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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Steering Data Traffic to LTE-5G Dual Connectivity Utilizing Xn Interface.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “sending a request to a second network node, which request requests to setup” which Examiner believes either the term “request” or “requests” is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 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.
Claims 2, 10 recite the limitation “the available bandwidth in the respective first cell, second cell, and third cell” which makes the claim indefinite. Claims 2, 10 claim dependency from claims 1, 9 respectively which recite “determining whether or not to handover the UE …to the second cell…” hence it’s unclear if bandwidth with respect to second cell and third cell is a combined/total bandwidth in both cells or available bandwidth in each respective cell. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 2, 10 recite the limitation "the available bandwidth" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 9 recite the limitation "the communication " in second to last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “a second network node” on line 5. It’s unclear if this instance of second network node refers to “a second network node” recited on line 4. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim 9 recite the limitation “a second network node” on line 5. It’s unclear if this instance of second network node refers to “a second network node” recited on line 4. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 2-6, 10-14 are rejected for claiming dependency from above rejected claims 1, 9 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 recites, “A computer readable storage medium comprising instructions .. cause a computer…”
Specification recites, as follows:
[0108] In some embodiments, a respective carrier 880 comprises the respective computer program 870, wherein the carrier 880 is one of an electronic signal, an optical signal, an electromagnetic signal, a magnetic signal, an electric signal, a radio signal, a microwave signal, or a computer-readable storage medium.
Applicant has provided another antecedent basis for the claim terminology “a computer readable storage medium”. Applicant has provided intrinsic evidence of embodiment for the term as “can include but are not limited to… ". Since the applicant fails inclusively and specifically provide antecedent basic to limit the specific statutory embodiments, “computer readable storage medium” belongs to the intrinsic non-statutory embodiments such as carrier signal, radio wave, light wave, and transmission medium/media.
Note that signal claims are not directed to a process since they do not cover an act or series of acts. No part of the signal is a mechanical “device” or “part.” A propagating electromagnetic signal is not a “machine” as that term is used in § 101. Signals, standing alone, are not “manufacture[s]” under the meaning of that term in § 101. A signal comprising a fluctuation in electric potential or in electromagnetic fields is not a “chemical union,” nor a gas, fluid, powder, or solid. Signals are not “composition[s] of matter.” Thus, a transitory, propagating signal is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. (see In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346 1356 n.7 (Fed. Cir 2007).
In view of the above analysis, claim 7 is ineligible for patent protection as failing to be limited to embodiments which fall within a statutory category.
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 (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.
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 1-5, 7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al (USPN 20190037417) in view of Jha et al (USPN 20210044993), provided by Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 9, Lei discloses
a first network node configured to steer data traffic in a communication with a user equipment, UE, in a wireless communications network, the first network node being configured to: (eNB, e.g. FIG. 1 #104c, configure to identify 5G NR coverage for UE, e.g. FIG. 1 #106, in wireless network [0071-0077], FIGs. 6, 7
send a request to a second network node, which request is adapted to request to set up an interface between the first network node hosting a first cell and a second network node hosting a second cell, which second cell is adapted to be a neighbour to the first cell (eNB, e.g. FIG. 2 #202, contains neighbor relation table comprising information of neighboring cells requests updates from neighboring cells over interface/connection connecting each eNB’s ANR [0046-0051, 0024, 0029, 0060], FIGs. 1-4
receive a message from the second network node over the requested setup interface, which message is adapted to comprise indications indicating that: (eNB’s, e.g. FIG. 2 #202, neighbor relation table receives update message comprising indications in table indicating: [0046-0051, 0059], FIG. 3
a third cell provided by a third network node is a neighbour to the second cell (NR gNB, e.g. FIG. 1 #110, operating cell, FIG. 1 #108, neighbor to second cell, FIG. 1 #102 [0022, 0023, 0057, 0058], FIG. 3
the second cell is supporting multicarrier connectivity towards the third cell (second cell, FIG. 1 #102a #102b, supporting dual connectivity with gNB cell, FIG. 1 #108a #108b [0057, 0058], FIG. 3 #312
the third cell is supporting multicarrier connectivity towards the second cell (gNB cell, FIG. 1 #108a #108b supporting dual connectivity with second cell, FIG. 1 #102a #102b [0022, 0057-0059], FIG. 3 #312
determine whether or not to handover the UE from the first cell to the second cell for multi carrier connectivity towards the third cell (determines if UE should be handed over from first cell/current serving LTE only cell to second cell/MeNB cell, FIG. 1 #102a #102b, providing dual connectivity with 5G WAP/SgNB, FIG. 1 #108a #108b [0087-0089, 0053, 0057], FIG. 7 #714
Lei does not expressly disclose steer the data traffic in the communication with the UE according to the determining of whether or not to handover the UE to the second network node
Jha discloses steer the data traffic in the communication with the UE according to the determining of whether or not to handover the UE to the second network node (steering traffic from source network node, eNB non-anchor LTE, to eNB anchor-LTE after decision to handover UE to eNB anchor-LTE [0181-0186], FIG. 8
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “steer the data traffic in the communication with the UE according to the determining of whether or not to handover the UE to the second network node” as taught by Jha into Lei’s system with the motivation to enable a UE to continue accessing LTE traffic via eNB anchor LTE band (Jha, paragraph [0181-0186], FIG. 8).
Claim 1 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claims 2, 10, Lei discloses “determining whether or not to handover the UE to the second cell for multi carrier connectivity towards the third cell further is based on the available bandwidth in the respective first cell, second cell, and third cell” available bandwidth in second cell/MeNB cell, FIG. 1 #102a #102b, providing dual connectivity with 5G WAP/SgNB, FIG. 1 #108a #108b, is much larger compare to bandwidth in first cell [0036, 0064, 0087-0089, 0053, 0057], FIG. 7 #714.
Regarding claims 3, 11, Lei discloses “determining a Primary cell (PCell), for the UE in the communication based on the indications in the received message” eNB’s, e.g. FIG. 2 #202, neighbor relation table indicates LTE-5G NR DC with LTE being Primary cell [0005, 0025, 0046-0051, 0059], FIGs. 1, 3.
Regarding claims 4, 12, Lei discloses “wherein the multicarrier connectivity comprises: dual connectivity” dual connectivity supported [0086, 0087], FIGs. 1, 6, 7.
Regarding claims 5, 13, Lei discloses “determining to handover the UE to the second cell and that second cell is to be a Primary Cell, PCell, for the UE and that the third cell is to be a Secondary Cell, SCell, for the UE in the communication” eNB’s, e.g. FIG. 2 #202, neighbor relation table indicates LTE-5G NR DC with LTE being Primary cell and NR 5G being Secondary cell [0005, 0025, 0026, 0046-0051, 0059], FIGs. 1, 3.
Regarding claim 7, Lei discloses “a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform actions according to claim 1” machine readable medium, FIG. 11 #1122, comprising instructions, FIG. 11 #1124, executed by machine to perform steps recited in claims 1, 9 [0120-0123].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jamadagni et al (USPN 20140241317) FIG. 7
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469