Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 02/13/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-30 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for benefit of entering national stage application as ADS filed on 02/13/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. Claims 25-29 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
6. Claim limitations in claims 25-29 in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0044993 A1 in view of Yang et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0019819 A1.
Claim 1
Jha discloses a method (fig. 1-29 depict for accessing new radio service in multi-RAT dual connectivity) for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
communicating, in a connected state (901 in fig. 9 for UE in connected mode), with a first cell associated with a first radio access technology (LTE cell in 901 of fig. 1 and see fig 4A for RAN 404 of LTE RAT);
PNG
media_image2.png
374
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receiving an indication of a set of candidate neighbor cells (902 in fig. 9 and see 1403 in fig. 14 for neighbor cells) associated with a second radio access technology (see 916 in fig. 9 for Scell for NR and 404 in fig. 4A for NR RAT), wherein the second radio access technology is associated with a higher priority level than the first radio access technology (eNB1 has the highest priority in fig. 19A and see par. 0219 for the prioritized ENDC, i.e., new radio RAT);
PNG
media_image3.png
588
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
performing measurements on the set of candidate neighbor cells (see fig. 7 for steps 908-909-910-911 in fig. 9); and
initiating an inter-radio access technology redirection procedure (swapping form PCell to SCell in 914 in fig. 9 and see fig. 7 for details) to access a target cell of the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology based at least in part on the measurements (steps 914-916 in fig. 9 for swapping the cell).
Although Jha does not explicitly anticipate the claim limitations: “performing measurements on the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology”, it is considered obvious by the following reasons.
PNG
media_image4.png
736
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In fact, Jha would have measure the serving cells whether if the cells support only NR or only LTE or both NR and LTE (see fig. 4-9). Hence, Jha discloses the measuring serving with the second RAT but applicant may not agree for anticipation rather for obviousness. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided. In particular, Yang teaches performing IRAT measurement (1212 in fig. 12, it means that serving base station and target base station are servicing the different RATs as to a first RAT and a second RAT). Additionally, Yang teaches that the cell associated with the second radio access technology has a higher priority level than the first radio access technology (1304 in fig. 13).
PNG
media_image5.png
688
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 accessing New Ration NR service in multi-RAT dual connectivity of Jha by providing dynamic handover as taught in Yang. Such a modification would have included a user equipment UE to transition the communication from a serving cell to a target cell of a second RAT so that the higher data transfer speeds are continued over multiple radio access technologies as suggested in par. 0004-0006 of Yang.
Claim 2
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology (Jha, fig. 2A & 4A for 5G NR cell) comprises:
receiving a system information block (Jha, par. 0117, receiving system information block SIB from a PCell) that indicates that the set of candidate neighbor cells support the inter-radio access technology redirection procedure (Jha, fig. 7-14, the cell supporting for swapping from LTE to NR; Yang, RAT-1 and RAT-2 in fig. 9 and fig. 12-13 for IRAT for redirection; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 3
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein receiving the system information block comprises:
receiving the system information block from the first cell (Jha, par. 0117, receiving system information block SIB from a PCell, for fig. 9, PCell can be said the first cell; accordingly, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 5
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein initiating the inter-radio access technology redirection procedure comprises:
initiating a UE initiated LTE to New Radio redirection procedure (Jha, fig. 7-14, PCell to SCell from LTE or NR; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 6
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second indication that the second radio access technology is associated with the higher priority level than the first radio access technology (Jha, fig. 4-14 for LTE and NR and the cell reselection on the prioritized neighbor band in 1803 in fig. 18 and highest ranking in fig. 19A; Yang, the second RAT having higher priority than the first RAT in fig. 13; therefore, the combined prior art meets the claim).
Claim 7
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the performing the measurements on the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology is based at least in part on receiving the second indication that the second radio access technology is associated with the higher priority level than the first radio access technology (Jha, fig. 7-14 and fig. 19A for ranking highest; Yang, RAT-1 and RAT-2 in fig. 9 & 12-13 for higher priority; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 8
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the target cell from the set of candidate neighbor cells based at least in part on the target cell having a highest signal strength of the set of candidate neighbor cells (Jha, having higher signal strength of 911 in fig. 9 and comparing RSRP and RSRQ in fig. 7; Yang, signal quality of second RAT in fig. 19; for these reasons, the combined prior renders the claim obvious).
Claim 9
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing the inter-radio access technology redirection procedure to access the target cell (Jha, fig. 7-27 for swapping cell; Yang, fig. 12-13), wherein performing the inter-radio access technology redirection procedure comprises:
camping on the target cell (Jha, see 1109 in fig. 11 and camping on the anchor band and non-anchor band in par. 0080-0082, 0098 & 0193); and
acquiring information associated with the target cell (Jha, acquiring reconfiguration information with neighbor gNB in fig. 13; Yang, fig. 12 for measuring IRAT cell, i.e., target base station); and
entering the connected state with the target cell based on the acquired information (Jha, as depicted in fig. 9-14, RRC reconfiguration to get connected to neighbor eNB for NR from the serving cell, it could be said that now RRC connected state with NR, and see RRC connected state in par. 0098; Yang, RRC signaling in par. 0059 & 0065, it means that the combination supports RRC signaling and inactive or idle or connected state for power saving; and hence, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 10
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the target cell has a signal strength exceeding a threshold for performing the inter-radio access technology redirection procedure (Jha, measuring signal strength in 909 of fig. 9, i.e., RSRP and RSRQ in fig. 7 ; Yang, fig. 19 for measuring signal quality), wherein the initiating the inter-radio access technology redirection procedure is based at least in part on the determining (Jha, based on measurement report in step 911 of fig. 9, i.e., see fig. 7, swapping PCell to SCell in step 914; Yang, fig. 12-13 for performing inter RAT handover and see measuring signal quality in fig. 19; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 11
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
maintaining a database of the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology (since claim does not specifically recite what are required to be database, storing the tables in fig. 7, 17 and 19 of Jha requires a database and see fig. 30 for having memory that can maintain such a database; Yang, memory 776 in eNB 710 in fig. 7), wherein the indication is received via the database (Jha, reconfiguration form neighbor cell in fig. 9-27; Yang, measurement control and perform IRAT measurement in fig. 12; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 12
Jha, in view of Yang, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, after receiving the indication, that the first cell has not configured the measurements for the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology (Jha, receiving reconfiguration in fig. 9-27 are indicating for measurement for neighbor cells that not configured by the serving cell; Yang, receiving measurement control message 1208 in fig. 12); and
triggering the performing of the measurements on the set of candidate neighbor cells associated with the second radio access technology based at least in part on the determining (Jha, fig. 9-27 for measuring neighbor cell as depict in fig. 7 & 19; Yang, perform IRAT measurement 1212 in fig. 12; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 13-15 and 17-24
PNG
media_image6.png
372
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-15 and 17-24 are apparatus for UE claims corresponding to method claims 1-3 and 5-12. All of the limitations of claims 13-15 and 17-24 are found reciting for the structure of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 1-3 and 5-12. Accordingly, claims 13-15 and 17-24 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-12 respectively set forth above.
Additionally, Jha discloses an apparatus (apparatus in fig. 5) for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 1-19), comprising: a processor (processor 508 in fig. 5); memory (memory 502 in fig. 5) coupled with the processor (in fig. 5 processor coupled to communicate with memory); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (the processor in fig. 5 would execute the instructions stored in memory to perform the steps as detailed in fig. 9-27).
Claim 25-27 and 29
Claims 25-27 and 29 are apparatus claims corresponding to method claims 1-3 and 5. All of the limitations of claims 25-27 and 29 are found reciting for the structure of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 1-3 and 5. Accordingly, claims 25-27 and 29 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 respectively set forth above.
10. Claims 4, 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha in view of Yang and Baratam et al. Pub. No.: US 2015/0208327 A1.
Claim 4
Although Jha, in view of Yang, does not disclose “the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a background public land mobile network search, wherein the indication of the set of candidate neighbor cells is based at least in part on the background public land mobile network search”, claim 4 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, Jha, in view of Yang discloses PLMN search (searching in fig. 2-27 of Jha and fig. 12-13 of Yang includes PLMN cell search because LTE, new radio NR or 5G are backhauled to PLMN cellular network) and the indication of the set of candidate neighbor cells (Jha, the neighbor cells are indicated in reconfiguration in fig. 9-27 and see cells in fig. 7, 17 & 19; Yang, IRAT measurement in fig. 12). Although, the combination of the prior art does not explicitly show a background PLMN search, the background scanning or searching for cell is intrinsic feature in wireless communication for optimizing the battery power of a mobile device. To advance the prosecution, the evidence is provided herein. In particular, Baratam teaches a UE for performing a background PLMN search (par. 0063 & 0097).
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 accessing New Ration NR service in multi-RAT dual connectivity of Jha in view of Yang by providing background public land mobile network search as taught in Baratam to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have included a user equipment UE to transition to a target cell of a second RAT so that the higher data transfer speeds are continued over multiple radio access technologies without interruption as suggested in par. 0004-0006 of Baratam.
Claim 16 and 28
Claims 16 and 28 are apparatus and computer product claims corresponding to method claim 4. All of the limitations of claims 16 and 28 are found reciting for the structure of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 4. Accordingly, claims 16 and 28 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 4 respectively set forth above.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643