DETAILED ACTION
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 provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee, Myung Hee et al. (US 20240284285 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, comprising:
receiving a message for a command of handover from a cell of a first radio access technology (RAT) to a target cell of a second RAT, the message including voice fallback indication (voicefallbackindication). (Lee discloses a terminal or UE that receives a message for handover that includes fallback indication. The examiner interprets the paging message to be the handover command. See paragraphs [0012-0013], [0015], [0163], [0166]).
performing handover from the cell of the first RAT to the target cell of the second RAT based on the message. (Lee discloses the UE performing signaling for switching to another RAT. The examiner interprets that to be the handover process. See paragraph [0167]).
And determining report content for a radio link failure in case that establishment of a connection to the target cell is not successful. (Lee discloses the UE determining recording information for report content about whether or not the connection was successful. The examiner interprets the paging response to be the report. See paragraphs [0168] and [0184]).
wherein the report content for the radio link failure includes information indicating that a failure of the handover is associated with voice fallback. (Lee discloses that the report includes information related to the request which holds information about voice fallback. See paragraphs [0165] and [0168]).
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Parichehrehteroujeni, Ali et al. (US 20230397080 A1, hereinafter referred to as Parichehrehteroujeni).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, wherein the report content for the radio link failure further includes information indicating whether a suitable cell of the second RAT has been selected.
In the same field of endeavor, Parichehrehteroujeni discloses a radio link failure (RLF) report that indicates if a suitable cell of another RAT was found. See paragraph [0138] and Table 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lee reference to incorporate the RLF report indicating a suitable cell. The motivation to combine is to include more information in the RLF report for faster and more accurate root cause identification.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, successfully establishing a connection with a third cell after failing to establish a connection to the target cell; and transmitting the report content to the third cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Parichehrehteroujeni discloses a successful connection establishment of another suitable cell. See paragraphs [0060], [0230] and [0232]. The invention also discloses that this re-establishment procedure is included in the report. See paragraphs [0138] and [0242].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lee reference to incorporate re-establishing a connection to a new cell and sending the report to the cell. The motivation to combine is to enhance mobility management and maintaining service continuity.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, performing a re-establishment procedure with the cell of the first RAT in case that a suitable cell of the second RAT is not found, wherein the report content for the radio link failure further includes information associated with the re-establishment procedure.
In the same field of endeavor, Parichehrehteroujeni discloses a radio link failure (RLF) report that indicates if a suitable cell of another RAT was not found. This cell will be used in the re-establishment procedure and the procedure will be included in the report. See paragraphs [0060], [0065], [0138] and Table 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lee reference to incorporate a re-establishment procedure and indicating that in the report. The motivation to combine is to improve troubleshooting and root-cause analysis by identifying and confirming the recovery method.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 2.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 2.
Claims 4, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zaus, Robert et al. (US 20220167244 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zaus).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, reporting capability information of the terminal to the cell of the first RAT, wherein the capability information includes information on whether the terminal supports inter-RAT handover and information on whether the terminal supports reporting of information related to the voice fallback.
In the same field of endeavor, Zaus discloses reporting UE capability information to the network about supporting inter-RAT handover and voice fallback. See paragraphs [0075-[0079] and [0091-0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Lee reference to incorporate sending capability information. The motivation to combine is to prevent unsupported handover attempts and improve the handover success rate.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasoning outlined in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WU (US 20230239750 A1, METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR A MRO MECHANISM OF AN INTER-RAT HANDOVER PROCEDURE)
Kumar et al. (US 20240205754 A1, TECHNIQUES FOR HANDLING VOICE OVER SERVICE FALLBACK)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/CAMILLE J ETIENNE/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights