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 Argument
This action is in response to the communication filed on 12/30/2025.
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art rejection have been considered, however they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as below:
“Tayeb generally describes "a method performed in a network node of a cellular radio communications system to hand a user equipment (UE) connected to the network node over to be connected to another network node of the cellular radio communications system." Tayeb at 1 54. For example, Tayeb teaches handover decisions based on measurement reports, where "an indication of the speed of movement of a UE in a radio communications system is received at a network node of the radio communications system." Id. at 1 51. However, Tayeb does not teach or suggest determining a vector parameter indicative of a directional movement of the user device toward the second network as claimed”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because it’s obvious to one an ordinary skilled in the art and very well-known concept in physics that velocity is different than speed. Speed is a scalar quantity, measuring only the magnitude (rate) of motion (distance/time) without direction. However, velocity is a vector quantity, defining both magnitude (speed) and direction of motion (displacement/time).
Tayeb clearly discloses “In order to allow the eNB serving the third cell to receive UE velocity information, the RRC Connection Re-Establishment message provides an IE named RLF-InfoAvailable IE, which indicates availability of an RLF report from the UE. This report may also contain UE velocity information. The eNB serving the cell in which the UE attempts re-establishment may make use of this velocity information to determine whether to consider the UE as a candidate for MLB procedures” (para 0143; 0145).
Tayeb also discloses “the velocity information is correlated with the UE candidates for MLB. This allows all or some of the candidate UEs to be identified as high or low mobility. The UEs may be grouped into two or more different classes based on mobility and on other factors. At 909, the groupings or identifications may be used to determine whether to exclude some of the UEs from the load balancing operations. As mentioned above, high mobility UEs often move quickly out of a cell. Therefore, if a high mobility UE is moved to another cell through handover, it may very soon require another handover in the same or a different direction. On the other hand if a high mobility UE is not moved, it may very soon request a handover, or be handed over nevertheless as it move to another cell” (para 0146).
In addition to the above, Teyeb is not his own lexicographer. Teyeb did not define anywhere in the reference that velocity is a scalar quantity and does not include “direction”.
Applicant further argues “In the present case, the Office Action asserts it would have been obvious to "modify Tayeb's method/system by having Wang's disclosure in order to provide seamless service during handover [ Office Action, (p. 3). Applicant respectfully submits the rationale for the combination is not properly supported, because Tayeb already teaches a comprehensive system for location-aware handover decisions and Tayeb's system already incorporates location-related information in the context of handover decisions”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Wang discloses receiving (page 33; para 01 – UE receives policy information), based on a geolocation of the user device, a network policy (page 12; para 01; page 14; last para and page 25; para 02); determining, based on the network policy, traffic flow of the first network and traffic flow of the second network (para 24; para 01; page 31; para 01; page 38; last para; page 39’ para 02; page 40; para 02; page 41; para 01; traffic flow for home network and visited network). It’s obvious to one of an ordinary skilled in the art that network flow management is important to maintain the continuity of the service to provide seamless service wherein the flow management is based on network policy as disclosed by Wang. Infact Wang’s disclosure helps to further improve Teyeb’s mobility management process by controlling the network traffic flow.
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
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.
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 20claimed 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 1-3, 8-9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayeb et al. (US 2014/0148174, hereinafter Teyeb) in view of Wang (CN 105934956, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Teyeb discloses a method comprising: determining a vector parameter indicative of a directional movement of a user device toward a second network (para 0054; 0082; 0141; 0143; receiving UE velocity information moving towards target network where in velocity has speed and direction component and therefore is a vector); and sending, by the user device, based on the vector parameter (para 0082) and based on a traffic flow of the second network (para 0063; and 0162; based on load distribution of the second network), a request to connect to the second network (para 0024; 0056-0058; 0115 – a handover request by UE).
Teyeb does not explicitly disclose receiving by a user device, a network policy associated with a geolocation of the user device; determining, based on the network policy, traffic flow of a first network and traffic flow of the second network.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses receiving by a user device (page 33; para 01 – UE receives policy information), a network policy associated with a geolocation of the user device (page 12; para 01; page 14; last para and page 25; para 02); determining, based on the network policy, traffic flow of a first network and traffic flow of the second network (para 24; para 01; page 31; para 01; page 38; last para; page 39’ para 02; page 40; para 02; page 41; para 01; traffic flow for home network and visited network).It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb’s method/system by having Wang ’s disclosure in order to provide seamless service during handover.
Regarding claim 8, Teyeb discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a user device, a first packet via first network (para 0013; data transmitted before handover); determining a vector parameter indicative of a directional movement of a user device toward a second network (para 0054; 0082; 0141; 0143; receiving UE velocity information moving towards target network where in velocity has speed and direction component and therefore is a vector); and sending, by the user device, based on the vector parameter (para 0082) and based on a traffic flow of the second network (para 0063; and 0162; based on load distribution of the second network), a second packet via the second network (para 0013 -0014; data sent after handover).
Teyeb does not explicitly disclose receiving, based on a geolocation of the user device, a network policy; determining, based on the network policy, traffic flow of the first network and traffic flow of the second network.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses receiving (page 33; para 01 – UE receives policy information), based on a geolocation of the user device, a network policy (page 12; para 01; page 14; last para and page 25; para 02); determining, based on the network policy, traffic flow of the first network and traffic flow of the second network (para 24; para 01; page 31; para 01; page 38; last para; page 39’ para 02; page 40; para 02; page 41; para 01; traffic flow for home network and visited network).It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb’s method/system by having Wang ’s disclosure in order to provide seamless service during handover.
Regarding claim 15, Teyeb discloses a method comprising:
a steering mode indicative of access to at least one of a first network or a second network (para 0011; and 0081); determining a vector parameter indicative of a directional movement of a user device (para 0054; 0082; 0141; 0143; receiving UE velocity information moving towards target network where in velocity has speed and direction component and therefore is a vector); and sending, based on the steering mode and the vector parameter data using at least one of the first network or the second network (para 0060; 0082; 0146)
Teyeb does not explicitly disclose receiving by a user device, a network policy associated with a geolocation of the user device; and wherein the network policy comprises of the steering mode.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses receiving by a user device (page 33; para 01 – UE receives policy information), a network policy associated with a geolocation of the user device (page 12; para 01; page 14; last para and page 25; para 02); and wherein the network policy comprises of the steering mode (page 23; last para and para 24; para 01; data transmission in home network and visited network).It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb’s method/system by having Wang ’s disclosure in order to provide seamless service during handover.
Regarding claims 2, and 16, Teyeb does not explicitly disclose that wherein the first network is a 3GPP network and the second network is a non-3GPP network.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses wherein the first network is a 3GPP network (page 39; para 02) and the second network is a non-3GPP network (page 28; para 03). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb’s method/system by having Wang ’s disclosure in order to provide seamless service during handover.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 17, Teyeb discloses wherein the vector parameter comprises a speed associated with the user device and a direction of the user device (para0143; velocity).
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayeb/Wang in view of Xu (EP 4138443, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 4, 10, and 18, Tayeb/Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the network policy comprises a steering mode and wherein the steering mode comprises an active-standby mode, a smallest delay mode, a load- balancing mode, a priority-based mode, and a redundant mode.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the network policy comprises a steering mode and wherein the steering mode comprises an active-standby mode, a smallest delay mode, a load- balancing mode, a priority-based mode (page 28; para 01-03), and a redundant mode (page 53; para 01). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb/Wang’s method/system by having Xu’s disclosure in order to improve the reliability of the communion system.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Tayeb/Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the traffic flow of the first network and the traffic flow of the second network are indicated in the steering mode of the network policy.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the traffic flow of the first network and the traffic flow of the second network are indicated in the steering mode of the network policy. (page 28; para 01-03). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb/Wang’s method/system by having Xu’s disclosure in order to improve the reliability of the communion system.
Claims 6-7, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayeb/Wang in view of Bellamkonda et al (US 2016/0029279, hereinafter Bella).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 19, and Tayeb/Wang does not expclitly disclose wherein the network policy further comprises an identifier indicative of boundary associated with the user device, and wherein the boundary is an area associated with the device.
In an analogous art, Bella discloses wherein the network policy further comprises an identifier indicative of boundary associated with the user device, and wherein the boundary is an area associated with the device (para 0025). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb/Wang’s method/system by having Bella’s disclosure in order to improve the reliability of the communion system.
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, Tayeb/Wang does not expclitly disclose wherein the vector parameter indicative of the directional movement of the user device toward the second network is further determined based on the geolocation of the user device and the identifier indicative of the boundary associate with the user device.
In an analogous art, Bella discloses wherein the vector parameter indicative of the directional movement of the user device toward the second network is further determined based on the geolocation of the user device and the identifier indicative of the boundary associate with the user device (para 0025; and 0029). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb/Wang’s method/system by having Bella’s disclosure in order to improve the reliability of the communion system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayeb/Wang in view of Nammi et al. (US 2013/0157710, hereinafter Nammi).
Regarding claim 14, Teyeb/Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first packet and the second packet are part of the same data stream.
In an analogous art, Nammi discloses wherein the first packet and the second packet are part of the same data stream (para 0045 and 0059). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb/Wang’s method/system by having Nammi’s disclosure in order to provide seamless service during handover.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's arguments regarding prior art rejection have been considered, however they are not persuasive. 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).Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMINA CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-7102. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday (7:30 a.m. to 5.00p.m.).If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system,
see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system,
contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMINA F CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462