Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to a communication received on June 26, 2025.
This application has been reassigned to a new examiner. Examiner’s contact information can be found at the end of this office action.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC §103 rejections of claim 1-20 is hereby withdrawn in light of the amendments and applicant’s remarks (see remarks, received 6/26/2025, pp. 1-6). However, a new grounds of rejection has been provided and was necessitated based on the claim amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 10, 12-13, 17, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “in response to determining that the network conditions meet at least one of the configuration, provide to a user equipment (UE) device a signal for the UE device to present a premium network icon, when the UE device is in an idle state, that indicates availability of the premium cellular service”. It is unclear from the context what is being further limited by the claimed language “when the UE device is in an idle state” because it can be further describing when the signal is provided to the UE device or when the UE device will present the premium network icon. As result, the scope of claim 1 is unclear.
Claims 11 and 18 contain a similar issue and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have the same claim language through their dependency to claims 1, 11, and 18. As result, they are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthi et al (US 2021/0352574, hereinafter “Ramamurthi”) in view of Jia et al. (US 2023/0057250, hereinafter “Jia”)
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, Ramamurthi teaches a network device comprising: one or more processors configured to:
store configurations for supporting a premium cellular service (¶69-74, wherein a table may be stored in the wireless station, include mapping table to determine service capabilities based upon available resources);
monitor network conditions against the configuration (¶77, ¶71, and ¶74 , wherein the network side can determine service availability based upon factors regarding the available services); and
in response to determining that the network conditions meet at least one of the configuration, provide to a user equipment (UE) device a signal for the UE device to present a premium network icon, that indicates availability of the premium cellular service (¶77-78 wherein the wireless station can determine based up a mapping table what services are available to the UE and broadcast system information to the UE. The UE will use the system information to determine which icon gets displayed).
However, Ramamurthi does not explicitly indicate that the configurates to determine what premium cellular service is support includes a configuration threshold and that the signal is provided to the UE device for display when the UE device is in an idle state.
Jia teaches a system for determine whether to display an icon designating a premium cellular service (see abstract), wherein Jia teaches that network conditions should be analyzed for premium service icon based upon aggregate bandwidth availability over a defined threshold, among other network conditions (¶29-31 and ¶35) and that the UE should receive connection information and should determine which icon to display in both connected and idle modes (¶31 and ¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use Jia’s suggestions of providing network conditions, including specific defined thresholds, and providing icon display updates during idle periods to improve Ramamurthi’s system. The combination would result in specific thresholds as part of the factors which Ramamurthi considered when determining service available (see ¶71) and also to ensure the wireless service is providing the UE with service availability information even during idle connections. Ramamurthi’s system would be improved from these changes to ensure a threshold aggregate bandwidth is considered when determining service availability and help ensure proper service icons are displayed even when a connection is idle.
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 20, Ramamurthi teaches the network device of claims 1, 11, and 18, wherein, when providing to the UE device the signal for the UE device to present the premium network icon, the one or more processors are further configured to: broadcast the signal in a dedicated system information block (SIB) information element(IE), wherein the SIB IE includes display criteria for the premium network icon (¶¶76-78, wherein the service availability data can be sent in a SIB message in an IE field).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ramamurthi teaches the network device of claims 1 and 11, wherein, when providing to the UE device the signal for the UE device to present the premium network icon, the one or more processors are further configured to: send the signal directly to a UE device via an information element (IE) in a radio resource control (RRC) message (¶75, wherein the wireless station can provide the network condition and icon information to the UE through RRC signaling).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ramamurthi teaches the network device of claims 1 and 11, wherein, when providing to the UE device the signal for the UE device to present the premium network icon, the one or more processors are further configured to: send the signal directly to a UE device via a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message (¶75, wherein the wireless station can provide the network condition and icon information to the UE through RRC signaling).
Regarding claim 7, Ramamurthi, as modified by Jia, teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein, when monitoring the network condition, the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor the network conditions of a radio access network (RAN) (Ramamurthi ¶71, wherein the network factors apply the defined service that are identified in the mapping table of the wireless station and determine which services are signaled to the UE, see also ¶¶77-78).
Regarding claim 8, Ramamurthi, as modified by Jia, teaches the network device of claim 7, wherein, when monitoring the network condition, the one or more processors are further configured to monitor thresholds for: a type of radio frequency band supported by the network device, a minimum available bandwidth, a number of available multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) layers, a minimum number of support carrier aggregation (CA) and dual connectivity (DC) combinations, a network load percentage, or a minimum network backhaul level (Ramamurthi, ¶¶71-72, wherein the frequency bands help determine available services, additionally the available bandwidth is a factor. Jia, ¶29, additionally teaches that minimum aggregated bandwidth should additionally be a factor).
Regarding claim 9, Ramamurthi teaches the network device of claim 1, wherein the network device includes an access station for one of a 5G standalone network or a 5G non-standalone network (¶¶10-11 and ¶24).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following disclosures are directed towards Cellular Service Icon Displays in a UE:
US 2021/0075901 issued to Ahluwalia et al.
US 2023/0135450 issued to Huang et al.
US 2023/0308250 issued to Wu.
US 12,425,508 issued to Zhu.
US 11,902,862 issued to Humbert et al.
US 2020/0037387 issued to Lee et al.
US 11903060 issued to Zhang et al.
US 2022/0353744 issued to Shen et al.
US 2022/0124609 issued to Asthana et al.
US 2021/0410205 issued to Babu et al.
US 12,192,794 issued to Khanka et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472