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 .
1. Claims 29-45 and 50-53 are pending. Claims 46-49 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement dated 02/03/2026 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
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.
4. Claim(s) 50-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al, US 2016/0007258 hereafter Singh in view of Barstow et al, US 2016/0127465 hereafter Barstow.
As for claim 50, Singh discloses:
Computer readable apparatus (Singh, Fig. 1, [0017], The mobile device 110 including a memory 104 and a processor 106) comprising a non-transitory storage medium, the non-transitory storage medium comprising at least one computer program having a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions configured to, when executed on a processing apparatus, cause a computerized apparatus to:
receive, from the computerized client device, data representative of at least one policy (Singh, FIG. 7, 720, [0022], [0053], Receiving/ collecting by the mobile device policy information);
obtain, at the computerized client device, data relating to at least a device profile (Singh, [0016], Obtain/storing network connection policies for mobile devices on the network may be based on any number of criteria. Non-limiting examples of such policy grouping criteria may include a mobile device make or model, a particular geographical location, a particular subscriber plan or entitlement, custom created groups of subscribers, or any combination of subscriber information, consumption patterns, service type, application type or network type) and one or more network profiles respectively associated with one or more wireless networks (Singh, [0022], collecting by the mobile device network-wide connectivity policies based on real-time and/or previously collected local network parameters);
determine a mobility state of the computerized client device (Singh, FIG. 7, 710, [0052], [0057], The plurality of parameters/data related to the mobility of the mobile device such as a received signal strength indication (RSSI), a location or velocity of a particular mobile device, a type of connected or available network, a particular subscriber plan, or an application identification (ID)),; and
based at least on the data representative of the at least one policy (Singh, FIG. 7, 720, [0022], [0053], Based on the received updated policy information) and the mobility state (Singh, FIG. 7, 710, [0052], [0057], Based on the plurality of parameters/data related to the mobility of the mobile device such as a received signal strength indication (RSSI), a location or velocity of a particular mobile device, a type of connected or available network, a particular subscriber plan, or an application identification (ID)), cause a computerized client device to effect a data connection with a wireless network (Singh, Fig. 7, 730, [0022], [0054], Rerouting data traffic from a first wireless network configuration to a second wireless network configuration based on the analyzing of the plurality of parameters and the updates policy information from the policy server).
Singh does not explicitly disclose identify, at the computerized client device: (i) one or more device attributes associated with the computerized client device from data relating to the device profile, and (ii) one or more network attributes from each of the one or more network profiles, the one or more network attributes comprising data relating to one or more respective throughputs associated with the one or more wireless networks… based on the data representative of the at least one policy, the one or more device attributes, the one or more network attributes, and the mobility state, perform one or more actions relating to one or more network connections.
However, Chow discloses identify, at the computerized client device: (i) one or more device attributes associated with the computerized client device from data relating to the device profile (Chow, [0150],The advanced profiling server 110 performs the generation of dynamic user profiles 410. User and operational behaviors 815 may be extracted by the advanced profiling client 120 for reporting via data logs 300 to the advanced profiling server 110. Alternatively, this same information may be extracted from processes performed by the device controller 220 for reporting to the advanced profiling server 110.), and (ii) one or more network attributes from each of the one or more network profiles (Chow, [0154] A second example is the generation of dynamic, location profiles 407, performed by the advanced profiling server 110. The device controller 220 may benefit from location profiles 407 created from data including, but not limited to, location, location specific device controller 220 performance measures, signal strengths, network topologies, network characteristics, the quality of decisions made by device controller 220, and the general wireless/network environment. This data may be extracted by the advanced profiling client 120 for reporting to the advanced profiling server 110 via logs 300), the one or more network attributes comprising data relating to one or more respective throughputs associated with the one or more wireless networks (Chow, [0041], [0130], [0158]-[0159], [0163], [0159] Access point profiles 406 are utilized to classify the plurality of access points detected by the advanced profiling clients comprising network throughput. )… based on the data representative of the at least one policy, the one or more device attributes, the one or more network attributes, and perform one or more actions relating to one or more network connections. (Chow, Fig. 13, [0316]-[0317] If a device is trying to determine whether or not it should connect to an access point of a particular broadcasted congestion class value 1205, the mapping may be used to determine an estimate of the throughput 1302 and latency 1303 that would be received over that connection. This mapping has therefore given the device a better sense of whether or not the connection would be appropriate.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh with identify, at the computerized client device: (i) one or more device attributes associated with the computerized client device from data relating to the device profile, and (ii) one or more network attributes from each of the one or more network profiles, the one or more network attributes comprising data relating to one or more respective throughputs associated with the one or more wireless networks… based on the data representative of the at least one policy, the one or more device attributes, the one or more network attributes, and perform one or more actions relating to one or more network connections.as taught by Chow to provide improved control, policy generation/distribution, and achieved operational results. (Chow, [0049])
As for claim 51, Singh discloses:
The determination of the mobility state of the computerized client device comprises determination of a duration that the computerized client device is within a presence of at least one wireless network (Singh, [0057]-[0058], Determining the presence of the mobile device is in range of a certain wireless network); and a movement of the computerized client device comprises a movement between coverage areas associated with two or more wireless access point apparatus (Singh, [0057]-[0058], Determining the presence of the mobile device is in range of a certain wireless network).
As for claim 52, Singh discloses:
Implement a plurality of voting modules, each of the plurality of voting modules configured to evaluate data relative to a predefined baseline, and issue a vote relating to whether to effect the data connection of the computerized client device to the wireless network (Singh, Fig. 5, 512, 513, 514, [0041]-[0043], The software components (voting modules) to evaluate data and make a determination about the flow of traffic for the UE based on the policy data).
As for claim 53, Singh discloses:
The determination of the mobility state comprises (i) a determination that the computerized mobile device is on or within a moving object (Singh, [0057]-[0058], Determining/differentiating if the mobile device is stationary or moving), and (ii) a determination that a velocity of the computerized client device is relative to one or more wireless access point apparatus on or within the moving object (Singh, [0057]-[0058], Determining the presence of the mobile device is in range of a certain wireless network).
Reasons for Allowance
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Amended claims 29-45 are allowable over prior art since the prior art reference(s) taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggests, or render obvious as argued by the applicant which the examiner considers as persuasive as set forth above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sirotkin et al US 2016/0066251 [0014] The information may include one or more of access network assistance information, steering policies, or access commands. In some embodiments, the UE may resolve conflicts between the RAN rules based on the information received from the RAN and/or WLAN and an ANDSF policy. In some embodiments, the UE may utilize enhanced ANDSF policies to account for the information received from the RAN and/or WLAN.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469