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 .
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite acronyms (i.e. SA, PDU, etc.) without reciting what they stand for.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20240015604 A1) in view of Huang (US 20200053596 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
“A voice call method, applied to a first electronic device, wherein the first electronic device camps on a SA cell,” ([¶ 0225]: “S202: The called UE connects to a 5G SA network.” See Fig. 4.)
“and the method comprises: in a case that a first voice call request is received, sending a first session progress message to the SA cell…” ([¶ 0107]: “The called UE sends a session progress message (183 Session Progress message) to the calling UE through the network to indicate a session establishment progress.” This describes the equivalent of step e in Fig. 4)
“…falling back to an LTE cell” ([¶ 0264]: “In step S204, when the call is abnormally released, the called UE performs capability backoff, for example, the called UE may be set not to support the 5G SA capability or the NR capability, or it is assumed that the 5G SA network does not meet a resident condition.”)
“and making a voice call in the LTE cell based on a received second voice call request.” ([¶ 0276]: “S206: If the calling UE successfully calls the called UE through CSFB, the calling UE makes an audio and video call with the called UE through the CS domain.”)
Zhang does not explicitly disclose “so that the SA cell returns a PDU session modification command based on the first session progress message; in a case that the PDU session modification command carries first signaling, determining the SA cell as an abnormal cell, wherein the first signaling is used to indicate the first electronic device to delete an unknown QoS flow.”
However, Huang discloses the missing feature “so that the SA cell returns a PDU session modification command based on the first session progress message; in a case that the PDU session modification command carries first signaling, determining the SA cell as an abnormal cell, wherein the first signaling is used to indicate the first electronic device to delete an unknown QoS flow.” ([¶ 0030]: “In step 521, network 502 sends a PDU session modification command message to UE 501… The command message carries a QoS rule IE and/or QoS flow description IE for such QoS operations.”; [¶ 0031]: “First, if the QoS operation is to create a new QoS rule having a specific QFI but the network does not provide corresponding QoS flow description for the specific QFI, then the to-be-created QoS rule will have empty QoS flow description.”; [¶ 0033]: “Then in step 551, UE 501 rejects the PDU session modification command message with the 5GSM cause value #84 indicating “syntactical error in the QoS operation” if the QoS rules IE contains no other QoS rule.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhang and Huang, to modify the fallback technique as disclosed by Zhang, to be triggered by a PDU session modification command regarding deleting an unknown QoS flow as disclosed by Huang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows network correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang with Huang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Huang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhang further discloses:
“wherein the falling back to an LTE cell and making a voice call in the LTE cell based on a received second voice call request comprises: disabling the SA cell and falling back from the SA cell to the LTE cell;” ([¶ 0206]: “The called UE disables a 5G SA capability, and de-registers a 5G SA network. The called UE may start a timer during falling back, and cancel suppression of 5G SA when the timer expires and the called UE is not in a call state.”)
“in a case that the second voice call request is received, sending a second session progress message to the LTE cell, so that a media bearer is established in the LTE cell for the first electronic device based on the second session progress message; and making a voice call based on the media bearer.” ([¶ 0316]: “In a process in which the calling UE calls the called UE through VoLTE, the calling UE and the called UE each establish a corresponding voice dedicated bearer, and then establish an IMS session based on the established voice dedicated bearer”)
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Huang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhang further discloses:
“wherein the falling back to an LTE cell and making a voice call in the LTE cell based on a received second voice call request comprises: adding the SA cell to an abnormal cell list;” ([¶ 0206]: “The called UE disables a 5G SA capability, and de-registers a 5G SA network. The called UE may start a timer during falling back, and cancel suppression of 5G SA when the timer expires and the called UE is not in a call state.”)
“in a case that the second voice call request is received and a cell on which the first electronic device camps is in the abnormal cell list, falling back from the SA cell to the LTE cell; sending a third session progress message to the LTE cell, so that a media bearer is established in the LTE cell for the first electronic device based on the third session progress message; and making a voice call based on the media bearer.” ([¶ 0316]: “In a process in which the calling UE calls the called UE through VoLTE, the calling UE and the called UE each establish a corresponding voice dedicated bearer, and then establish an IMS session based on the established voice dedicated bearer”)
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses:
“A voice call method, applied to a second electronic device, wherein the second electronic device camps on a SA cell,” ([¶ 0294]: “S301: The calling UE connects to a 5G SA network.” See Fig. 5.)
“and the method comprises: in a case that a voice call request is sent through the SA cell, receiving a PDU session modification command returned by the SA cell based on the voice call request…” ([¶ 0107]: “Step c: The called UE sends a session progress message (183 Session Progress message) to the calling UE through the network to indicate a session establishment progress.”)
“…and falling back to an LTE cell and making a call retry based on the LTE cell.” ([¶ 0311]: “S305: When the call made through VoNR or EPS fallback, the calling UE falls back to the LTE network, and performs a call retry through VoLTE.”)
Zhang does not explicitly disclose “in a case that the PDU session modification command carries first signaling, determining the SA cell as an abnormal cell, wherein the first signaling is used to indicate the second electronic device to delete an unknown QoS flow.”
However, Huang discloses the missing feature “in a case that the PDU session modification command carries first signaling, determining the SA cell as an abnormal cell, wherein the first signaling is used to indicate the second electronic device to delete an unknown QoS flow.” ([¶ 0030]: “In step 521, network 502 sends a PDU session modification command message to UE 501… The command message carries a QoS rule IE and/or QoS flow description IE for such QoS operations.”; [¶ 0031]: “First, if the QoS operation is to create a new QoS rule having a specific QFI but the network does not provide corresponding QoS flow description for the specific QFI, then the to-be-created QoS rule will have empty QoS flow description.”; [¶ 0033]: “Then in step 551, UE 501 rejects the PDU session modification command message with the 5GSM cause value #84 indicating “syntactical error in the QoS operation” if the QoS rules IE contains no other QoS rule.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhang and Huang, to modify the fallback technique as disclosed by Zhang, to be triggered by a PDU session modification command regarding deleting an unknown QoS flow as disclosed by Huang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows network correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang with Huang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Huang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhang further discloses:
“wherein the falling back to an LTE cell and making a call retry based on the LTE cell comprises: disabling the SA cell within a first preset duration and falling back from the SA cell to the LTE cell; and” ([¶ 0311]: “S305: When the call made through VoNR or EPS fallback, the calling UE falls back to the LTE network, and performs a call retry through VoLTE.”)
“initiating a call retry based on the LTE cell.” ([¶ 0311]: “S305: When the call made through VoNR or EPS fallback, the calling UE falls back to the LTE network, and performs a call retry through VoLTE.”)
Claims 6-10 and 16-19 are substantially similar to claims 1-5, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-5 are directed towards a method, while claims 6-10 and 16-19 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Zhang in paragraph 403. Thus, claims 6-10 and 16-19 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-5.
Claims 11-15 and 20 are substantially similar to claims 1-5, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-5 are directed towards a method, while claims 11-15 and 20 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. Such a medium is taught by Zhang in paragraph 443. Thus, claims 11-15 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights