or handover settings associated with the second cell and/or target RAT network to avoid a future hand over of the UE connection to the second cell. [0017]).
Regarding claim 9, in the obvious combination, Tairan discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the optimization includes adjusting at least one handover (A signal quality of a 4G signal being at or above a minimum 4G threshold, Tairan [0100])
Regarding claim 10, in the obvious combination, Centonza discloses wherein the optimization includes a timer associated with a handover threshold (The decision to configure and start timer T.sub.IRATPingPong, and to trigger and evaluate IRAT measurements, i.e., the decision to detect IRAT ping-pong handovers (independently of whether IRAT ping-pong handover detection is performed in the target RAT or the source RAT) may be taken at every IRAT handover instance, during a given time period, Centonza [0061]).
Regarding claim 11, in the obvious combination, Centonza discloses wherein the optimization comprises adjusting parameters to extend a stand-alone coverage area (Centonza, To adjust the mobility parameters that cause IRAT ping-pong handovers, the source LTE eNB1 may store a radio resource control (RRC) UE context from which it can determine the reasons for the IRAT handover, [0068]; and, the UE connection is handed over from a first cell in the source RAT network to a second cell in the target RAT network and then handed over back to a third cell in the source RAT network within a predetermined limited time during which coverage for the UE connection is available from the source RAT network, claim 1).
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 10, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tairan et al (WO 2021207933) in view of Centonza et al (US 20140155065) further in view of Lovlekar et al (US 20200329338).
Regarding claim 4, Tairan in view of Centonza does not disclose identifying a tracking area code (TAC) as the correlating variable.
However, Lovlekar discloses identifying a tracking area code (TAC) as the correlating variable ([0044] The plurality of factors for determining the second predetermined condition may include, but are not limited to, a change in serving cell identity (e.g., a cell's corresponding cell ID, frequency, legacy location area codes, legacy routing area codes, LTE tracking area codes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tairan in view of Centonza with the teachings in Lovlekar for the purpose of guaranteeing continuous mobility and optimizing network resource management.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11477711 to Dhanapal et al: Relate to inter-radio access technology (iRAT) signaling reduction for a user equipment (UE). The UE may identify an inter-radio access technology (iRAT) event and determine that a predetermined condition is satisfied.
US 9743330 to Shukair et al: The method further includes detecting one or more handover events indicative of handover procedures, where the handover procedures interfere with the execution of the qualifying procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644