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
Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presented arguments that Kye in view of Zetterlund does not specifically teach the step of “ending the VoWiFi call by the UE if a signal quality of the VoWiFi call is lower than a first threshold and a quality of another Radio Access Technology (RAT) is higher than a second threshold; and sending a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE message via the another RAT, from the UE to the network, to initiate a redialing after ending the VoWiFi call.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments for the following reasons: Applicant argues on page 6 and 7 that the handover taught by Kye and Zutterland is fundamentally different then the redialing recited in claims 1 and 14. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the actions of ending the VoWifi call, and then initiating the session on another RAT, is a handover. The claims do not teach the call is ended, but that the VoWifi call is ended and continued on another RAT. The sessions are ended and started but the call remains, as consistent with a handover. In the cited paragraph of the application ¶ [0044], the specification teaches that this redialing would happen immediately after ending the call and initiating a session on another RAT with no delay, which is also consistent with a handover procedure. This is where the call may end and cut out momentarily, but continues immediately afterward with little to no delay. Even if the 3GPP defined redialing is performed, as the applicant argues, the fact it immediately occurs when one session ends and one begins makes the described claim actions a handover.
Therefore, Kye in view of Zetterlund clearly teaches the above limitations for claims 1 and 14 respectively and the rejection is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 9, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kye et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0267618 A1, hereinafter “Kye”) in view of Zetterlund et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0136633 A1, hereinafter “Zetterlund”).
In regards to claim 1, Kye teaches A method of redialing with user equipment (UE) comprising: establishing a Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) call between the UE and a network (¶ [0055-0056], the UE establishes a call over VoWiFi); ending the VoWiFi call by the UE if a signal quality of the VoWiFi call is lower than a first threshold and a quality of another Radio Access Technology (RAT) is higher than a second threshold (¶ [0057], when the WiFi signal is less than a specified threshold and the signal intensity of another RAT is higher than a specified threshold, perform a handover from WiFi to the other RAT).
Kye does not teach sending a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE message via the another RAT, from the UE to the network, to initiate a redialing after ending the VoWiFi call.
In analogous art, Zetterlund teaches sending a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE message via the another RAT, from the UE to the network, to initiate a redialing after ending the VoWiFi call (¶ [0184-0185] if the mid-call handover policy allows roaming, send a re-registration request from UE to handover call from VoWifi to VoLTE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zetterlund into Kye in order to provide an improved way for a wireless device to achieve a handover between networks to enhance user experience (¶ [0005]).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund, specifically Kye teaches wherein the UE is associated with at least VoWiFi and the another RAT (¶ [0089], [0092] the UE can be connected to either VoWiFi or perform a handover operation to another RAT).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund, specifically Kye teaches wherein the first threshold is associated with Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) (¶ [0057], when the intensity of the WiFi signal received is less than a specified threshold).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund, specifically Zetterlund teaches wherein the SIP INVITE message is sent regardless of a status of a call release timer configured by the network. (¶ [0184-0185], ¶ [0189], the SIP handover parameter is sent before call release timer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zetterlund into Kye to prevent calls from dropping by sending the request before they end to better manage system resource and ultimately enhancing user experience (¶ [0029]).
In regards to claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 1 including A user equipment (UE) comprising: a memory for storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (Kye ¶ [0024] the UE has a processor configured to execute instructions stored in memory).
In regards to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 2.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as being unpatentable over Kye et all (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0267618 A1, hereinafter “Kye”) in view of Zetterlund et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0136633 A1, hereinafter “Zetterlund”) in further view of Ali et al. (U.S. PG Pub 20230388870 A1, hereinafter “Ali”).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund does not teach wherein the network does not support Voice over New Radio (VoNR).
In analogous art, Ali teaches wherein the network does not support Voice over New Radio (VoNR) (¶ [0011], the network does not support the voice over new radio protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ali into Kye in view of Zetterlund in order to to provide an enhance handover technique and improving user experience as the user moves between the different networks (¶ [0008]).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund does not teach further comprising if the another RAT is New Radio (NR), proceeding with Evolved Packet System Fallback (EPSFB).
In analogous art, Ali teaches further comprising if the another RAT is New Radio (NR), proceeding with Evolved Packet System Fallback (EPSFB). (¶ [0011], if the UE uses VoNR when it is not supported by the network, use EPSFB to continue with the call).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ali into Kye in view of Zetterlund in order to improve UE and network compatibility to enhance the user experience (¶ [0003]).
In regards to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 3.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5, 6 and 12 are rejected are rejected as being unpatentable over Kye et all (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0267618 A1, hereinafter “Kye”) in view of Zetterlund et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0136633 A1, hereinafter “Zetterlund”) in further view of Chisu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12069527 B2, hereinafter “Chisu”).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund does not teach wherein the network does not support Voice over LTE (Long Term Evolution) (VoLTE).
In analogous art, Chisu teaches wherein the network does not support Voice over LTE (Long Term Evolution) (VoLTE) ([Col. 8 lines 15-18], VoLTE may fail and not be supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chisu into Kye in view of Zetterlund to improve call handoff when VoLTE is not supported on an LTE network, enhancing user experience ([Col. 8 lines 17-18]).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Kye and Zetterlund does not teach further comprising if the another RAT is LTE, proceeding with Circuit Switch Fallback (CSFB).
In analogous art, Chisu teaches further comprising if the another RAT is LTE, proceeding with Circuit Switch Fallback (CSFB) ([Col. 2 lines 5-12], use CSFB when on LTE when VoLTE is not available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chisu into Kye in view of Zetterlund to improve call compatibility between the UE and the network ([Col. 1 lines 21-25]).
In regards to claim 12, the combination Kye and Zetterlund does not teach further comprising indicating by a user interface of the UE whether the redialing is allowable.
In analogous art, Chisu teaches further comprising indicating by a user interface of the UE whether the redialing is allowable ([Col. 7, lines 11-26], user prompt to indicate whether redialing is allowed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chisu into Kye in view of Zetterlund to increase user choice by allowing them to cancel redialing ([Col. 7, lines 45-46]).
In regards to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 5.
In regards to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable over Kye et all (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0267618 A1, hereinafter “Kye”) in view of Zetterlund et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0136633 A1, hereinafter “Zetterlund”) in further view of Kim et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0282013 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
In regards to claim 7, the combination Kye and Zetterlund does not teach wherein the network does not support Dual Radio Voice Call Continuity (DRVCC).
In analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the network does not support Dual Radio Voice Call Continuity (DRVCC) (¶ [0059], only single radio voice call continuity as used as the handover between LTE and 2G/3G networks, meaning dual radio voice call continuity is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim into Kye in view of Zetterlund to decrease complexity in the handover scheme to provide a more efficient handover procedure (¶ [0010]).
In regards to claim 11, the combination Kye and Zetterlund does not teach wherein the second threshold is associated with Reference Symbol Received Power (RSRP).
In analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the second threshold is associated with Reference Symbol Received Power (RSRP) (¶ [0070], (¶ [0073] transfer the call from VoWiFi to LTE if there is guaranteed minimum quality which can be defined by the RSRP value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim into Kye in view of Zetterlund to improve handover performance for a user moving through networks (¶ [0011]).
In regards to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Kye et all (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0267618 A1, hereinafter “Kye”) in view of Zetterlund et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0136633 A1, hereinafter “Zetterlund”) in further view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub 2023/0344964 A1, hereinafter “Lui”). In regards to claim 8, the combination Kye and Zetterlund does not teach further comprising if the another RAT is Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), proceeding with circuit switched calling.
In analogous art, Lui teaches further comprising if the another RAT is Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), proceeding with circuit switched calling. (¶ [0038], use circuit switched domain when using GSM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lui into Kye in view of Zetterlund to provide another way for a call to continue when IP based calls fail, improving the user experience (¶ [0025]).
Claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over Kye et all (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0267618 A1, hereinafter “Kye”) in view of Zetterlund et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0136633 A1, hereinafter “Zetterlund”) in further view of Kumar et al. (Int. Pub. WO 2024/189630 A1, hereinafter “Kumar”).
In regards to claim 10, the combination Kye and Zetterlund does not teach wherein the first threshold is associated with RTP (Real-Time Protocol) loss rate.
In analogous art, Kumar teaches wherein the first threshold is associated with RTP (Real-Time Protocol) loss rate. (¶ [0059], ¶ [0060], if RTP packet loss is too high, switch from VoWifi to another RAT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kumar into Kye in view of Zetterlund to prevent call drops during a handover procedure, improving user experience (¶ [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2008/0032695 A1) teaches a method of maintaining a session using different handover functions, to ensure session continuity.
Tsai et al. (US Patent No. 11,477,701 B2) teaches a method of a UE establishing connection with multiple radio bearers, and then a gateway with a non-3GPP gateway to facilitate a handover.
THIS ACTION IS 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 board 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
extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY APOSTOLIDES whose telephone number is (571)272-4260. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Un Cho can be reached on 571-272-9719. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413