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 .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on June 03, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-26 are currently pending.
Statement of Substance of Interview
5. Applicant’s representative initiated the interview prior to filing the official Response and discussed proposed amendments related to currently amended claims. Agreement was reached that potential amendments for the independent claims overcome the prior arts of record, contingent upon an opportunity for the Examiner to consider applicant’s amendments to claim language in a formal response to the office. It was noted that Applicant's representative's explanations are clear, detailed and most helpful (Applicant initiated interview dated January 07, 2026). Examiner contacted the applicant regarding a new ground office action and no specific agreement was reached (Examiner initiated interview dated July 17, 2026).
Response to Arguments
6. The applicant's arguments filed on June 03, 2026 regarding claims 1-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the claims.
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 of this title, 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. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 5, 16, 18, 23, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US 2020/0383024 A1), hereinafter “Nie” in view of DASH et al. (US 2023/0085782 A1), hereinafter “Dash” in view of WO 2021/230784 A1, hereinafter “WO’784”.
Regarding claim 1, Nie discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Figs. 5, 15, 18, methods for a wireless device to detect and operate in an elevator or elevator-like conditions), comprising:
using a second radio access technology (RAT) (Fig.5, paragraphs [0068], [0079], [0080], re-select to GSM and/or CDMA while in the elevator i.e. conditions of using second RAT) responsive to a combination of sensor values (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], combinations of conditions, such as signal strength and/or service availability based conditions and motion detection based conditions) satisfying respective coverage hole thresholds (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], signal strength threshold over specified time window or acceleration pattern relates to start pattern, run pattern and stop pattern) associated with a coverage hole (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], conditions associated with entering and/or being inside of an elevator) of a first RAT (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], normal mode or preferred RAT), the combination of sensor values including at least one non-radio sensor value (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], motion detection based conditions i.e. using the condition of combination); and
reconnecting to the first RAT (paragraphs [0080], [0086], [0105], the wireless device may operate in a normal mode, e.g., with respect to cellular communication, e.g., based at least in part on detecting the one or more conditions associated with exiting an elevator) responsive to at least one sensor value of the sensor values no longer satisfying its respective coverage hole threshold (paragraphs [0086], [0105], exiting an elevator is correlated with an increased likelihood of availability of LTE service, such an approach may result in the wireless device more quickly regaining LTE service than if the wireless device were to continue with its ongoing search pattern, at least in some instances).
Assuming Arguendo that Nie does not explicitly disclose or strongly suggest: “reconnecting to the first RAT responsive to at least one sensor value of the sensor values no longer satisfying its respective coverage hole threshold”, Dash from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses reconnecting to the first RAT responsive to at least one sensor value of the sensor values no longer satisfying its respective coverage hole threshold (Fig. 1, paragraph [0022], UE can communicate in the first RAT for service by a first public land mobile network (PLMN); when the first RAT is not available, the UE communicates in a second RAT for service by a second PLMN; the UE can further determine whether to switch back from the second RAT to the first RAT, which may be referred to as the reselection of the first RAT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “reconnecting to the first RAT responsive to at least one sensor value of the sensor values no longer satisfying its respective coverage hole threshold” as taught by Dash, in the system of Nie, so that it would provide reselection of a radio access technology for a multi-mode user equipment supporting multiple RATs in response to a determination that there is the trigger event to enable the UE to switch from the second RAT to the first RAT (Dash, paragraph [0002]).
Neither Nie nor Dash explicitly discloses “the reconnecting to the first RAT takes place before expiration of a radio link failure (RLF) timer for the first RAT”.
However, WO’784 from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the reconnecting to the first RAT (Fig.3, step 210 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 212 [Wingdings font/0xE0] step216 [Wingdings font/0xE0] “Yes” leg [Wingdings font/0xE0] step218) takes place before expiration (Fig.3, 210 - 212 - 216 - 218, paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0040], in response to the starting 212 of the second timer, determining 216 signal quality of signals received from the RAN node, and, when the determined signal quality is above a threshold within the time of the second timer, sending 218 information to the RAN node 130 indicating that coverage hole interruption has ended) of a radio link failure (RLF) timer for the first RAT (paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0040], the wireless device would use a second timer when in a coverage hole, which time is longer than a time of a first timer, i.e. normal RLF timer used when losing coverage when not in a coverage hole).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the reconnecting to the first RAT takes place before expiration of a radio link failure (RLF) timer for the first RAT” as taught by WO’784, in the combined system of Nie and Dash, so that it would provide a need for an improved process for handling a wireless device when entering a coverage hole in a cell (WO’784, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Nie discloses the combination of sensor values satisfying respective coverage hole thresholds (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], signal strength threshold over specified time window or acceleration pattern relates to start pattern, run pattern and stop pattern)) comprises a radio sensor value satisfying a radio coverage hole threshold and the at least one non-radio sensor value satisfying at least one non-radio coverage hole threshold (paragraphs [0006], [0068], [0074], [0076], [0098], combinations of conditions, such as signal strength and/or service availability based conditions and motion detection based conditions).
Regarding claim 3, Nie discloses the one or more sensor values include at least one non-radio sensor value includes an accelerometer value, a proximity sensor value, a barometric pressure value, a light sensor value, a positioning value, a microphone input value, or any combination thereof (Fig. 15, paragraphs [0076], [0098], an accelerator component, a gyroscope component, and/or any of various other possible motion sensing components could be used to help detect a wireless device motion pattern that is considered characteristic of being in an elevator).
Regarding claim 4, Nie discloses the coverage hole of the first RAT comprises an elevator, a tunnel, a below-ground floor, underground parking, or a subway (paragraphs [0006], [0068], one or more conditions associated with entering and/or being inside of an elevator).
Regarding claim 5, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 1.
Dash further discloses the first RAT service is a New Radio (NR) service and the second RAT service is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) service (paragraphs [0005], [0024], [0029], first RAT includes NR and second RAT includes LTE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the first RAT service is a New Radio (NR) service and the second RAT service is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) service” as taught by Dash, in the combined system of Nie and WO’784, so that it would provide reselection of a radio access technology for a multi-mode user equipment supporting multiple RATs in response to a determination that there is the trigger event to enable the UE to switch from the second RAT to the first RAT (Dash, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 5.
Dash further discloses reconnecting to the first RAT includes, if an available NR neighbor is found, prioritizing NR frequencies, prioritizing scheduling of NR measurements, opening an autonomous gap for NR measurements, triggering local fast redirection to the first RAT, or any combination thereof (Figs. 1, 3, 4, paragraphs [0024], [0054]-[0055], mechanisms for the reselection of a RAT so that the UE can quickly return to the RAT previously used, which can save power and improve the performance; A UE can communicate in a first RAT for service by a first PLMN; when the first RAT is not available, and the UE communicates in the second RAT for service by a second PLMN; Before switching to the second RAT, the UE can store information about the first RAT for the first PLMN; The saved information can include a specific mobile country code (MCC) for the first PLMN and a specific mobile network code (MNC) for the first PLMN; The saved information about the first RAT for the first PLMN can be used later for the reselection of the first RAT for the first PLMN without searching for a PLMN blindly; For example, the UE can search whether a cell in the first RAT for the first PLMN is available for the UE to camp on when the UE decides to switch back to the first RAT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “reconnecting to the first RAT includes, if an available NR neighbor is found, prioritizing NR frequencies, prioritizing scheduling of NR measurements, opening an autonomous gap for NR measurements, triggering local fast redirection to the first RAT, or any combination thereof” as taught by Dash, in the system of Nie and WO’784, so that it would provide reselection of a radio access technology for a multi-mode user equipment supporting multiple RATs in response to a determination that there is the trigger event to enable the UE to switch from the second RAT to the first RAT (Dash, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 5.
Dash further discloses reconnecting to the first RAT service includes, if no available NR neighbor is found: triggering a background public land mobile network search; and connecting to the NR service if an NR cell is found (Fig.3, paragraphs [0055], [0057], PLMN selection and cell selection performed at the background; background selection is different from a foreground cell selection process where UE 101 does a MAKE with the new PLMN in terms of camping before BREAK with the previous PLMN in which it was camped in GSM/UMTS/LTE RAT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “reconnecting to the first RAT service includes, if no available NR neighbor is found: triggering a background public land mobile network search; and connecting to the NR service if an NR cell is found” as taught by Dash, in the combined system of Nie and WO’784, so that it would provide reselection of a radio access technology for a multi-mode user equipment supporting multiple RATs in response to a determination that there is the trigger event to enable the UE to switch from the second RAT to the first RAT (Dash, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 10.
9. Claims 6, 7, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US 2020/0383024 A1), hereinafter “Nie” in view of DASH et al. (US 2023/0085782 A1), hereinafter “Dash” in view of WO 2021/230784 A1, hereinafter “WO’784” in view of Frangooles et al. (US 2023/0164593 A1), hereinafter “Frangooles”.
Regarding claim 6, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 5.
While Nie in view of Dash and WO’784 implicitly refer to “the first RAT service is provides a standalone NR service”, Frangooles s from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses the first RAT service is provides a standalone NR service (paragraphs [0014], [0031], [0037], network implementations may support standalone architectures, non-standalone architectures, dual connectivity, carrier aggregation, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the first RAT service is provides a standalone NR service” as taught by Frangooles, in the combined system of Nie, Dash and WO’784, so that it would provide improved bandwidth and faster response time to multiple network devices (Frangooles, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 5.
While Nie in view of Dash and WO’784 implicitly refer to “the first RAT service is provides a dual-connectivity NR service”, Frangooles s from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses the first RAT service is provides a dual-connectivity NR service (paragraphs [0014], [0031], [0037], network implementations may support standalone architectures, non-standalone architectures, dual connectivity, carrier aggregation, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the first RAT service is provides a dual-connectivity NR service” as taught by Frangooles, in the combined system of Nie, Dash and WO’784, so that it would provide improved bandwidth and faster response time to multiple network devices (Frangooles, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7.
10. Claims 9, 11, 19, 20, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US 2020/0383024 A1), hereinafter “Nie” in view of DASH et al. (US 2023/0085782 A1), hereinafter “Dash” in view of WO 2021/230784 A1, hereinafter “WO’784” in view of Nishant et al. (US 2022/0150807 A1), hereinafter “Nishant”.
Regarding claim 9, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 5.
Neither Nie nor Dash nor WO’784 explicitly discloses “reconnecting to the first RAT triggers an acquisition database scan starting from NR, aborting LTE registration, or any combination thereof”.
However, Nishant from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses reconnecting to the first RAT triggers an acquisition database scan starting from NR, aborting LTE registration, or any combination thereof (Fig. 11, paragraphs [0036]-[0037], [0095], [0144], [0148], handling frequency scanning in wireless communication network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “reconnecting to the first RAT triggers an acquisition database scan starting from NR, aborting LTE registration, or any combination thereof” as taught by Nishant, in the combined system of Nie, Dash and WO’784, so that it would provide faster 5G camping experience to a user of the UE to optimize a new radio (NR) frequency scanning (Nishant, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Nie in view of Dash in view of WO’784 disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Nie nor Dash nor WO’784 explicitly discloses “the first RAT provides a New Radio (NR) service in frequency range 1 (FR1) and the second RAT provides an NR service in FR2, or the first RAT provides a New Radio (NR) service in frequency range 2 (FR2) and the second RAT provides an NR service in FR1”.
However, Nishant from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the first RAT provides a New Radio (NR) service in frequency range 1 (FR1) and the second RAT provides an NR service in FR2, or the first RAT provides a New Radio (NR) service in frequency range 2 (FR2) and the second RAT provides an NR service in FR1 (Fig. 11, paragraphs [0036]-[0037], [0095], [0144], [0148], FR1 Time Division Duplexing (TDD) bands as defined in 38.101-01 are as wide as 900 MHz (Band n77) shown in the table 1; in another example, FR2 TDD Bands as defined in 38.101-02 are as wide as 3250 MHz (Band n258) shown in the table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the first RAT provides a New Radio (NR) service in frequency range 1 (FR1) and the second RAT provides an NR service in FR2, or the first RAT provides a New Radio (NR) service in frequency range 2 (FR2) and the second RAT provides an NR service in FR1” as taught by Nishant, in the combined system of Nie, Dash and WO’784, so that it would provide faster 5G camping experience to a user of the UE to optimize a new radio (NR) frequency scanning (Nishant, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights