DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to application number 18/690,088, dated on 03/07/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: communication unit and control unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 1 limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 1 limitations a communication unit and a control unit are interpreted respectively as equivalent to Fig. 2, el. 33 and Fig. 2, el. 31 as described in the instant application specification paragraphs 36-41.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated or alternatively unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (US 2023/0088590 A1).
Claims 1, 6, 7, Tiwari discloses a User Equipment (UE) (UE; Fig. 9) comprising:
a communication unit (transceiver circuit and antenna; Fig. 9, els. 203, 204) configured to transmit data to a first base station (first access network; Fig. 5) (FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating the main components of the UE (100). As shown, the UE (100) includes a transceiver circuit (103) which is operable to transmit signals to and to receive signals from the connected node(s) via one or more antenna (104); ¶128); and
a control unit (controller; Fig. 9, el. 201) configured to control transmission of data by the communication unit (A controller (101) controls the operation of the UE (100) in accordance with software stored in a memory (105). The software includes, among other things, an operating system and a communications control module (106) having at least a transceiver control module (107). The communications control module (106) (using its transceiver control sub-module) is responsible for handling (generating/sending/receiving) signalling and uplink/downlink data packets between the UE (100) and other nodes, such as the base station/(R)AN node, the MME, the AMF (and other core network nodes). Such signalling may include, for example, appropriately formatted signalling messages relating to connection establishment and maintenance (e.g. RRC connection establishment and other RRC messages), periodic location update related messages (e.g. tracking area update, paging area updates, location area update) etc. Such signalling may also include, for example, broadcast information (e.g. Master Information and System information) in a receiving case; ¶183), wherein
the control unit (controller; Fig. 9, el. 201) determines whether the data is specific data (determining emergency service data), and in a case of determining that the data is the specific data, transmits the specific data (emergency service data) from the communication unit (transceiver circuit and antenna; Fig. 9, els. 203, 204) to a second base station (second access network (Fig. 5) being different from the first access point) different from the first base station (Fig. 5; FIG. 5 illustrates Procedure to access non-emergency service over another access network when the UE is emergency registered over another access network; ¶138; A UE is registered for a normal service to a first PLMN over a first Access Network (AN); ¶139; The UE is registered for an emergency service to a second PLMN over a second access network; ¶140; After the UE is registered for emergency service to the second PLMN over the second access network, the UE is still registered to the first PLMN over the first Access network for normal service i.e. the emergency registration to the second PLMN over the second access network does not affect the normal service. The UE is accessing from the first PLMN over the first access network; ¶141).
Claim 2, Tiwari discloses wherein the control unit (controller; Fig. 9, el. 201), in a case of determining that the data is not the specific data (a normal service data), transmits the data from the communication unit (transceiver circuit and antenna; Fig. 9, els. 203, 204) to the first base station (first access network; Fig. 5) (transmitting normal service data to the first access network; FIG. 5 illustrates Procedure to access non-emergency service over another access network when the UE is emergency registered over another access network; ¶138; A UE is registered for a normal service to a first PLMN over a first Access Network (AN); ¶139; After the UE is registered for emergency service to the second PLMN over the second access network, the UE is still registered to the first PLMN over the first Access network for normal service i.e. the emergency registration to the second PLMN over the second access network does not affect the normal service. The UE is accessing from the first PLMN over the first access network; ¶141; On request from upper layer, the UE establishes PDU session for normal service to the first PLMN over the first access network and transmits and receive data related to this PDU session. If a PDU session for a normal service has already been established over to the first PLMN then UE establishes the user plane to this PDU session to receive and transmits data on request from upper layer to establish the user plane for this PDU session; ¶143-¶144; If the UE performs deregistration procedure over an access network to the network to which the UE is registered for emergency services then it does not affect the normal services over another access network over which the UE is registered for the normal services i.e. the UE is still registered for normal service over another access network, the UE can establish the PDU session over another access network or some data transfer is ongoing over the another access network then the data transfer continues over another access network; ¶151).
Claim 3, Tiwari discloses wherein the specific data is data predefined as data with high urgency or importance (high importance data, emergency service data; FIG. 5 illustrates Procedure to access non-emergency service over another access network when the UE is emergency registered over another access network; ¶138; A UE is registered for a normal service to a first PLMN over a first Access Network (AN); ¶139; The UE is registered for an emergency service to a second PLMN over a second access network; ¶140; After the UE is registered for emergency service to the second PLMN over the second access network, the UE is still registered to the first PLMN over the first Access network for normal service i.e. the emergency registration to the second PLMN over the second access network does not affect the normal service. The UE is accessing from the first PLMN over the first access network; ¶141).
Claim 4, Tiwari discloses wherein the UE acquires a communication resource for the second base station in advance in a case that a communication connection is established between the UE and the first base station (UE being registered for emergency service over one of the base stations; This disclosure is related to a procedure of handling UE (100) behavior when the UE (100)is attached for emergency services. More specifically this disclosure defines the UE (100) behavior when the UE (100) is registered to a PLMN or two different PLMN via 3GPP access network and non-3GPP access network and UE (100) has is registered for emergency service over one of the 3GPP access network or non-3GPP access network; abstract; FIG. 5 illustrates Procedure to access non-emergency service over another access network when the UE is emergency registered over another access network; ¶138; The UE is registered for an emergency service to a second PLMN over a second access network; ¶140; After the UE is registered for emergency service to the second PLMN over the second access network, the UE is still registered to the first PLMN over the first Access network for normal service i.e. the emergency registration to the second PLMN over the second access network does not affect the normal service. The UE is accessing from the first PLMN over the first access network; ¶141).
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.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (US 2023/0088590 A1) in view of Sivavakeesar et. al. (US 2020/0037285 A1).
Claim 5, Sivavakeesar in the same field of endeavor, wireless communication systems and devices thereof operating according to the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards or equivalents or derivatives (¶1) discloses wherein stored data is synchronized between the first base station (anchor base 5b) and the second base station (base station 5c) (synchronizing base stations to transmit the stored data via the base stations by communication of the packet sequence number; After a successful X2-based (or S1-based) context retrieval, the base stations 5 proceed to SN Status transfer and data forwarding. Specifically, the anchor base station 5b (using its X2 module 67) generates and sends, in step S511, and appropriate ‘SN Status transfer’ message in order to transfer the status of the transceiver (uplink receiver status/downlink transmitter status) relating to the mobile device 3. It will be appreciated that the status of the transceiver may include respective Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) sequence numbers (SNs) used in the uplink and downlink direction which allow the new base station 5c to preserve the status following the mobile device 3 resuming its connection with the network via Cell #2; ¶104; In step S512, the anchor base station 5b (using its X2 module 67) starts forwarding, to the new base station 5c using the forwarding address provided by the MME 9, any cached downlink data, and the new base station 5c relays the forwarded data (not shown in FIG. 5) to the mobile device 3 via the Uu interface; ¶105; As generally shown in step S513, the MME 9 and the new base station 5c also initiates an appropriate path switch procedure (comprising a ‘Path Switch Request’ including information identifying the path to be switched (e.g. in an ‘MME UE S1AP ID’ information element) and an associated acknowledgement). In response to the path switch procedure the MME 9 also requests, in step S514, the S-GW 10 to modify the hearer associated with the mobile device 3 (i.e. to tunnel data to the new base station 5c instead of the anchor base station 5b). Once the bearer has been modified, there is no need for the anchor base station 5b to forward downlink data to the new base station 5c; ¶106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to synchronize the first base station and the second base station provide the stored data, as taught by Sivavakeesar to modify Tiwari’s method and system in order to manage connection states for communication devices (¶1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOUROUSH MOHEBBI whose telephone number is (571)270-7908. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586. 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.
/KOUROUSH MOHEBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471