DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 11 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of these claims, in line 4, recites “Quality of Sendee” rather than “Quality of Service”, and the specification, along with counterpart claims 2 and 20, mention the latter, but not the former. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 28-30 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
5. Claim elements “means for receiving, by the first network device, a bypass handover message”, “means for initiating the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE”, “means for receiving an indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure”, and “means for transmitting the handover response message”, in claims 28-30, and “means for differentiating between voice bearer traffic and non-voice bearer traffic associated with the UE” in claim 29, are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification, in Paragraphs [0025] and [0028], mentions these means, but does not provide any details regarding the respective structures of these means.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
6. 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.
7. Claims 28-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
8. Claim elements “means for receiving, by the first network device, a bypass handover message”, “means for initiating the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE”, “means for receiving an indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure”, and “means for transmitting the handover response message”, in claims 28-30, and “means for differentiating between voice bearer traffic and non-voice bearer traffic associated with the UE” in claim 29, are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification, in Paragraphs [0025] and [0028], mentions these means, but does not provide any details regarding the respective structures of these means. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 15, 18-19, 24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shintani et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0165019 (hereinafter Shintani).
Regarding claim 1, Shintani discloses a first network device for wireless communication (disclosed is an MSC/VLR, according to Abstract, [0009], [0066], Figs. 1 [element 8] and 5), comprising:
one or more processors (an MSC/VLR necessarily comprises at least one processor);
one or more memories individually or collectively coupled with the one or more processors (an MSC/VLR necessarily comprises at least one memory coupled with its at least one processor), the one or more processors configured to:
receive, by the first network device, a bypass handover message comprising an indication to initiate a voice call continuity procedure to handover a user equipment (UE) connected to a second radio access network (RAN) to a target base station associated with a third RAN (the MSC/VLR, which is part of a 2G/3G network [“second radio access network (RAN)”], receives, from a BSC/RNC, a Handover Required message that requests an SRVCC (Single Radio Voice Call Continuity) handover of a specified UE to a specified eNodeB, according to Abstract, [0069], Fig. 5 [step 102], whereby, given that the source network may be a 2G network, according to Abstract, [0003], and given that the target network is an LTE network (i.e., a 4G network) [“a third RAN”], according to Abstract, [0066], such a handover from a 2G network to a 4G network constitutes a handover that bypasses an intermediate 3G network);
initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE connected to the second RAN to the target base station associated with the third RAN based at least in part on the bypass handover message (in response to receiving the SRVCC handover request, the MSC/VLR retrieves the target node address associated with the SRVCC indicator using its routing table and forwards said SRVV handover request to an MME, according to [0070], Fig. 5 [step 104]);
receive an indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure from a second network device associated with the third RAN, wherein the indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure comprises a handover response message (the MSC/VLR receives, from the MME (which is located in the LTE network [“a second network device associated with the third RAN”], according to [0038]), a CS (circuit switched) to PS (packet switched) message that comprises a response to the handover request, according to [0073], Fig. 5 [step 110]); and
transmit the handover response message to a third network device associated with the second RAN (the MSC/VLR sends a Handover Command to the BSC/RNC (which is part of the 2G/3G network [“a third network device associated with the second RAN”], according to [0003]), according to [0074], Fig. 5 [step 112]).
Claim 10 recites the method (disclosed is a method according to which the MSC/VLR performs the inter-RAT handover, according to Abstract) according to which the first network device recited in claim 1 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors (an MSC/VLR necessarily comprises at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication that is executable by one or more processors) to perform the method recited in claim 10, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 28 recites the first network device comprising the means for (the MRC/VLR is configured to perform various tasks, according to [0066]-[0086], Fig. 5, therefore the MSC/VLR comprises the means for performing those tasks) performing the actions recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Shintani discloses the first network device of claim 1, wherein the bypass handover message comprises at least one of: an identification associated with the target base station, a source to target transparent Radio Resource Control (RRC) container, an indication for the first network device to initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE, or a context associated with the UE (the bypass handover message received by the MSC/VLR comprises a request for SRVCC handover of the UE [“an indication for the first network device to initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE”], according to [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Shintani discloses the first network device of claim 1, wherein the voice call continuity procedure comprises a Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC) procedure (the voice call continuity procedure is an SRVCC procedure, according to [0011]-[0012], [0034]-[0038], [0066]-[0070]).
Claims 15 and 24 do not differ substantively from claim 6, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claims 18 and 27 do not differ substantively from claim 9, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 2, 11, 20, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani as applied to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 above, in view of Sun et al., WO 2010/022611 A1 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 2, Shintani discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shintani discloses the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to: initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the voice bearer traffic to the target base station associated with the third RAN (the MSC/VLR transmits the SRVCC handover request to the MME node, according to [0070], Fig. 5 [step 104]).
Shintani does not expressly disclose that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to: differentiate between voice bearer traffic and non-voice bearer traffic associated with the UE based at least in part on a Quality of Service Class Identifier (QCI).
Sun discloses that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to: differentiate between voice bearer traffic and non-voice bearer traffic associated with the UE based at least in part on a Quality of Service Class Identifier (QCI) (an MME distinguishes between a voice bearer and a non-voice bearer based on QoS Class Identifier (QCI) parameter, according to page 6 lines 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shintani with Sun such that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to: differentiate between voice bearer traffic and non-voice bearer traffic associated with the UE based at least in part on a Quality of Service Class Identifier (QCI).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the appropriate handling of SRVCC emergency call handovers (Sun: Abstract, page 6 lines 31-44). Claims 11, 20, and 29 do not differ substantively from claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
17. Claims 3-4, 12-13, 21-22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani as applied to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 above, in view of Huang-Fu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0132141 (hereinafter Huang-Fu).
Regarding claim 3, Shintani discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Shintani does not expressly disclose that the second RAN is a Next Generation (NG) RAN, and the third RAN is a GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network (GERAN) or a Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN).
Huang-Fu discloses that the second RAN is a Next Generation (NG) RAN, and the third RAN is a GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network (GERAN) or a Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN) (a UE undergoes a handover from an NG RAN to a UTRAN, according to [0024], [0030], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shintani with Huang-Fu such that the second RAN is a Next Generation (NG) RAN, and the third RAN is a GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network (GERAN) or a Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to support IMS call setup (Huang-Fu: Abstract, [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shintani and Huang-Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Shintani discloses that the first network device is associated with an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) (the MSC/VLR causes the UE to tune to an E-UTRAN (and is therefore associated with said E-UTRAN), according to [0074]-[0076]).
Claims 12, 21, and 30 do not differ substantively from claim 3, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 13 and 22 do not differ substantively from claim 4, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
18. Claims 5, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani in view of Huang-Fu as applied to claims 4, 13, and 22 above, further in view of Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0376444 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shintani and Huang-Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Neither Shintani nor Huang-Fu expressly discloses that the first network device is a mobility management entity (MME) associated with the E-UTRAN, the second network device is a Mobile Switching Center (MSC) server associated with the GERAN or an MSC associated with the UTRAN, and the third network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) associated with the NG RAN.
Kim discloses that the first network device is a mobility management entity (MME) associated with the E-UTRAN, the second network device is a Mobile Switching Center (MSC) server associated with the GERAN or an MSC associated with the UTRAN, and the third network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) associated with the NG RAN (disclosed is an MME that interfaces with an E-UTRAN, according to Fig. 2, whereby an MSC may be integrated with a Serving GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) Supporting Node (SGSN), according to [0082], whereby an SGSN serves a UTRAN/GERAN, according to Fig. 1, whereby an AMF interfaces with an NG-RAN, according to Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shintani as modified by Huang-Fu with Kim such that the first network device is a mobility management entity (MME) associated with the E-UTRAN, the second network device is a Mobile Switching Center (MSC) server associated with the GERAN or an MSC associated with the UTRAN, and the third network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) associated with the NG RAN.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce signaling overhead (Kim: [0711]).
Claims 14 and 23 do not differ substantively from claim 5, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
19. Claims 7-8, 16-17, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani as applied to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 above, in view of Raju et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0019339 (hereinafter Raju).
Regarding claim 7, Shintani discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Shintani does not expressly disclose that the third network device associated with the second RAN does not have a backhaul connection link with the third RAN.
Raju discloses that the third network device associated with the second RAN does not have a backhaul connection link with the third RAN (a network device in a locally-addressable wireless network lacks a backhaul connection to any other wireless network, such as a wireless wide area networks (WWAN), according to [0026], Fig. 1 [elements 110, 120, and 122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shintani with Raju such that the third network device associated with the second RAN does not have a backhaul connection link with the third RAN.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the economical deployment of wireless networks (Raju: [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shintani and Raju discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Shintani discloses that the first network device has a backhaul connection link with the third RAN (the MSC/VLR has a backhaul connection link to the MME, according to Fig. 1 [elements 8 and 10], whereby said MME is located in the LTE network, according to [0038]).
Claims 16 and 25 do not differ substantively from claim 7, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claims 17 and 26 do not differ substantively from claim 8, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Double Patenting
20. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
21. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, 21-28, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, 16-17, 19-20, and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045 in view of Shintani. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing independent claim 1 of the pending application and claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045:
Claim 1 of pending application 18/593,520
Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045
“A first network device for wireless communication, comprising:”
“An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:”
“one or more processors;”
“a processor;”
“one or more memories individually or collectively coupled with the one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to:”
“memory in electronic communication with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:”
“receive, by the first network device, a bypass handover message comprising an indication to initiate a voice call continuity procedure to handover a user equipment (UE) connected to a second radio access network (RAN) to a target base station associated with a third RAN;”
“determine that a second network device supports a transmission of a bypass handover message, and has a backhaul connection with the target base station, wherein the bypass handover message indicates to bypass a handover of the UE from the source base station associated with the first RAN to the second network device, wherein the second network device is associated with an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN); and transmit, from the first network device to the determined second network device, the bypass handover message based at least in part on the received handover message, the bypass handover message comprising the voice call continuity handover trigger message.”
“initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE connected to the second RAN to the target base station associated with the third RAN based at least in part on the bypass handover message;”
“transmit, from the first network device to the determined second network device, the bypass handover message based at least in part on the received handover message, the bypass handover message comprising the voice call continuity handover trigger message.”
“receive an indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure from a second network device associated with the third RAN, wherein the indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure comprises a handover response message; and”
“transmit the handover response message to a third network device associated with the second RAN.”
Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045 encompass the same subject matter as claim 1 of the pending application 18/593,520, except the pending application recites that the claimed first network device is receiving, rather than transmitting, the bypass handover message, and the pending application recites “receive an indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure from a second network device associated with the third RAN, wherein the indication of completion of the voice call continuity procedure comprises a handover response message; and transmit the handover response message to a third network device associated with the second RAN.” Shintani discloses these features (the MSC/VLR, receives, from a BSC/RNC, a Handover Required message that requests an SRVCC handover of a specified UE to a specified eNodeB, according to Abstract, [0069], Fig. 5 [step 102], whereby the MSC/VLR receives, from the MME, a CS to PS message that comprises a response to the handover request, according to [0073], Fig. 5 [step 110], whereby the MSC/VLR sends a Handover Command to the BSC/RNC, according to [0074], Fig. 5 [step 112]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045 with Shintani to arrive at claim 1 of the pending application in order to facilitate handovers between networks that support circuit switched calls and networks that support packet switched calls (Shintani: [0002]-[0010]).
Similar analyses apply to independent claims 10, 19, and 28 of the pending application in relation to claims 1, 1, and 14, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045.
Claim 3 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 1, wherein the second RAN is a Next Generation (NG) RAN, and the third RAN is a GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network (GERAN) or a Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN).” which corresponds to claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 12, 21, and 30 of the pending application.
Claim 4 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 3, wherein the first network device is associated with an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN).” which corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 13 and 22 of the pending application.
Claim 5 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 4, wherein the first network device is a mobility management entity (MME) associated with the E-UTRAN, the second network device is a Mobile Switching Center (MSC) server associated with the GERAN or an MSC associated with the UTRAN, and the third network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) associated with the NG RAN.” which corresponds to claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 14 and 23 of the pending application.
Claim 6 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 1, wherein the bypass handover message comprises at least one of: an identification associated with the target base station, a source to target transparent Radio Resource Control (RRC) container, an indication for the first network device to initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the UE, or a context associated with the UE.” which corresponds to claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 15 and 24 of the pending application.
Claim 7 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 1, wherein the third network device associated with the second RAN does not have a backhaul connection link with the third RAN.” which corresponds to claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 16 and 25 of the pending application.
Claim 8 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 7, wherein the first network device has a backhaul connection link with the third RAN.” which corresponds to claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 17 and 26 of the pending application.
Claim 9 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 1, wherein the voice call continuity procedure comprises a Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC) procedure.” which corresponds to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. Similar analyses apply to claims 18 and 27 of the pending application.
22. Claims 2, 11, 20, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045 in view of Shintani, further in view of Sun.
Claim 2 of the pending application reads “The first network device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to: differentiate between voice bearer traffic and non-voice bearer traffic associated with the UE based at least in part on a Quality of Service Class Identifier (QCI); and initiate the voice call continuity procedure to handover the voice bearer traffic to the target base station associated with the third RAN.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,045. However, Shintani and Sun disclose these features, as outlined above in the prior art rejection of claim 2. Similar analyses apply to claims 11, 20, and 29 of the pending application.
Conclusion
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645