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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1, 53 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2019/0230180 to Wang in view of U.S. Patent 9,603,022 to Laarakkers and U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0254726 to Cassidy.
Regarding claims 1 and 53, (as in the written opinion) Wang teaches a method of operating a communications device in a wireless communications network, the method comprising:
regarding the two steps of claim 1, which recite
“receiving, via a wireless access interface provided by an infrastructure equipment in a cell of the wireless communications network, a registration accept indication, the registration accept indication indicating that the communications device is permitted to be registered for a service, and
determining that the service is not required,”
as described in the written opinion, Figs. 10A-10D and 12 of Wang show user interfaces which allow the user to select a particular service provider based on their location and registration. As described in sections [0147] to [0149], Wang teaches that these interfaces and/or menus include “buttons” to accept or reject a service, where the user selecting an “X” button to reject a service would “determine that the service is not required”, as recited.
Regarding the last step of claim 1 which recites:
“in response to determining that the service is not required, transmitting a service rejection indication indicating that the service is not required”, as stated in the written opinion, as this step is believed to be implicitly included in Wang, however not explicitly taught, Laarakkers is added.
In an analogous art, Laarakkers teaches providing a user device with an interface which allows the user to accept or reject the provided service. See for example, Fig. 2 steps 202 to 212, as described in column 7, line 48, to column 8, line 35, which teach that both acceptance or rejection indications are transmitted back to the network. See also claim 1 of Laarakkers, which also summarizes the process of Fig. 2.
Therefore, as both Wang and Laarakkers teach providing interfaces on mobile devices which allow a user to accept or reject a service, and as Laarakkers explicitly teaches sending the rejection signal back to the network, it would have been obvious to include this feature of Laarakkers into Wang, as it is beneficial to the network to know and confirm that a service has been rejected.
Regarding the features of claim 1, which recite:
transmitting a registration request to an infrastructure equipment, the registration request requesting that the communications device be registered for a service provided via the wireless communications network,
receiving via the wireless access interface information associated with the service,
after receiving the registration accept indication and the information associated with the service, determining that the service is not required based on the information associated with the service, Cassidy is added.
In an analogous art, Cassidy teaches a system which provides services to user devices. As shown in Figs. 4-5 and 7, Cassidy teaches a user device 122a sending a registration token to an app server 108a (step 714 in Fig. 7, sections [0093] to [0094]), which registers the device for services (services shown on the interfaces of Figs. 4-5), receiving push notifications/acceptances, where Fig. 5 (section [0075]) shows “More info” provided which includes the price and/or the number of devices “5”, where the user may hit button 584 “No thanks.”, which “determines that the service is not required based on the information associated with the service”, as now recited.
Therefore, as Wang/Laarakkers teach providing services and interfaces on mobile devices which allow a user to accept or reject a service, and as Cassidy teaches sending a registration token to an app server, receiving push notification/acceptances, (which also provide information about services), and also teaches declining the service based on information provided about the service, it would have been obvious to include these features into Wang, as it enhances the user’s experience to see the details about a service before accepting it, so the user does not have to pay for unwanted services.
Regarding the amendment which now recites a “dynamic service” (in 8 separate occurrences within the claim), and which also recites “the dynamic service including a service which is not covered by a pre-existing agreement between (i) a subscriber and (ii) the wireless communications network or a service provider”, the “dynamic service” described in Cassidy (of a premium service allowing 10 times the basic bandwidth) is a service “not covered by a pre-existing agreement between the user and service provider”, as now recited.
Regarding claim 53, which recites similar features/amendments as claim 1, but from the point of view of the base station 106 and not the user equipment 102, see the rejection of these features in the cited portions of the references above in the rejection of claim 1, and see base station 106 in Fig. 1 of Laarakkers as described in columns 5-6, which is the recited device.
Regarding claim 56, which recites “wherein the dynamic service include a service whose pre-existing agreement may be supplemented before the service is obtained”, as best understood (as the recited “dynamic service” is not supposed to include a “pre-existing agreement” as defined in claim 53), as Cassidy teaches that the “pre-existing agreement may be supplemented with an upgraded service”, Cassidy appears to teach this feature.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 5,794,140 to Sawyer.
Regarding claim 3, which recites “wherein the information associated with the dynamic service and the indication that the communications device is permitted to be registered for the dynamic service are received within a same message”, as Wang, Cassidy and Laarakkers do not explicitly teach this feature, Sawyer is added.
In an analogous art, Sawyer teaches a mobile system which broadcasts information to user devices. See for example, the abstract and step 106 in Fig. 3 as described in column 10, lines 10-41, which teach sending a message to the mobile devices that indicates that call services are currently offered at a reduced rate. Also, as the reduced cost message of Sawyer also indicates that the device is permitted to use the service, Sawyer would also teach this feature, as recited.
Therefore, as Wang/Laarakkers/Cassidy and Sawyer teach offering services to user devices, and as Sawyer explicitly teaches sending the user (cost) information about that service, it would have been obvious to include this feature in the Wang and Cassidy, Laarakkers combination, for the cost benefit reasons discussed in Sawyer.
Regarding claim 4, which recites “wherein the information associated with the dynamic service is received within one or more broadcast messages”, as described above, step 106 of Sawyer teaches broadcasting the service information, as recited.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of 2014/0033288 to Wynn.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “wherein the information comprises one or more of terms and conditions applicable to the use of the dynamic service”, although Fig. 3 of Sawyer as described in columns 10-11, teaches the terms are a “reduced rate” and the conditions are sent in steps 106 and 138, where the “condition” is that the network remains below an overloaded condition (and when the network is below the “overload condition”, the reduced rate (terms) are offered, which could be considered as “terms and conditions”), Wynn is added for a more explicit teaching of “displaying terms and conditions of a service”.
In an analogous art, Wynn teaches a mobile device which receives the terms and conditions of service offered by the network. See for example, section [0038] and [0409] and step 2208 in Fig. 22 which display both the terms and conditions of the offered service.
Therefore, as all of Wang/Laarakkers, Wynn and Sawyer teach offering services to user devices, as Sawyer teaches sending the user what may be considered as “terms and conditions” and as Wynn explicitly teaches sending and displaying “terms and conditions of a service”, it would have been obvious to include this feature in the Wang, Laarakkers and Sawyer combination, for the cost reasons discussed in Sawyer and Wynn, which are that the user may make an informed and better decision on whether to accept or deny the service when the “terms and conditions” are known to the user.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of 2017/0171200 to Bao.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “wherein determining based on the information that the dynamic service is not required comprises presenting the information to a user of the communications device, and receiving an input from the user indicating that the dynamic service is not required”, although the references teach receiving user input of not accepting “that the service is required” and information about the service, as this rejection of service may not be explicitly based on the information, Bao is added.
In an analogous art, Bao teaches a mobile device requesting service, where the user is then subsequently offered to accept or decline the service. See for example, Fig. 9C as described in section [0084], which teaches that the user is provided information about the service and an option to decline the service, where the provided information would be used by the user to “indicate that the service is not required”, as recited.
Therefore, as all of Wang/Laarakkers, Wynn and Sawyer teach offering services to user devices, as Bao explicitly teaches sending the “indication that the service is not required”, it would have been obvious to include this feature in the Wang, Laarakkers and Sawyer combination, as these references teach the user accepting the service and it would be conventional and beneficial to the network to receive positive a confirmation that the user does not want the service (based on the information provided).
Regarding claim 7, which recites “wherein the input from the user indicates that the one or more of terms and conditions applicable to the use of the dynamic service are not acceptable to the user”, as described above, as Sawyer teaches providing reduced cost terms and network overload conditions and as Bao also teaches providing information (terms and conditions) and receiving user input to the option to cancel or decline the service, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited, as the user’s declining the service implies that “the one or more of terms and conditions applicable to the use of the service are not acceptable”, as recited.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2019/0335392 to Qiao.
Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein the registration request comprises a registration type indication”, as Wang and Laarakkers do not explicitly teach this feature, Qiao is added.
In an analogous art, Qiao teaches a user device sending a registration request to a base station. See for example, the second step shown in the process in Fig. 17, as described in sections [0350] to [0352], which teach the registration request may include the type of service and slice identification information (NSSAI). Regarding the type of registration, see sections [0206] to [0208], [0339], [0343] and [0350] of Qiao, which teach that the registration request includes both of a “service type” and/or “registration type”, as recited.
Therefore, as both Wang/Laarakkers/Cassidy and Qiao teach UE requesting and registering for services, and as Qiao explicitly teaches the UE sending an initial service type request message, it would have been obvious to include this feature in the Wang and Laarakkers combination, as it is conventional to send service registration requests (as networks may or may not allow a service) and the network requires this information to provide the requested service.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of 2019/0037475 to Zhang.
Regarding claim 10, which recites “the method comprising before transmitting the registration request, transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) connection request via the wireless access interface, wherein the registration request is transmitted within a message associated with the RRC connection”, as the references do not teach an initial RRC connection request before the service request, Zhang is added.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches a wireless system which provides services to mobile devices based on the availability of the network. Regarding the recited RRC connection request, see for example, see step 1203 in Fig. 12A of Zhang, as described in sections [0265] to [0269] and [0280], which teach that the UE sends an initial RRC connection request message before it registers with the network
Therefore, as Wang/Laarakkers and Qiao teach UEs requesting and registering for services, and as Zhang teaches the UE first sending an RRC connection request, it would have been obvious to include this feature in the Wang/Laarakkers combination, as it is conventional to first establish an RRC connection with the network before further communications are performed, as taught in Zhang.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2020/0092747 to Kumar.
Regarding claim 12, which recites “wherein the service rejection indication indicating that the dynamic service is not required is transmitted to an entity of a core network using a control plane and before a user plane connection to the core network is established”, as Wang/Laarakkers do not mention the control plane, Kumar is added.
In an analogous art, Kumar teaches a wireless system which provides services to mobile devices. Regarding the recited control plane, see for example, Figs. 1-6, which all begin with a service attach request transmitted on the control plane. See sections [0007], [0024] and [0046] to [0052], which teach that the UE first sends a service message on the control plane to a core network MME.
Therefore, as Wang/Laarakkers/Cassidy teach transmitting a service rejection message (where service information is stored in the core network) and as Kumar teaches the UE communicating service messages to the core via the control plane, it would have been obvious to include the recited feature in the Wang and Laarakkers combination, as it is conventional to first communicate on the control plane before providing a large amount of wireless resources needed to then subsequently establish the user plane, as taught by Kumar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive and/or moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant sets forth that the “basic Internet” package described in Cassidy establishes a “pre-existing agreement between the user and the service provider”. In response to this point the Examiner sets forth that the amended claim language now recites steps which relate to a “dynamic service” and not the basic/pre-existing service. Therefore, even if the basic Internet service of Cassidy may be considered as a “pre-existing” service, this service of Cassidy is not relied upon in the rejection. It is the “dynamic” or “premium/upgrade” service of Cassidy that is used to meet this newly recited feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Lester Kincaid can be reached on (571)272-7922. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646