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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement set forth in the prior Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments (filed 02/11/2026), as all of the pending claims are now directed to a single general inventive concept. Accordingly, examination will proceed on all pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (or pre-AIA §112, second paragraph) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claims 12 and 22 recites, in relevant part, “searching, in response to identifying an abnormal signaling flow, for an available cell that does not belong to a tracking area, wherein the first cell belongs to the tracking area.” However, in LTE and 5G network architectures, every cell necessarily belongs to a tracking area by definition. The scope of the limitation “an available cell that does not belong to a tracking area” is unclear, as it is not possible for a cell to exist outside all tracking areas within the context of the claimed system. It is therefore unclear what is being searched for, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty.
It appears from the specification and context that the applicant may have intended to claim “an available cell that does not belong to the same tracking area as the first cell,” i.e., a cell in a different tracking area. However, as written, the claim does not convey this meaning and is, therefore, indefinite.
Dependent claims 13–21 and 23–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons set forth with respect to base independent claims 12 and 22. These dependent claims incorporate by reference the limitations of claims 12 and 22, and therefore inherit the indefiniteness issues described above.
Examiner Note: For purposes of applying prior art, the claim limitation will be treated as meaning that the electronic device is searching for an available cell that is not in the tracking area the first cell (of the LTE network) belongs to.
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.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al., U.S. Publication Number 2024/0205754 A1 (hereinafter Kumar) and further in view Lee et al., U.S. Publication Number 2021/0127310 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar teaches a call processing method (see fig. 4), used in an electronic device, wherein the electronic device (UE 404, see fig. 4) that is called or initiates a call camps on a first cell of an LTE network after being redirected form a 5G network to the LTE network (432, re-direction command, from 5G to LTE, see fig. 4, [0024], [0063], [0070]), and the method comprises:
after tracking area update fails 450, see fig. 4, [0073]), searching, in response to identifying an abnormal signaling flow (poor conditions, unable to perform RACH procedure, RLF, see [0063], [0074]), for an available cell [[that does not belong to a tracking area]] (464, cell reselection to a different cell, see fig. 4, [0027], [0078]-[0080]), wherein the first cell belongs to the tracking area (third base station 408 in a third cell, see fig. 4, [0078]); and
initiating the tracking area update in the available cell to attempt to establish a call (472, see fig. 4, [0080]).
Kumar does not specifically teach an available cell that does not belong to a tracking area, wherein the first cell belongs to the tracking area (i.e., that the first cell belongs to a tracking area that the available cell does not belong to).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in response to a TAU failure at a first cell (TAU failure, see [0054], [0057]), a UE (electronic device 101, see fig. 1, [0053]) initiates a tracking update to an available cell that does not belong to the tracking area that a first cell belongs to (reselection to a second cell, wherein the second cell has a TAI that is in the TAI list stored in the memory of the electronic device, see steps 201-213, fig. 2, [0055], [0057], [0059], [0074]-[0078]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee with Kumar by reselecting to a second cell due to TAU failure in a first cell, wherein the first and second cells are in different tracking areas (TAIs), as taught by Lee, for the benefit of enabling a UE to quickly reselect and camp of neighboring cell with strong/adequate signal quality.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kumar and Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 12. The combination further teaches the method, wherein the identifying an abnormal signaling flow comprises: identifying multiple times retransmissions of the same signaling; or identifying that signaling fails to be sent (i.e., reads on the teaching that “for example, the UE may experience radio link failure (RLF) or the TAC procedure may fail due to poor signal conditions) (see Kumar paragraphs [0063 & 0073]).
Regarding claim 22, Kumar teaches an electronic device (UE 404), comprising:
a memory and at least one processor, wherein the memory is configured to store an application program (UE 404 may be implemented by the UE 350 of Fig. 3, which depicts controller/processor 375 can be associated with a memory 376 that stores program codes and data) (see fig. 3 and paragraph [0060]), and the at least one processor is configured to execute the application program to implement the call processing method (see fig. 4), wherein the electronic device (UE 404, see fig. 4) that is called or initiates a call camps on a first cell of an LTE network after being redirected form a 5G network to the LTE network (432, re-direction command, from 5G to LTE, see fig. 4, [0024], [0063], [0070]), and the method comprises:
after tracking area update fails 450, see fig. 4, [0073]), searching, in response to identifying an abnormal signaling flow (poor conditions, unable to perform RACH procedure, RLF, see [0063], [0074]), for an available cell [[that does not belong to a tracking area]] (464, cell reselection to a different cell, see fig. 4, [0027], [0078]-[0080]), wherein the first cell belongs to the tracking area (third base station 408 in a third cell, see fig. 4, [0078]); and
initiating the tracking area update in the available cell to attempt to establish a call (472, see fig. 4, [0080]).
Kumar does not specifically teach an available cell that does not belong to a tracking area, wherein the first cell belongs to the tracking area (i.e., that the first cell belongs to a tracking area that the available cell does not belong to).
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in response to a TAU failure at a first cell (TAU failure, see [0054], [0057]), a UE (electronic device 101, see fig. 1, [0053]) initiates a tracking update to an available cell that does not belong to the tracking area that a first cell belongs to (reselection to a second cell, wherein the second cell has a TAI that is in the TAI list stored in the memory of the electronic device, see steps 201-213, fig. 2, [0055], [0057], [0059], [0074]-[0078]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee with Kumar by reselecting to a second cell due to TAU failure in a first cell, wherein the first and second cells are in different tracking areas (TAIs), as taught by Lee, for the benefit of enabling a UE to quickly reselect and camp of neighboring cell with strong/adequate signal quality.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kumar and Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 22. The combination further teaches the electronic device, wherein the identifying an abnormal signaling flow comprises: identifying multiple times retransmissions of the same signaling; or identifying that signaling fails to be sent (i.e., reads on the teaching that “for example, the UE may experience radio link failure (RLF) or the TAC procedure may fail due to poor signal conditions) (see Kumar paragraphs [0063 & 0073]).
Claims 14, 18, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al., U.S. Publication Number 2024/0205754 A1 (hereinafter Kumar) and in view Lee et al., U.S. Publication Number 2021/0127310 A1 (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 12 and 22 above and further in view of Bodapati et al., WO 2021/135819 A1 (hereinafter Bodapati).
Regarding claims 14 and 24, the combination of Kumar and Lee teaches all the limitations of claims 12 and 22 above. The combination fails to teach wherein before the searching, in response to identifying an abnormal signaling flow, for an available cell that does not belong to a tracking area, the method further comprises: adding a tracking area code to a forbidden list.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Bodapati teaches a user equipment operating in 5G RAT, wherein the UE shall store the current TAI in the list of “5GS forbidden tracking areas for roaming” and shall search for a suitable cell in another tracking area (see page 2, section 5.5.1.2.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Kumar and Lee with the procedures of Bodapati to include the feature of adding a tracking area code to a forbidden list, in order to prevent the user equipment from repeatedly attempting to register in a tracking area that has already been determined to be unsuitable or unavailable, thereby increasing the efficiency of cell reselection and reducing unnecessary signaling and registration failures. In addition, maintaining a forbidden list as taught by Bodapati above ensures that the device does not waste resources on previously failed tracking areas, aligns with standardized roaming and registration procedures, and improves overall connectivity and user experience.
Regarding claims 18 and 28, the combination of Kumar and Lee teaches all the limitations of claims 12 and 22 above. The combination fails to teach adding the first cell to a blacklist in response to the tracking area update fails.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Bodapati teaches that, when the registration attempt counter reaches a threshold or all available cells in the first tracking area have sent a reject response (which corresponds to a tracking area update failure as claimed), the user equipment may be configured to add the first tracking area to a forbidden list and subsequently initiate registration on an available cell in a second tracking area (see Bodapati, page 9, lines 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Kumar and Lee with the procedures of Bodapati to include the feature of adding the first cell (or its associated tracking area) to a blacklist (forbidden list) in response to a tracking area update failure, in order to prevent repeated and futile registration attempts in the same tracking area, reduce unnecessary signaling and network congestion, and improve the efficiency and reliability of the registration and cell reselection process. Bodapati provides motivation as taught above for this approach by explaining that maintaining a forbidden list allows the user equipment to avoid tracking areas that have already been determined to be unsuitable, thereby streamlining future registration attempts and enhancing overall network performance and user experience.
Claims 15, 16, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al., U.S. Publication Number 2024/0205754 A1 (hereinafter Kumar) and in view Lee et al., U.S. Publication Number 2021/0127310 A1 (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 12 and 22 above and further in view of Xie et al., U.S. Publication Number 2023/0224992 A1 (hereinafter Xie).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, the combination of Kumar and Lee teaches all the limitations of claims 12 and 22 above. The combination fails to teach wherein triggering reregistration on the 5G network in response to failing to find the available cell; and clearing a forbidden list after the reregistration.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Xie teaches an inter-system ping-pong suppression method, wherein when the terminal device reconnects to the network, the network parameters can be reconfigured, which may not produce the inter-system ping-pong state. Therefore, in one possible implementation, the target cell identifier is removed from the forbidden list when the terminal device reconnects to the network (see paragraph [0092] and fig. 4; step 409).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Kumar and Lee with the procedures of Xie to include the feature of triggering reregistration on the 5G network in response to failing to find the available cell and clearing a forbidden list after the reregistration, in order to ensure that previously restricted cells are not permanently excluded from selection after network conditions have changed. This would reduce the likelihood of unnecessary service interruptions or persistent access failures caused by outdated forbidden lists. Xie (paragraph [0092]) expressly teaches that, upon network reconnection or re-registration, network parameters may be reconfigured such that prior issues (e.g., inter-system ping-pong) may no longer exist, and thus it is beneficial to remove target cell identifiers from the forbidden list at that time.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kumar, Lee and Xie teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above. The combination further teaches the method, wherein before the triggering reregistration on the 5G network, the method further comprises: initiating the tracking area update in a cell belonging to the tracking area to attempt to establish the call (i.e., reads on the teaching of Kumar that “UE 404 re-initiates the performing of the TAU procedure (e.g., at 472) … hence UE 404 may successfully complete the voice over call (e.g., avoid experiencing a call failure”) (see Kumar, fig. 4 and paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kumar, Lee and Xie teaches all the limitations of claim 25 above. The combination further teaches the electronic device, wherein before the triggering reregistration on the 5G network, the method further comprises: initiating the tracking area update in a cell belonging to the tracking area to attempt to establish the call (i.e., reads on the teaching of Kumar that “UE 404 re-initiates the performing of the TAU procedure (e.g., at 472) … hence UE 404 may successfully complete the voice over call (e.g., avoid experiencing a call failure”) (see Kumar, fig. 4 and paragraph [0080]).
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al., U.S. Publication Number 2024/0205754 A1 (hereinafter Kumar) and in view Lee et al., U.S. Publication Number 2021/0127310 A1 (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 12 and 22 above and further in view of Wang, CN 107040967 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claims 17 and 27, the combination of Kumar and Lee teaches all the limitations of claims 12 and 22 above. The combination fails to teach wherein after the initiating the tracking area update in the available cell, the method further comprises: recording the available cell as a preferred cell in response to the call being successfully established.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Wang teaches a circuit-switched (CS) fallback exception handling method, wherein if a call is successful, the system records or adds the successfully targeted cell to a frequency point database. This enables subsequent prioritization of that cell during future registration attempts, thereby enhancing the call connection rate (see Wang, page 6, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Kumar and Lee with the procedures of Wang to include the feature of recording the available cell as a preferred cell in response to a successful call establishment. The motivation for this modification is to improve future cell selection and registration efficiency by enabling the user equipment to prioritize cells with a history of successful connections, thus increasing the likelihood of successful call setup, reducing registration failures, and enhancing overall network performance and user experience as taught by Wang (see page 6, lines 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, claims 19-21 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, provided that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 are overcome or otherwise resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645