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 Interpretation
Claims 1, 3, 4, recites “in case” and “if” clauses. For example, claim 1 recites the limitations “in a case that” and “if the target number”.
Each of the “in case that” and “if the target number” clauses indicates that the associated limitations occur only when the criteria of these clauses are met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require such events to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. As such, the limitations followed by “in case that” and “if the target number” clauses do not appear to have patentable weight since they are contingent upon a condition occurring.
Examiner suggests positively reciting the criteria occurring prior to each of the “in case that” and “if the target number” limitations.
For example, for claim 1, examiner recommends “A call capability monitoring method, comprisingdetermining that a terminal supports a voice over new radio (VoNR) capability and completes registration on a standalone (SA) NR network, in response to determining that a terminal supports a voice over new radio (VoNR) capability and completes registration on a standalone (SA) NR network, counting, by the terminal, numbers of times that the terminal successfully performs a VoNR call and a voice over long-term evolution (VoLTE) call, respectively; determining that a target number of times is greater than or equal to a preset number of times, in response to determining that the target number of times is greater than or equal to a preset number of times, stopping, by the terminal, counting a number of times of successful calls, and determining a VoNR capability of the NR network within a first time period based on the target number of times, wherein by determining either the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoNR call or the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call; and if the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoNR call, the NR network supports the VoNR capability within the first time period; or if the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call, the NR network does not support the VoNR capability within the first time period” or similar.
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.
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.
Claims 1- 3, 6- 10, 13- 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Gao CN112770341A (hereinafter Gao), in view of Si CN 114245482 A (hereinafter Si), in view of CUI CN 108668327 A (hereinafter Cui in view of Lahtinen et. al JP 2000516052 A (hereinafter Lahtinen ), and in further view of Ding WO 2021185100 A1(hereinafter Ding).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches A call capability monitoring method, comprising: in a case that a terminal (target terminal) supports a voice over new radio (VoNR) capability (VoNR-based call service) and network type being a 5G SA network) , counting, by the terminal, numbers of times that the terminal successfully (not interrupted abnormally) performs a VoNR call
( “According to a first aspect of the embodiments of the present disclosure, a calling method is provided, which is applied to a target terminal, and the method includes: determining the network type of a serving cell where the target terminal is located currently; and in response to the network type being a 5G SA network and the VoNR function of the serving cell being abnormal, prohibiting the VoNR-based call service from being executed in the serving cell.”[page 2] “the target terminal may count the number of times that the call is not interrupted abnormally in the same cell within a preset time duration, for example, if the call service based on the VoNR for 10 times of the user has no abnormal terminal, it may be determined that the cell is a normal cell. Generally, the number of times that the call is not abnormally terminated is continuous, for example, the user has no abnormal terminal for 10 consecutive times of the VoNR-based call service, and the cell may be determined to be a normal cell.” [page 5])
in a case that a target number of times is greater than or equal to a preset number of times (exceeds the preset normal threshold value), within a preset time duration) based on the target number of times, wherein if the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoNR call, the NR network supports the VoNR capability (a normal cell with normal VoNR function) within the first time period (within a preset time duration);
( “The terminal may determine an abnormal cell or a normal cell during the VoNR-based call service. For example, if the number of abnormal interruption times of the terminal executing the call service based on the VoNR in the same cell exceeds a preset abnormal threshold, determining that the cell is an abnormal cell with abnormal VoNR function; and if the number of times that the call service based on the VoNR is executed in the same cell by the terminal does not have abnormal interruption exceeds a preset normal threshold value, determining that the cell is a normal cell with a normal VoNR function.” [page 4] “in response to the number of abnormal interruptions of the VoNR-based call service executed in the same cell exceeding a preset abnormal threshold, the target terminal determines that the cell is an abnormal cell with abnormal VoNR function, and then the target terminal may add the abnormal cell to the local abnormal cell list… in response to the number of times that no abnormal interruption occurs in the call service based on the VoNR performed in the same cell exceeds a preset normal threshold, determining that the cell is a normal cell with a normal VoNR function; and then reporting the determined normal cell to a server for indicating the server to remove the normal cell from a server abnormal cell list maintained by the server… the target terminal may count the number of times that the call is not interrupted abnormally in the same cell within a preset time duration, for example, if the call service based on the VoNR for 10 times of the user has no abnormal terminal, it may be determined that the cell is a normal cell. Generally, the number of times that the call is not abnormally terminated is continuous, for example, the user has no abnormal terminal for 10 consecutive times of the VoNR-based call service, and the cell may be determined to be a normal cell.”[page 5])
Gao does not expressly disclose complet[ion of ] registration
However Si teaches in a case that a terminal supports a voice over new radio (VoNR) capability and completes registration
(“the terminal device may reside on the 5G SA network, and the voice bearer modes supported by the terminal device at least include: VONR and EPSFB the terminal device may reside in a 5G SA network, and the voice bearer supported by the terminal device at least includes: VONR and EPSFB.… the terminal device supports VONR, and after the terminal device successfully registers VONR …If the network equipment selects the VONR, a VONR-based call session can be established between the terminal equipment and the network equipment; otherwise, if the network device selects the EPSFB, a call session based on the EPSFB can be established between the terminal device and the network device, so that the terminal device falls back onto the LTE network to execute a call service.” [page 4])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Si’s successful VoNR registration and 5G SA operation into the VoNR call monitoring method of Gao so that the terminal performs VoNR capability monitoring while registered and operating in a 5G SA network, for the benefit of reliably monitoring VoNR service availability in the terminal’s active network environment.
Gao in view of Si does not expressly disclose counting, by the terminal, numbers of times that the terminal successfully performs a VoNR call a voice over long-term evolution (VoLTE) call; stopping, by the terminal, counting a number of times of successful calls; or if the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call, the NR network does not support the VoNR capability within the first time period.
However Cui teaches counting, by the terminal (mobile terminal), numbers of times that the terminal successfully performs a VoNR call a voice over long-term evolution (VoLTE) call
(“Fig. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a communication apparatus 300 according to an exemplary embodiment, which is applied in a mobile terminal and may include: a detecting module 301 configured to detect a high definition voice VOLTE communication success rate of a current serving cell” [page 11] “the storage module 304 is configured to store the location area code corresponding to the current serving cell when the VOLTE communication success rate of the current serving cell is lower than a preset threshold …And the processing module 311 is configured to record and update the VOLTE communication success rate of the current serving cell of the mobile terminal in real time according to the VOLTE communication situation of the current serving cell.” [page 12] )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cui ’s terminal side VoLTE communication success monitoring into the VoNR call monitoring method of Gao in view of Si so that the terminal separately evaluates VoLTE communication performance in addition to VoNR performance, for the benefit of selecting a reliable voice service mode based on current network conditions.
Gao in view of Si in further view of CUI does not expressly disclose stopping, by the terminal, counting a number of times of successful calls; or if the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call, the NR network does not support the VoNR capability within the first time period.
However Lahtinen teaches stopping, by the terminal, counting a number of times of successful calls [when the counter threshold value is reached].
(“A call counter, which counts the number of calls initiated, is set to a predetermined value associated with its implementation… Call initiation is prevented when the value of the call counter is equal to the counter threshold value… and a message about the prevention of operation is formed to the subscriber, and the call counter value differs from the counter threshold value Sometimes, the call counter value is decreased / increased by a predetermined call step” [page 4])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lahtinen ’s threshold based call counter control into the VoNR/VoLTE monitoring method of Gao in view of Si and Cui so that the terminal stops further counter controlled call processing once the present count threshold is reached, for the benefit of avoiding unnecessary processing after the threshold based determination has been made.
Gao in view of Si, Cui, and Lahtinen does not expressly disclose if the target number of times is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call, the NR network does not support the VoNR capability within the first time period.
However Ding teaches the NR network does not support the VoNR capability (5G access network device does not support VoNR) [and consequently uses EPS fallback to a 4G network for voice service]
( “a terminal is connected to a 5G access network device, the 5G access network device does not support VoNR, and/or the 5G core corresponding to the 5G access network device The network equipment does not support VoNR; when the terminal performs voice services, the terminal connects to the 4G access network equipment to perform voice services through the 4G access network equipment, where the terminal accesses the 4G access through the instructions of the 5G access network equipment Network equipment, the instruction is an instruction given by the 5G access network equipment through the EPS fallback procedure; the terminal receives the hang-up operation initiated by the user, and in response to the hang-up operation, terminates the voice service; or, the terminal receives from the 4G access network device Hang up instructions, and in response to the hang up instructions, end the voice service; when the terminal and the 4G access network device maintain an RRC connection, the terminal actively sends a measurement report to the 4G access network device to reconnect the terminal to the 5G access network equipment” [page 7])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ding’s teaching that lack of VoNR support in the 5G network results in EPS fallback to 4G voice service into the VoNR/VoLTE monitoring method of Gao in view of Si, Cui, and Lahtinen so that successful VoLTE fallback operation is used to identify when the NR network does not support VoNR, for the benefit of reliably determining the appropriate voice service capability of the current network.
Regarding claim 2 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Gao teaches
wherein the counting, by the terminal (target terminal), the numbers of times that the terminal successfully (not interrupted abnormally) performs the VoNR call and
(“the target terminal may count the number of times that the call is not interrupted abnormally in the same cell within a preset time duration”[page 5] “the target terminal may count the number of times that the call is not interrupted abnormally in the same cell within a preset time duration, for example, if the call service based on the VoNR for 10 times of the user has no abnormal terminal, it may be determined that the cell is a normal cell.” [page 5])
Gao does not expressly disclose the VoLTE call, respectively comprises: counting, by the terminal based on whether a call procedure of each successful call comprises an evolved packet system-fallback (EPS-FB) procedure, and/or based on a dedicated bearer type of each successful call, the numbers of times that the terminal successfully performs
However, Cui teaches the VoLTE call
(“the processing module 311 is configured to record and update the VOLTE communication success rate of the current serving cell of the mobile terminal in real time according to the VOLTE communication situation of the current serving cell” [page 12] “a detecting module 301 configured to detect a high definition voice VOLTE communication success rate of a current serving cell” [page 11])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cui ’s terminal side VoLTE communication success monitoring into the count based implantation of Gao in view of Lahtinen , and Ding so that the terminal monitors successful operation of both VoNR and VoLTE voice services, for the benefit of selecting a reliable voice service based on current network performance.
Gao in view of Cui , Lahtinen , and Ding, does not expressly disclose counting, by the terminal based on whether a call procedure of each successful call comprises an evolved packet system-fallback (EPS-FB) procedure, and/or based on a dedicated bearer type of each successful call.
However, Si teaches counting, by the terminal based on whether a call procedure of each successful call comprises an evolved packet system-fallback (EPS-FB) procedure,
(“If the network equipment selects the VONR, a VONR-based call session can be established between the terminal equipment and the network equipment; otherwise, if the network device selects the EPSFB, a call session based on the EPSFB can be established between the terminal device and the network device, so that the terminal device falls back onto the LTE network to execute a call service” [page 4] “the control terminal equipment falls back to the LTE network and establishes a VOLTE-based call session with the network equipment through the LTE network.” [page 5])
Because claim 2 recites an evolved packet system-fallback (EPS-FB) procedure and a dedicated bearer conditions in the alternative using “and/or”, disclosure of the evolved packet system-fallback (EPS-FB) procedure satisfies the limitation
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Si’s VoNR/ EPSFB call procedure selection and LTE fallback technique into the VoNR/VoLTE call monitoring method of Gao in view of Cui , Lahtinen , and Ding, so that successful calls are distinguished according to whether EPS fallback occur, for the benefit of accurately classifying successful calls according to the voice service technology used.
Regarding claim 3 limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed above. Gao teaches
wherein the counting, by the terminal (target terminal) not interrupted abnormally) performs the VoNR call target terminal) , the number of times that the terminal successfully (not interrupted abnormally) performs the VoNR call
(“The target terminal may count the number of times of abnormal interruption of the call service based on the VoNR in one cell within a preset time period… the target terminal may count the number of times that the call is not interrupted abnormally in the same cell within a preset time duration, for example, if the call service based on the VoNR for 10 times of the user has no abnormal terminal, it may be determined that the cell is a normal cell. Generally, the number of times that the call is not abnormally terminated is continuous, for example, the user has no abnormal terminal for 10 consecutive times of the VoNR-based call service, and the cell may be determined to be a normal cell.” [Page 5] )
Gao does not expressly disclose based on whether the call procedure of each successful call comprises the EPS-FB procedure, the numbers of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call, M+1, wherein M is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoNR call that is counted by the terminal last time; counting, by the terminal, the number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call as N+1, wherein N is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call that is counted by the terminal last time, wherein both M and N are integers greater than or equal to 0, M plus N equals i minus 1, and i is a positive integer.
However, Si teaches based on whether the call procedure of each successful call comprises the EPS-FB procedure [and] if a call procedure of an i-th successful call does not comprise the EPS-FB procedure or if a call procedure of an i-th successful call comprises the EPS-FB procedure.
(“ is first determined by the network side whether to select VONR or EPSFB to perform the call service… in the case that the voice bearing mode selected by the network equipment is VONR, executing the step of establishing the VONR-based call session with the network equipment… . If the network equipment selects the VONR, a VONR-based call session can be established between the terminal equipment and the network equipment; otherwise if the network device selects the EPSFB, a call session based on the EPSFB can be established between the terminal device and the network device, so that the terminal device falls back onto the LTE network to execute a call service.”[page 4])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Si’s VoNR/ EPSFB call procedure selection and LTE fallback technique into the VoNR/VoLTE call monitoring method of Gao in view of Ding, so that the terminal can distinguish native VoNR calls from fallback LTE/VoLTE calls, for the benefit of accurately classifying voice service outcomes based on the network path used.
Gao in view of Si, and Ding does not expressly disclose the numbers of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call, M+1, wherein M is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs
However, Cui teaches the numbers of times that the terminal (mobile terminal) successfully performs the VoLTE call
(“the processing module 311 is configured to record and update the VOLTE communication success rate of the current serving cell of the mobile terminal in real time according to the VOLTE communication situation of the current serving cell” [page 12] “a detecting module 301 configured to detect a high definition voice VOLTE communication success rate of a current serving cell” [page 11])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cui ’s terminal side VoLTE communication success monitoring into the count based implantation of Gao in view Si, and Ding so that the terminal separately evaluates VoLTE call performance in addition to VoNR operation, for the benefit of maintaining reliable voice service performance across the available call paths.
Gao in view of Si, Cui, and Ding does not expressly disclose M+1, wherein M is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs
However, Lahtinen teaches M+1, wherein M is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs
(“A call counter, which counts the number of calls initiated, is set to a predetermined value associated with its implementation… Call initiation is prevented when the value of the call counter is equal to the counter threshold value… and a message about the prevention of operation is formed to the subscriber, and the call counter value differs from the counter threshold value Sometimes, the call counter value is decreased / increased by a predetermined call step” [page 4] “the given call step, in this case 1”[page 3])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lahtinen ’s per call counter increment technique into the VoNR/VoLTE call counting method of Gao in view Si, Cui, and Ding so that the applicable VoNR or VoLTE successful call count is incremented upon each newly classified successful call, for the benefit of maintaining an updated quantitative record of successful calls by voice service type.
Regarding claim 6, The limitations of parent claim 1 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 6,
Gao teaches re-counting, by the terminal after a second time period ends (specified duration), the numbers of times that the terminal successfully (does not have abnormal interruption) performs the VoNR call
(“if the time exceeds a specified duration… the terminal executes the VoNR-based call service in the cell again to detect whether the cell is normal again ” [page 5] “The terminal may determine an abnormal cell or a normal cell during the VoNR-based call service. For example, if the number of abnormal interruption times of the terminal executing the call service based on the VoNR in the same cell exceeds a preset abnormal threshold, determining that the cell is an abnormal cell with abnormal VoNR function; and if the number of times that the call service based on the VoNR is executed in the same cell by the terminal does not have abnormal interruption exceeds a preset normal threshold value, determining that the cell is a normal cell with a normal VoNR function.” [page 4] “the time when the terminal last reported that the cell is an abnormal cell, and if the time exceeds a specified duration, delete the abnormal cell from the abnormal cell list, or modify the VoNR identity corresponding to the abnormal cell to ‘unknown’ ‘normal’ or the like” [page 5])
Gao does not expressly disclose the numbers of times that the terminal (mobile terminal) successfully performs the VoLTE call
However, Cui teaches the numbers of times that the terminal (mobile terminal) successfully performs the VoLTE call
(“the processing module 311 is configured to record and update the VOLTE communication success rate of the current serving cell of the mobile terminal in real time according to the VOLTE communication situation of the current serving cell” [page 12] “a detecting module 301 configured to detect a high definition voice VOLTE communication success rate of a current serving cell” [page 11])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cui ’s terminal side VoLTE communication success monitoring into the count based implantation of Gao in view Si, Lahtinen, and Ding so that the terminal separately evaluates VoLTE call performance in addition to VoNR operation, for the benefit of maintaining reliable voice service performance across the available call paths.
Regarding claim 7, The limitations of parent claim 1 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 7,
Gao teaches updating, by the terminal, target capability information to a target database (local abnormal cell list), wherein the target capability information indicates the VoNR capability (VoNR id/ VoNR flag) of the NR network within the first time period, wherein the target capability information in the target database (local abnormal cell list) is used for a target device (target terminal) to query for the VoNR capability (VoNR id/ VoNR flag) of the NR network within the first time period.
(“the target terminal may determine an abnormal cell or a normal cell during the VoNR-based call service, and then maintain a local abnormal cell list by itself… the target terminal may add an abnormal cell indicated in the server abnormal cell list to the local abnormal cell list” [page 5] “the general list may record the cell id and the VoNR id of the cell… The general list may include a cell 1, and if the VoNR flag of the cell 1 is abnormal, the cell 1 is an abnormal cell; the general list may further include a cell 2, and if the VoNR flag of the cell 2 is normal, the cell 2 is a normal cell with normal VoNR function… it may be queried whether the abnormal cell list includes the cell identity of the serving cell. If the serving cell is located in the abnormal cell list, determining that the VoNR function of the server cell is abnormal; and if the serving cell is not in the abnormal cell list, determining that the VoNR function of the server cell is normal” [page 4] )
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 9 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, Limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, Limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Limitations of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Limitations of parent claim 15 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Gao , in view of Si, in view of CUI , in view of Lahtinen , and in view of Ding , in further view of Venkataraman et. al US 20210051530 A1 (hereinafter Venkataraman ).
Regarding claim 4, The limitations of parent claim 2 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 4,
Gao in view of Si, Cui, Ding, and Lahtinen teaches counting, by the terminal, the number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoNR call as M+1, wherein M is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoNR call that is counted by the terminal last time; counting, by the terminal, the number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call as N+1, wherein N is a number of times that the terminal successfully performs the VoLTE call that is counted by the terminal last time, wherein both M and N are integers greater than or equal to 0, M plus N equals i minus 1, and i is a positive integer.
(Lahtinen teaches “A call counter, which counts the number of calls initiated, is set to a predetermined value associated with its implementation… Call initiation is prevented when the value of the call counter is equal to the counter threshold value… and a message about the prevention of operation is formed to the subscriber, and the call counter value differs from the counter threshold value Sometimes, the call counter value is decreased / increased by a predetermined call step” [page 4] “the given call step, in this case 1”[page 3])
Gao in view of Si, Cui, Ding, and Lahtinen does not expressly disclose if a dedicated bearer of an i-th successful call is created based on the NR network, or if a dedicated bearer of an i-th successful call is created based on an LTE network
However, Venkataraman teaches if a dedicated bearer of an i-th successful call is created based on the NR network, or if a dedicated bearer of an i-th successful call is created based on an LTE network
(“At 1020, IMS 1000 and UE 900 may setup an NR dedicated bearer for the MO voice call. At 1022, UE 900 and IMS 1000 may participate in the IMS voice session over NR.” [0108] “At 1040, EPS core 922 and UE 900 may setup an EPS dedicated bearer for the MO voice call. At 1042, UE 900 and IMS 1000 may participate in the IMS voice session over LTE.” [0109])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Venkataraman ’s NR/EPS dedicated bearer classification into the VoNR/VoLTE call monitoring method of Gao in view Si, Cui, Lahtinen, and Ding so that successful voice calls are classified according to whether the dedicated bearer is associated with the NR or LTE network, for the benefit of accurately distinguishing VoNR and VoLTE call outcomes based on the Bearer used.
Regarding claim 11, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Gao , in view of Si, in view of CUI , in view of Lahtinen , and in view of Ding , in further view of Liu et. al US 20200275337 A1 (hereinafter Liu ).
Regarding claim 5 The limitations of parent claim 2 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 5,
Liu teaches determining, by the terminal, the dedicated bearer type of each successful call based on a quality of service QoS identifier of the successful call.
(“a quality of service (QoS) identifier level may be used to distinguish bearers/streams used to perform different services… in an LTE network, the QoS Class Identifier (QCI) can be divided into 9 levels (1-9). A bearer with QCI=1 is used to perform a voice service, and a bearer with QCI=2 is used to perform a video service, and a QCI=9 bearer is used to perform a data service. For another example, in the NR network, the 5G Quality of Service Identifier (5QI) under the 5G network can also be divided into multiple levels. For example, a stream with 5QI=1 can be used to perform a voice service.” [0125])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Liu ’s QoS identifier technique for distinguishing voice bearer/flow types into the dedicated bear call classification method of Gao in view Si, Cui, Lahtinen, and Ding so that the terminal identifies whether a successful voice call is associated with the NR or LTE bearer based on its QoS identifier, for the benefit of accurately classifying the voice service bearer used for the call.
Regarding claim 12, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects a device comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
References Cited But Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rahman et al (US 20200314702 A1 paragraphs [0011][0033-0034] ) is pertinent for it discloser of determining whether VoNR communication is supported and performing EPS fallback when NR voice communication is not supported
CUI et al (US 20220159522 A1 paragraphs [0059- 0060]) is pertinent for its disclosure of identifying VoNR support/capability of cells and using network information to select a cell capable of supporting VoNR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAVOUR O MADU whose telephone number is (571)272-9730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/F.O.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights