DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application claims foreign priority to an Indian application, filed on 23 Dec 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 31 Jul 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the concepts of (1) A/Gb, Iu, or N1 modes and (2) performing an attach procedure in place of a TAU procedure. Instead, Bakker is cited for teaching these claim concepts.
Second, the Reply finds “Kim’s third network is WiFi, not a 3GPP RAT network.” Reply, 10. As a result, the Reply contends “Kim cannot teach or suggest the claimed limitation that an initial attach is performed instead of TAU or MRU” because WiFi does not use TAU or MRU resources. Id. at 11. The Reply is correct that in one example embodiment, the third wireless communication may be Wi-Fi in Kim. Kim, ¶90. However, the third wireless communication [i.e. third network] appears to be any network that can provide connectivity to the electronic device 101 of Kim. Non-final Act., 7 (citing Kim, ¶107). In particular, an enhanced packet data gateway (ePDG) may provide connectivity to the electronic device when the electronic device is using the third wireless communication. Kim, ¶106. An ePDG is a 4G/5G network node, not only a WiFi node. As a result, the Examiner disputes the Reply’s assertion that Kim’s third network is limited to only WiFi and therefore cannot perform an attach procedure instead of TAU or MRU procedure.
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 1, 2, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being rendered obvious by Kim (US 20230055451) in view of Bakker (US 20210136634).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Kim teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Kim, figure 5 – elements of electronic device 101), the processor being configured to perform the method comprising:
perform first inter-system change from a first radio access technology (RAT) network to a second RAT network (Kim, ¶¶126-127, 178 – in figure 12, the processor 102/500 of user electronic device 101 attempts an IRAT handover from first network to second network [e.g. networks 812 and 814, respectively]);
initiate, in the second RAT network, a general packet radio service (GPRS) attach procedure while the UE operates in an A/Gb mode or an Iu mode, or an initial registration procedure . . . (Kim, ¶178 – user electronic device 101 performs registration procedure with the second network 814); and
perform second inter-system change from the second RAT network to a third RAT network (Kim, ¶¶127, 178, 181 – IRAT handover fails during EPS fallback; Kim, ¶182 and figure 12 – in step 1239, handover to third network) by: performing an initial attach procedure in the third RAT network (Kim, ¶163 and figure 6 - in steps 607 and 609, electronic device 101 executes a call connection using the third network 816); Kim, ¶183 (in steps 1239 and 1241, electronic device 101 attaches to the third network and re-registers with IMS server over third network 816 [i.e. performs an attach process with network 816]),
wherein the initial attach procedure is performed instead of a tracking area update (TAU) procedure or mobility registration update (MRU) procedure (Examiner’s interpretation – nowhere in Kim is there a discussion of TAU or MRU procedure related to the third network [i.e. even the third network is a WiFi network, this negative limitation is taught and see citations to Bakker below in the alternative]).
Kim does not explicitly teach (1) registering “while the UE operates in an N1 mode.” However, Bakker teaches a UE handover from a 5G network to a 3G circuit-switching network. Bakker, ¶48 (5G SRVCC). Regarding (1), the UE utilizes an N1 interface when registering. Id., figures 1 (“N1” between UE 102 and 5GS 104); id. at ¶¶103, 108 (UE registers with first access network [e.g. NG-RAN] in N1 mode). Additionally, Bakker teaches a UE registering with a 4G network using either an attach procedure or a TAU procedure when executing the inter-system change. Id. at ¶53 (i.e. attach procedure is executed “instead of” TAU procedure). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable a fallback handover from 5G to 3G, as taught by Bakker, when executing an EPS fallback, as taught by Kim, in order to support emergency calls via a circuit-switched domain. Id. at ¶¶95-96.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim and Bakker also teaches wherein the UE is in a registered state or an attached state in the first RAT network prior to performing the first inter-system change. Kim, figure 12 (step 1221).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim and Bakker teaches the method of claim 1, a third network (Kim, figure 8 – element 816), and an 4G network (Kim, ¶4), but does not explicitly teach “wherein the third RAT network is a fourth generation (4G) network.” However, the third network appears to be any communication network that can provide connectivity to the electronic device. Kim, ¶107. Additionally, Bakker teaches all three 3GPP network types: 5G, 4G, and 3G. Bakker, figure 1 (elements 104, 106, and 108). As a result, it would be a matter of design choice to have the third network be a 4G network in the combination of Kim and Bakker. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the third network, taught by Kim and Bakker, to be an LTE network, taught by the combination of Kim and Bakker, in order to provide connectivity to the electronic device via a 3GPP standard compliant network. Kim, ¶80.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230055451) in view of Bakker (of record), and further in view of Atri (US 20180152865).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the combination of Kim and Bakker teaches the method of claim 2 and apparatus of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the UE is switched from the registered state or the attached state to a de-registered state or a detached state in the first RAT network in performing the first inter-system change.” However, Atri teaches an inter-RAT handover either to or from 5G. Atri, ¶33. In operation, the UE is initially attached to one eNode B of a multi-RAT network node and must detach from the eNB during handover to a different node B. Atri, ¶34. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to detach from the initial RAT, as taught by Atri, when attempting the handover to a second RAT, as taught by the combination of Kim and Bakker, in order to ensure the UE is in an active state at only one base station. Ibid.; see also id. at ¶39 (provides an accurate account of the number of active users on each RAT for load determination).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (of record) in view of Bakker (of record) and further in view of Wafta (US 20120182912).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Kim and Bakker teaches the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach “prior to performing the initial attach procedure in the third RAT network, performing a detach procedure or a de-registration procedure in the third RAT network.” However, Wafta teaches a UE switching from a local internet protocol access (LIPA) connection to a non-LIPA connection at the same cell. Wafta, ¶165. In one embodiment, when performing this switching operation, the UE detaches from the LIPA connection before attaching to the non-LIPA connection. Wafta, ¶186. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to detach and then re-attach, as taught by Wafta, to the third RAT network, taught by the combination of Kim and Bakker, in order to discontinue the LIPA connection when the UE has data traffic with a destination that is reached by traversing the core network. Wafta, ¶¶87, 171; see also id. at ¶129 (for the inverse instance, where the LIPA connection is maintained, even when fallback is performed).
Claims 5-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bakker and Wafta (both of record) and further in view of Ali (US 20230292197).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the combination of Kim, Bakker, and Wafta teaches the method of claim 4 and the apparatus of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the first inter-system change is expected to fail when the first RAT network and the second RAT network do not support interworking, and the first inter-system change is expected to succeed when the first RAT network and the second RAT network support interworking.” However, Ali teaches interworking between 5G and 4G, which provides seamless session continuity when a UE moves from one system to the other. Ali, ¶24. Ali also describes a failure when the UE further moves from 5G/4G to 3G. Ali, ¶44. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to assume failure when transitioning to 3G, as taught by Ali, when changing from one RAT to another, as taught by the combination of Kim, Bakker, and Wafta, in order to comply with the 3GPP specification, which does not support IP address preservation when handing over from 5G/4G to 3G and incorrect QoS handling. Ibid.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the combination of Kim, Bakker, Wafta, and Ali also teaches performing a mobility registration update (MRU) procedure or a tracking area update (TAU) procedure in the second RAT network. Kim, ¶103 (electronic device 101 attempts a TAU procedure towards the second network 814, which when fails, indicates a handover failure from the first network to the second network).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the combination of Kim, Bakker, Wafta, and Ali also teaches wherein the first RAT and the second RAT does not support interworking. initiating a first initial registration procedure or a first initial attach procedure in the second RAT network. Kim, ¶178 and figure 12 (no indication of any of the networks 812-816 signaling between each other, such that the signaling could constitutes interworking).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Bakker, Wafta, and Ali also teaches wherein the initial registration procedure fails in response to . . . the UE not receiving a response from the second RAT network. Kim, figure 12 and ¶162 (registration to second network fails without a message being received by the UE from the second network 814).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (of record) in view of Bakker (of record), and further in view of Truong Van (US 20240064578).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim and Bakker teaches the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the first RAT network is a fifth generation (5G) network, and the second RAT network is a second generation (2G) network or a third generation (3G) network.” However, Truong Van teaches a handover process from a 5G network to a 3G network. Truong Van, ¶108. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the failover mechanism, taught by the combination of Kim and Bakker, when executing the 5G to 3G handover, taught by Truong Van, in order to enable the network to handover when it is unable to provide the requested service. Truong Van, ¶¶65, 109.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20240388985) in view of Bakker (of record).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches method of performing a radio access technology (RAT) network change by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
performing first inter-system change from a first RAT network to a second RAT network (Wang, ¶78 and figure 1 – “first cell change” from cell 132 to cell 112; Wang, ¶87 – cell 112 may be a 5G network, when cell 132 is a 4G network; see also id., ¶76 for multiple different RATs for each cell); and
performing second inter-system change from the second RAT network to a third RAT network . . . wherein the third RAT network is a fourth generation (4G) network. Wang, ¶78 and figure 1 (“second cell change” from cell 112 to cell 122; Wang, ¶¶98, 128 - where cell 112 is a 5G network [second RAT] and cell 122 is a 4G network [first RAT]).
Wang does not explicitly teach a cell change “by performing a general packet radio service (GPRS) attach procedure while the UE operates in an A/Gb mode or an Iu mode, or an initial registration procedure while the UE operates in an N1 mode by: performing an initial attach procedure in the third RAT network.” However, Bakker teaches a UE with an N1 interface with a 5G core network. Bakker, figure 1 and ¶74. Bakker also teaches the UE registering an inter-system change from 5G to 4G via an attach procedure. Id. at ¶53 (EPC attach procedure). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the attach procedure, taught by Bakker, when executing the second cell change from 5G to 4G, taught by Wang, in order to use a handover procedure that is supported by the UE. Bakker, ¶¶129, 168.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, includes figure 6 of Sawanathan, paragraph 62 of Marway, paragraph 93 of Zhao, and figure 3 of Olfsson.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03, which allows for written authorization via the USPTO electronic filing system or mail, but not via email). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights