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 .
Applicant’s Response
The recent amendment overcomes the prior art rejection of claims 1-13, which are allowed. Claims 14-17 and 19-20 remain rejected under prior art. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendment, which differs from the scope of previous claim 18. See below. The amendment of claims 14 and 19 also raise issues under §§ 112(a) and 112(b).
The assertion of official notice that was given in the previous rejections of claims 2, 4, and 15 was not traversed, rendering the asserted subject matter admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 has been amended to recite “identifying a trigger for the inter-RAT handovers as related to a device model, wherein the trigger is identified from one of unavailability of a service, signal conditions, and a wireless device model as related to a device model.” This recites a combination of features that is not taught in the written description.
Initially, claim 14 is indefinite. See §112(b) rejection below. In addition to this issue, claim 14 requires that the trigger for the inter-RAT handovers is identified to be “related to a device model,” but also is identified from one of “unavailability of a service, signal conditions, and … device model.” The scope of this language includes that the trigger is identified as related to device model and one of unavailability of a service and signal conditions. This combination of features is not taught in the specification.
Due to its dependence on amended claim 19, claim 20 is of similar scope as claim 14.
Claims 15 and 16 recite that the trigger is identified as unavailability of service and signal conditions, respectively. Because these claims depend from claim 14, which requires the trigger to be identified as related to device model, claims 15 and 16 also recite an unsupported combination of embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 has been amended to recite “identifying a trigger for the inter-RAT handovers as related to a device model, wherein the trigger is identified from one of unavailability of a service, signal conditions, and a wireless device model as related to a device model.” This is inconsistent and therefore indefinite. The claim positively recites that the trigger is identified as being related to device model, but goes on to recite that the trigger is identified from one of “unavailability of a service, signal conditions, and a wireless device model as related to a device model.” Because the claim previously recited that the trigger is identified as related to device model, it is not clear if it may also be identified from unavailability of a service or signal conditions. This language in the claim is therefore indefinite.
In addition, the second instance of “a device model” does not refer to “the” device model, thus it is not clear if this is meant to refer to the “device model” that was introduced previously in the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 recite that the trigger is identified as relating to unavailability of service and signal conditions, respectively. Because these claims depend from claim 14, they are indefinite for reasons that are similar to the description given above.
Due to its dependence on amended claim 19, claim 20 is of similar scope as claim 14 and is rejected for reasons given above.
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.
Claims 14, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza in view of Kordybach, US 20150030363.
Claim 14: Centonza discloses a system comprising a memory storing data and instructions; a processor accessing the stored data and instructions (Centonza ¶44) and performing operations comprising:
determining that a wireless device has experienced a threshold number of inter-radio access technology (RAT) handovers in a predetermined time period (Repeated (or “ping pong”) IRAT handover is detected based on historical handover request information. Abstract, ¶¶ 3 and 49. The POSITA would understand this as a disclosure that a threshold number of IRAT transitions occur in a threshold period of time. See e.g. ¶¶22-23 and 58-61 and the discussion of the ping pong timer);
identifying a trigger for the inter-RAT handovers (The reason, or trigger, for the repeated IRAT handover is determined. ¶68.); wherein the trigger is identified from one of unavailability of a service, signal conditions, and a wireless device model; (A coverage issue is identified as the cause of the IRAT ping pong handovers. ¶¶ 61-67. This occurs when the second cell is unavailable. Id. When this occurs, the mobility parameters are adjusted such that the covered RAT is assigned as the selected RAT) and
assigning the wireless device to a selected RAT based on the identified trigger (Parameters of the target cell are adjusted to prevent future ping pong handovers. ¶67. This adjustment is made based on the determined cause of the ping pong handovers. ¶68. Adjusting mobility parameters will cause the UE to no longer request the ping pong handovers, which therefore assigns the UE to remain on a selected RAT based on the identified cause).
Centonza fails to disclose that the trigger is identified as related to a device model.
But Kordybach discloses identifying a failed handover trigger as relating to a device model (The reason for a handover failure is determined to be UE device type. Abstract, ¶¶ 58-61, 73-74 and 83.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza with Kordybach, the reason being to enable correction of failed handover events.
Claim 15 Centonza does not disclose monitoring a location of the wireless device within a network and determining the wireless device is stationary. However, official notice is taken that it was well known and widely practiced in this field before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the location of user equipment to determine whether it was mobile or stationary. Therefore it would have been obvious to the POSITA to modify Centonza to include this functionality, the rationale being to enable improved coverage under various scenarios. It is noted that the claims do not recite that any steps are performed in response to the determination that the device is stationary.
As to claims 19 and 20 see rejection of claim 14.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza, Kordybach, and Aminov, GB 2421148.
As to claim 16 the Centonza- Kordybach-Aminov combination, described in the previous Office action, discloses monitoring a location of the wireless device within a network and determining the wireless device is stationary (see rejection of claim 15 above), identifying the trigger as related to the signal conditions (Centonza ¶¶ 61-67) and identifying a target RAT as the selected RAT when the signal conditions of the target RAT are better than the signal conditions of a source RAT and identifying the source RAT as the selected RAT with the signal conditions of the source RAT are better than the signal conditions of the target RAT (When determining whether to switch to a new cell, the RSSI (i.e. signal conditions) of two cells are compared. Aminov Abstract).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza- Kordybach-Aminov in view of Agrawal, US 20250056368 (with support for the relied-upon passages in its provisional application 63/531784).
As to claim 17 Centonza- Kordybach-Aminov fails to disclose comparing a bandwidth of the source RAT to a bandwidth of the target RAT when the signal conditions within the source and target RATs are within a predetermined threshold difference and identifying the RAT having a larger bandwidth as the selected RAT.
However, Agrawal discloses comparing a bandwidth of the source cell to a bandwidth of the target cell when the signal conditions within the source and target cells are within a predetermined threshold difference and identifying the cell having a larger bandwidth as the selected cell (Signal conditions such as RSRP are monitored for multiple cells. ¶17. When multiple cells meet a criteria (i.e. when their signal conditions are within a threshold difference), cell selection is performed based on a weighted criteria that involves comparing bandwidth of the cells such that the cell with greater bandwidth is selected. ¶¶ 17, 29-30, and 35.).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Centonza-Kordybach with the teachings in Agrawal, the rationale being to ensure that the optimal RAT is selected. See Agrawal ¶5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art is the various combinations of Centonza, Aminov, and Agrawal that were described in the previous Office action. The prior art fails to teach or suggest that when a threshold number of IRAT handovers has occurred in a predefined time period, “assigning the wireless device to a selected RAT based on the identified trigger, wherein the assigning comprises extending an idle mode priorities duration” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992