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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13, 16-17, 19-27 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 any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10-11, 13, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (2022/0159542) in view of Edge (2022/0007150)
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a method comprising: receiving a request from a location service client for a location of a user equipment that is connected to a first network (para 133-135 location service request for specific terminal) ; in response to determining that the first network does not support location services (para 140-141, learning that capabilities are not supported between AMF and MME which are location based) , triggering a fallback of the user equipment to a second network (para 143-150, switching networks from 5g to 4g); obtaining a location of the user equipment using the second network (para 155-160, executing the location service in the 4g network); and providing the location of the user equipment to the location service client (para 162, location sent to the client upon determination). Zhou fails to disclose that the GMLC performs the steps of the method and that the first network does not include a LMF to support location services.
However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a network in which a location management function (LMF) is not supported for location services (Para 35-36 and Figure 5, AMF solution) as well as the fact the GMLC interacts with a location request (LRF) and receives signaling via the request process between an AMF and GMLC (Figure 5, AMF solution, as well as para 322-349, particularly para 326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the GMLC to support the fallback method in order to provide a control node within the wireless network for the location process.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou discloses a system comprising one or more computer processors (Figure 3 – 301); one or more computer readable storage media (Figure 3- memory 302); and program instructions store on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution( para 126) , the program instructions comprising instructions to : : receive a request from a location service client for a location of a user equipment that is connected to a first network (para 133-135 location service request for specific terminal) ; in response to determining that the first network does not support location services (para 140-141, learning that capabilities are not supported between AMF and MME which are location based) , trigger a fallback of the user equipment to a second network (para 143-150, switching networks from 5g to 4g); obtain a location of the user equipment using the second network (para 155-160, provide the location service in the 4g network); and providing the location of the user equipment to the location service client (para 162, location sent to the client upon determination). Zhou fails to disclose that the GMLC performs the steps of the method and that the first network does not include a LMF to support location services.
However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a network in which a location management function (LMF) is not supported for location services (Para 35-36 and Figure 5, AMF solution) as well as the fact the GMLC interacts with a location request (LRF) and receives signaling via the request process between an AMF and GMLC (Figure 5, AMF solution, as well as para 322-349, particularly para 326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the GMLC to support the fallback method in order to provide a control node within the wireless network for the location process.
Regarding claim 17, Zhou discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (para 126) having program instructions embodied within, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform operations including: : receiving a request from a location service client for a location of a user equipment that is connected to a first network (para 133-135 location service request for specific terminal) ; in response to determining that the first network does not support location services (para 140-141, learning that capabilities are not supported between AMF and MME which are location based) , triggering a fallback of the user equipment to a second network (para 143-150, switching networks from 5g to 4g); obtaining a location of the user equipment using the second network (para 155-160, executing the location service in the 4g network); and providing the location of the user equipment to the location service client (para 162, location sent to the client upon determination). Zhou fails to disclose that the GMLC performs the steps of the method and that the first network does not include a LMF to support location services.
However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a network in which a location management function (LMF) is not supported for location services (Para 35-36 and Figure 5, AMF solution) as well as the fact the GMLC interacts with a location request (LRF) and receives signaling via the request process between an AMF and GMLC (Figure 5, AMF solution, as well as para 322-349, particularly para 326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the GMLC to support the fallback method in order to provide a control node within the wireless network for the location process.
Regarding claims 3, 13, 19, the combination of Zhou and Edge further discloses wherein a Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) determining that the first network does not include location services includes receiving data from an access and mobility function (AMF) to indicate that the first network does not support location services (para 141-143, indication that N26 handover is not supported which is an interface involving AMF/MME. Also para 145-146, GMLC and AMF signaling to indicate the process starting). Edge teaches the use of an AMF only solution (Figure 5, para 322-349). Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 19 are rejected for the same reasoning as given above.
Regarding claims 7, Zhou further discloses the location of the user equipment is requested from the MME of the second network (para 156-161 – MME is utilized to determine the location of the user equipment, and the MME is part of the second/4g network).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou discloses that the first network is a 3gpp 5g network and that the second network is a 3gpp 4g network (para 140).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, 20, 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Edge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chauhan (2020/0351726).
Regarding claims 6, 16, 20,23, and 27 the combination of Zhou and Edge discloses all the particulars of the claim except for updating an RFSP index to cause the user equipment to perform fallback. However, Chauhan teaches a fallback system in which the use of RFSP information is used (para 12 and 28). Chauhan also teaches that the sending of the RFSP index to the user equipment to perform fallback (para 32-33 as well as Figure 6, executing handover with the user equipment based on fallback requires control signaling to the user equipment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include RFSP information in order to have the correct network selected for optimal quality.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhou and Edge discloses once the user’s location is determined, staying on the second network. The combination does not teach disconnecting the user from the second network and causing a connection to a first network. However, Chauhan teaches in an analogous art, an inter-rat handover in which after a voice call is completed, an inter-rat handover or redirect (Figure 7, step 735) is performed (i.e. -switching from a current network to a different network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to switch back to the original network in order to provide continuity of service to the user terminal.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Edge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balakrishnan (2016/0073331).
Regarding claims 9, the combination of Zhou and Edge discloses the use of timers but does not disclose disconnecting the user equipment from the second network and causing the user equipment to connect to the first network after a predetermined amount of time. However Balakrishnan teaches a fallback system (abstract) in which a user equipment (UE) in which a timer (specified time span, Figure 7) is used and once that time expires, the UE scans for another network and connects to the RAT (Figure 7, step 710). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention too include timers for network selection as taught by Balakrishnan to allow for network selection based on the communication conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22, 24-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art (Zhou, Edge, and Bhatn or “obtaining, by the GMLC, an identifier of a Mobility Management Entity (MME) of the second network with which the user equipment has performed registration; sending, by the GMLC, a location request to the MME based on the identifier of the MME obtained by the GMLC; and obtaining, by the GMLC, the location of the user equipment from the MME.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qiao (2021/0360371) discloses positioning service level where a GMLC and location services client interact to determine the correct positioning method.
Bhatnagar (WO 2025/052434) discloses the use of LMF to provide fall back based on a positioning capability via a gateway mobile center (GMLC).
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 WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights