DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of the instant application, dated 12/22/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 11,051,269, hereinafter “the ‘269 Patent”. Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the Examiner's independent review of the ‘269 Patent itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds that he cannot locate any ongoing proceeding before the Office or current ongoing litigation involving the ‘269 Patent. Furthermore, based upon the Examiner's independent review of the ‘269 Patent itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
Reissue Application
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 12/22/2022. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘269 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance; a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Response to Amendment
Amended claims and amendments to the specification have been reviewed.
Specification.
The specification amendment does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1) and 37 CFR 1.173(d).
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:
(1) Specification other than the claims, "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c)), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c)), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c), or a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a)).
(i) Changes to the specification, other than to the claims, "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), or a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) must be made by submission of the entire text of an added or rewritten paragraph, including markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that an entire paragraph may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph. The precise point in the specification where any added or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 (Recapture)
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(I)):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(A)) In the instant case and by way of the preliminary amendment, Applicant seeks to broaden previously allowed claims in this reissue at least by deleting/omitting the patent claim language requiring, “for performing the packet-based call associated with the second SIM using the second communication circuitry, while the packet-based call associated with the first SIM is performed using the first communication circuitry.”, which was specifically stated as one of the reasons for Allowance dated 06/09/2021.
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(B)) The record of the prior 16/520,457 application prosecution indicates that in the reasons for Allowance dated 06/09/2021, are specifically stated as one of the reasons for allowance with the prior art not teaching the limitation stated above. Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance on an argument/statement made by the Examiner that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Therefore, in the instant application the claimed limitations are surrendered subject matter and the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter, (See above “Step 1” for fully amended claim language that is underlined and specifically determined as the surrendered subject matter.).
(Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(C)) It is noted that the surrendered subject matter has been entirely eliminated from independent claims 21 – 24 in this reissue application. If surrendered subject matter has been entirely eliminated from a claim present in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper. Additionally, reissue claims 21 – 24 were not materially narrowed in other respects that relate to the surrendered subject matter to avoid recapture.
Therefore, improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application is clearly present in the instant reissue application.
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 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 pre-AIA 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, 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.
Claims 21 and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 10,499,454 B2 (hereinafter ‘454 Patent) in view of US Patent No. 10,231,117 B2 (hereinafter ‘117 Patent).
The Examiner will use the shorthand notation of “1:1 – 5” for Column 1, lines 1 – 5.
Claim 21
An electronic device, comprising: [21.pre]
Met by UE 102 in ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 10–35; Fig. 1).
a first subscriber identity module (SIM) and a second SIM; [21.a]
‘454 Patent does not expressly disclose multiple SIM cards. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches an electronic device comprising a first subscriber identity module (SIM-1) and a second SIM (SIM-2) (col. 4, lines 20–55; Fig. 1, SIM 108a, 108b).
Combining known prior art elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)).
a first communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a cellular network; [21.b]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 25–60; col. 5, lines 5–25; cellular radio transceiver).
a second communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a Wi-Fi network; and [21.c]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 40–65; Wi-Fi transceiver).
a processor operatively connected with the first SIM, the second SIM, the first communication circuitry, and the second communication circuitry, [21.d]
‘454 Patent discloses a processor coupled to cellular and Wi-Fi transceivers (col. 4, lines 1–25; Fig. 6). ‘117 Patent teaches the processor operatively connected to SIM-1 and SIM-2 (col. 4, lines 40–67; Fig. 1).
Known configuration of multi-SIM processing systems (MPEP § 2143(A)).
wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a packet-based call associated with the first SIM using the first communication circuitry, and [21.e]
‘454 Patent explicitly discloses performing a packet-based call (VoLTE call / packet session) using the cellular communication circuitry (col. 5, lines 10–55). To the extent associated with a first SIM of a multi-SIM apparatus, ‘117 Patent discloses conducting a packet-based call associated with a first SIM using cellular RF resources (col. 5, lines 35–65).
Routine execution of voice sessions over a designated subscription identity (MPEP § 2143(A)).
perform hand-over from the cellular network to the Wi-Fi network with respect to the second SIM, while the packet-based call associated with the first SIM is performed using the first communication circuitry. [21.f]
‘454 Patent teaches maintaining an ongoing call on cellular while routing Wi-Fi communications, but does not disclose a multi-SIM hand-over where a second SIM's connection is transferred to Wi-Fi while a first SIM performs a cellular call. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches that while an active call is performed on SIM-1 using the cellular transceiver, the processor handles conflicts on SIM-2 by transferring / handing over the connection of SIM-2 from cellular to the Wi-Fi network (col. 7, lines 40–67; col. 8, lines 1–45; col. 12, lines 15–55).
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143(A)). In a multi-subscription device where an active cellular call on SIM-1 ties up cellular transceiver resources, handing over SIM-2 to Wi-Fi while the SIM-1 call is ongoing predictably prevents radio frequency collision, prevents dropped calls, and maintains continuous multi-subscription reachability.
Claim 22
The electronic device of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform hand-over from the Wi-Fi network to the cellular network with respect to the second SIM, when the packet-based call associated with the first SIM is terminated. [22]
‘454 Patent does not disclose handing over a second SIM back to cellular upon call termination on a first SIM. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches that upon termination/hang-up of the active call associated with the first subscription (SIM-1), the cellular RF resources are made available, and the processor initiates hand-over / return of the second subscription (SIM-2) from the Wi-Fi network back to the cellular network (col. 9, lines 20–55; col. 13, lines 10–40).
Predictable variation and resource reclamation (MPEP § 2143(A)). Once the primary call terminates and the cellular transceiver becomes free, handing SIM-2 back to the cellular network predictably re-establishes normal cellular standby operation for both subscriptions. It would have been obvious to PHOSITA because of similar reasons stated above.
Claims 1–20, and 23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 10,499,454 B2 (hereinafter ‘454 Patent) in view of US Patent No. 10,231,117 B2 (hereinafter ‘117 Patent), in further view of 2019/0124559, (hereinafter ‘559 Pub.).
Claim 1
An electronic device, comprising: [1.pre]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches an electronic device (e.g., user equipment / mobile station / cellular handset; col. 3, lines 10–35; Fig. 1, UE 102).
a first subscriber identity module (SIM) and a second SIM; [1.a]
‘454 Patent teaches a user equipment (UE 102) communicating across wireless networks but does not explicitly describe multiple SIM cards in the primary embodiment. ‘117 Patent teaches a wireless communication device comprising a plurality of subscriber identity modules, specifically a first SIM ("SIM-1") associated with a first subscription and a second SIM ("SIM-2") associated with a second subscription (col. 4, lines 20–55; col. 7, lines 10–35; Fig. 1, SIM 108a and SIM 108b). Combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143(A)). A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) seeking to optimize multi-subscription reachability and avoid service conflicts in the mobile device of ‘454 Patent would be motivated to incorporate the multi-SIM (SIM-1 and SIM-2) architecture of ‘117 Patent to allow a single device to support multiple carrier subscriptions concurrently.
a first communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a cellular network; [1.b]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches a first communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a cellular network (e.g., cellular radio transceiver/modem communicating with cellular base stations over a 3GPP LTE network; col. 3, lines 25–60; col. 5, lines 5–25; Fig. 1).
a second communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a Wi-Fi network; and [1.c]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches a second communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a Wi-Fi network (e.g., Wi-Fi transceiver / WLAN communication interface configured to exchange data over an IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi access point; col. 3, lines 40–65; col. 5, lines 20–45; Fig. 1).
at least one processor operatively connected with the first SIM, the second SIM, the first communication circuitry, and the second communication circuitry, [1.d]
‘454 Patent teaches one or more processors operatively coupled to cellular and Wi-Fi communication transceivers (col. 4, lines 1–25; Fig. 6), but lacks operative connection to a first and second SIM. ‘117 Patent teaches at least one processor operatively connected with the first SIM (SIM-1), the second SIM (SIM-2), and the communication circuitry/transceivers (col. 4, lines 40–67; col. 5, lines 1–20; Fig. 1, processor 102 coupled to SIMs 108a, 108b and RF resource 110). Combining known elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)). A PHOSITA incorporating the dual-SIM modules of ‘117 Patent into ‘454 Patent would predictably couple the central/baseband processor to both SIM interfaces to manage subscription identities alongside the radio circuitry.
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
perform a packet-based call associated with the first SIM using the first communication circuitry, and [1.e]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches performing a packet-based call (e.g., a packet-switched voice call such as a VoLTE call or E911 packet session) over the cellular network using the cellular communication circuitry (col. 5, lines 10–55; col. 6, lines 1–30). To the extent ‘454 Patent does not specify that the call is associated with a "first SIM" of a multi-SIM apparatus, ‘117 Patent teaches an electronic device wherein the processor conducts an active packet-based call (e.g., VoLTE call or data call) associated with a first subscription/SIM (SIM-1) using the cellular communication circuitry (col. 5, lines 35–65; col. 8, lines 10–40).
Combining known elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)). It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to execute the packet-based call of ‘454 Patent using the subscription credentials of SIM-1 as taught by ‘117 Patent to authenticate the cellular call with the subscriber's network.
transmit a first re-registration message for internet protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) re-registration for the second SIM to a network associated with the second SIM using the second communication circuitry for performing [the] a packet-based call associated with the second SIM using the second communication circuitry, while the packet-based call associated with the first SIM is performed using the first communication circuitry. [1.f]
‘454 Patent discloses managing concurrent sessions across cellular and Wi-Fi, including maintaining an active packet session over cellular while routing communications over Wi-Fi (col. 5, lines 30–65; col. 7, lines 15–50), but does not teach multi-SIM coexistence offload or IMS re-registration for a second SIM over Wi-Fi during the cellular call.
‘117 Patent teaches multi-subscription coexistence where an active call on a first SIM (SIM-1) occupies the cellular RF chain; to prevent service outage or collision, the device manages the second SIM (SIM-2) by directing SIM-2 traffic and service registration away from the congested cellular chain to an alternate communication circuitry (Wi-Fi) while SIM-1 maintains its call over cellular (col. 7, lines 40–67; col. 9, lines 1–35; col. 12, lines 15–55).
‘559 Patent teaches client devices registering with an IMS network, specifically transmitting an IMS re-registration message (a SIP REGISTER request updating the contact address/access network) over Wi-Fi (second communication circuitry) in order to enable packet-based calling (Voice over Wi-Fi / VoWiFi) for that subscriber (paras. [0035]–[0048], [0062]–[0075]; Fig. 3). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143(A)). When an ongoing call on a first SIM occupies the cellular transceiver, routing the second SIM to Wi-Fi predictably avoids RF collisions and paging misses.
‘117 Patent and ‘559 Patent: Simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143(B)) and compliance with telecommunications standards. A PHOSITA implementing the Wi-Fi offload of SIM-2 in ‘117 Patent would look to ‘559 Patent to utilize standardized IMS signaling (SIP REGISTER) over Wi-Fi, because an IMS network requires an updated registration over the new access network before routing packet voice calls (VoWiFi) to the subscriber.
‘454 Patent is directed to wireless user equipment capable of managing concurrent communications across cellular (LTE) and Wi-Fi networks during an ongoing voice/packet call. ‘117 Patent is directed to a multi-subscription wireless communication device (Dual SIM Dual Standby / DSDS) confronting radio resource contention when one subscription is engaged in an active cellular call.
Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results (MPEP § 2143(A)): A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) seeking to optimize multi-subscription performance in the mobile device of ‘454 Patent would be motivated to incorporate the multi-SIM arbitration and selective tune-away teachings of ‘117 Patent.
Predictable Functionality / Problem-Solution Coupling: In single-transceiver or resource-constrained multi-SIM UEs, an ongoing VoLTE packet call on a first SIM ties up the cellular baseband/RF chain. Applying ‘117 Patent's technique of redirecting the second SIM's connection (hand-over or re-registration) to an alternate available communication circuitry (Wi-Fi) while the first SIM's call remains active predictably eliminates RF chain collisions, avoids paging miss on the second subscription, and maintains continuous multi-subscription reachability.
Reasonable Expectation of Success: Both references operate in standard 3GPP cellular and IEEE 802.11 environments. The incorporation utilizes routine transceiver interfaces and standard processor control routines with an extraordinarily high expectation of success.
Claim 2
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the cellular network includes a long term evolution (LTE) network, and [2.a]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches that the cellular network is an LTE (Long Term Evolution) network (col. 1, lines 45–60; col. 3, lines 20–35; col. 5, lines 10–25). Because the primary reference explicitly discloses this limitation, no secondary reference is cited.
wherein the packet-based call associated with the first SIM includes a voice over LTE (VoLTE) call. [2.b]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches that the packet-based call over the LTE cellular network is a Voice over LTE (VoLTE) call (col. 5, lines 15–40; col. 6, lines 5–25).
Claim 3
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, when the packet-based call associated with the first SIM is terminated, transmit a second re-registration message for the IMS re-registration for the second SIM to the network associated with the second SIM using the first communication circuitry. [3]
‘454 Patent does not teach restoring a secondary SIM back to cellular upon termination of a cellular call. ‘117 Patent teaches that when the call on the first subscription (SIM-1) is completed/terminated, the RF resources of the first communication circuitry are freed, and the processor triggers tune-back / return of the second subscription (SIM-2) to the cellular network (col. 9, lines 20–55; col. 13, lines 10–40). ‘559 Patent teaches that upon returning to cellular coverage or concluding off-path routing, the processor transmits an IMS re-registration message (SIP REGISTER) over the cellular network (first communication circuitry) to restore cellular IMS routing (paras. [0045]–[0052], [0080]–[0088]).
Predictable variation and standard-compliant procedure (MPEP § 2143(A), (B)). Once the cellular RF chain is released upon call termination, returning SIM-2 to cellular connectivity and re-registering its IMS route over cellular as taught by ‘559 Patent is routine engineering practice to ensure the subscriber re-establishes cellular voice/data availability. ‘454 Patent and ‘117 Patent teach maintaining multi-network and multi-subscription voice/packet calling across cellular and Wi-Fi paths. ‘559 Patent teaches the standardized signaling architecture of the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) for VoLTE and VoWiFi, specifically evaluating network conditions (Wi-Fi signal power RSSI, Internet connectivity, and cellular/Wi-Fi interworking support) and formatting SIP REGISTER messages with P-Access-Network-Info (PANI) headers indicating "IEEE" or "3GPP" access.
Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another (MPEP § 2143(B)) & Compliance with Industry Standards: A PHOSITA implementing the Wi-Fi offload and multi-RAT voice sessions described in ‘454 Patent and ‘117 Patent would look to ‘559 Patent for standard-compliant IMS signaling procedures.
Technical Necessity of Standardized Signaling: In 3GPP IMS architectures, an operator core network requires explicit identification of access network technology (via PANI headers in SIP REGISTER messages) to properly route packet voice traffic and apply Quality of Service (QoS). Furthermore, verifying AP power thresholds, internet routability, and carrier interworking support prior to initiating Wi-Fi re-registration represents sound engineering practice to prevent dropped calls. Implementing ‘559 Patent's PANI header signaling and Wi-Fi validation logic within the multi-SIM system of ‘454 Patent and ‘117 Patent is nothing more than the predictable application of established telecommunications protocols to solve the known problem of reliable IMS registration.
Claim 4
The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the first re-registration message includes access network information indicating an institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE), and [4.a]
‘454 Patent does not disclose the specific access network header parameters of the registration message. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that the IMS registration message transmitted over the Wi-Fi network includes access network information (specifically within a SIP P-Access-Network-Info header) indicating an IEEE access network (e.g., "IEEE-802.11", "IEEE-802.11a", "IEEE-802.11g", or "IEEE-802.11n"; paras. [0065]–[0074]; Fig. 4). Simple substitution of a known element according to industry standards (MPEP § 2143(B)). Including IEEE access network information in the PANI header is required under 3GPP IMS standards so that the IMS network core recognizes the radio access technology supporting the session and applies appropriate routing and billing policies.
wherein the second re-registration message includes access network information indicating 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP). [4.b]
‘454 Patent does not disclose the header parameters of the registration message. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that the second IMS registration message transmitted over the cellular network includes access network information in the P-Access-Network-Info header indicating a 3GPP access network (e.g., "3GPP-E-UTRAN-FDD" or "3GPP-UTRAN"; paras. [0068]–[0078]). Compliance with known industry standards (MPEP § 2143(B)). Formulating the SIP REGISTER request with a PANI header indicating 3GPP upon returning to the cellular network is standard IMS practice to update the network that the client is once again reachable via 3GPP cellular access. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 5
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, when the network associated with the second SIM supports interworking between the cellular network and the Wi-Fi network, transmit the first re-registration message. [5]
‘454 Patent does not disclose conditioning the transmission of the Wi-Fi re-registration message on network interworking support. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches determining whether the operator's core network associated with the subscriber supports interworking between cellular (LTE) and Wi-Fi (e.g., via an evolved Packet Data Gateway / ePDG in an IMS core), and conditioning transmission of the IMS Wi-Fi registration/re-registration message on confirming that the network supports cellular/Wi-Fi interworking (paras. [0040]–[0058], [0085]–[0095]).
Predictable application of known network validation logic (MPEP § 2143(A)). A PHOSITA would implement ‘559 Patent's check for cellular-to-Wi-Fi interworking support in the system of ‘454 Patent prior to attempting Wi-Fi registration to prevent sending futile registration requests to carriers that do not support Wi-Fi calling.
Claim 6
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit the first re-registration message when an access point (AP) associated with the Wi-Fi network has an internet connection, [6.a]
‘454 Patent does not disclose checking that the Wi-Fi AP has an active Internet connection before sending IMS re-registration. ‘559 Patent teaches evaluating the Wi-Fi access point connection and verifying that the AP has active Internet connectivity (e.g., captive portal detection or ping/DNS check to ensure the AP is not walled-off) prior to initiating IMS registration over Wi-Fi (paras. [0050]–[0062]).
Predictable engineering variation to improve communication reliability (MPEP § 2143(A)). A PHOSITA would verify WAN/Internet routability before registering to ensure the IMS server can actually be reached over the Wi-Fi path.
when a receive power of a signal received from the AP is greater than or equal to a specified value, and [6.b]
‘454 Patent does not disclose conditioning re-registration on a received Wi-Fi signal power threshold. ‘559 Patent teaches measuring the received signal strength/power (RSSI) of the AP signal and determining whether the receive power is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value before permitting IMS registration/handover to Wi-Fi (paras. [0052]–[0060]).
Applying known measurement criteria to achieve predictable results (MPEP § 2143(A)). Verifying that the Wi-Fi signal exceeds a threshold ensures adequate link quality before committing the device to Wi-Fi packet calling.
when the electronic device is connectable to the AP. [6.c]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches verifying Wi-Fi AP link availability and confirming that the electronic device is connectable/associated with the AP (col. 5, lines 25–45). Because the primary reference explicitly discloses this limitation, no secondary reference is cited. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 7
The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the first communication circuitry is further configured to process one of packet data associated with the first SIM and packet data associated with the second SIM based on a priority of the packet data associated with the first SIM and a priority of the packet data associated with the second SIM. [7]
‘454 Patent does not disclose arbitrating cellular packet data between multiple SIMs based on relative priority. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches an electronic device wherein the communication circuitry arbitrates and processes packet communications between a first SIM and a second SIM based on a comparative priority scheme (e.g., prioritizing emergency or voice packet data of one SIM over background data of another SIM, or subscription-level QoS priority; col. 6, lines 30–65; col. 10, lines 5–45; Fig. 4).
Applying known resource management methods to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143(A)). A PHOSITA managing multi-SIM communications on a shared cellular transceiver would adopt ‘117 Patent's priority-based arbitration to ensure higher-priority voice or signaling traffic on one subscription is not starved by traffic on the other subscription. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 8
An electronic device, comprising: [8.pre]
Met by the UE / mobile station in ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 10–35; Fig. 1, UE 102). No secondary reference is cited.
a first subscriber identity module (SIM) and a second SIM; [8.a]
‘454 Patent does not disclose a first SIM and a second SIM. ‘117 Patent teaches a multi-subscription device having a first SIM (SIM-1) and a second SIM (SIM-2) (col. 4, lines 20–55; Fig. 1).
Combining known elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)) to allow multi-carrier access in a single handset.
a first communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a cellular network; [8.b]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 25–60; cellular transceiver).
a second communication circuitry configured to perform wireless communication over a Wi-Fi network; and [8.c]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 40–65; Wi-Fi transceiver).
at least one processor operatively connected with the first SIM, the second SIM, the first communication circuitry, and the second communication circuitry, [8.d]
‘454 Patent teaches a processor coupled to cellular and Wi-Fi transceivers (col. 4, lines 1–25). ‘117 Patent teaches a processor coupled to SIM-1 and SIM-2 (col. 4, lines 40–67; Fig. 1).
Routine interconnection of processing elements with multi-SIM interfaces (MPEP § 2143(A)).
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
in response to detecting a voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call associated with the first SIM, determine whether voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) for the second SIM is supported, and [8.e]
‘454 Patent teaches detecting a VoLTE call on cellular circuitry (col. 5, lines 15–40). ‘117 Patent teaches detecting an active call on SIM-1 and evaluating available alternate radio access options for SIM-2 to prevent radio resource collisions (col. 7, lines 35–65). ‘559 Patent teaches determining whether Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) is supported for a subscription (e.g., verifying device capability and carrier subscription profile; paras. [0038]–[0052]).
Problem-solution coupling and predictable functionality (MPEP § 2143(A), (B)). A PHOSITA seeking to prevent cellular transceiver conflict in the multi-SIM device of ‘117 Patent would find it obvious to check whether the second subscription supports VoWiFi as taught by ‘559 Patent upon detecting a VoLTE call on the first subscription, thereby determining whether offloading SIM-2 to Wi-Fi is feasible.
when the VoWiFi for the second SIM is supported, perform the VoLTE call associated with the first SIM using the first communication circuitry and transmit a first re-registration message for internet protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) re-registration for the second SIM to a network associated with the second SIM using the second communication circuitry for performing a packet-based call associated with the second SIM using the second communication circuitry. [8.f]
‘454 Patent teaches conducting the VoLTE call over cellular (col. 5, lines 10–55). ‘117 Patent teaches maintaining the call on SIM-1 while directing SIM-2 signaling to an alternate interface (col. 8, lines 10–55). ‘559 Patent teaches that when VoWiFi is supported, transmitting an IMS re-registration message (SIP REGISTER) over Wi-Fi to establish IMS registration for packet-based calling over Wi-Fi (paras. [0045]–[0065]).
Combining prior art elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A), (B)). Incorporating ‘559 Patent's Wi-Fi IMS re-registration into the multi-SIM offload framework of ‘117 Patent and ‘454 Patent predictably establishes VoWiFi capability for SIM-2 without disturbing the ongoing VoLTE call on SIM-1. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 9
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, when the VoLTE associated with the first SIM is terminated, transmit a second re-registration message for the IMS re-registration for the second SIM to a network associated with the second SIM using the first communication circuitry. [9]
‘454 Patent does not teach restoring a second SIM to cellular upon VoLTE call termination. ‘117 Patent teaches detecting call termination on SIM-1 and restoring SIM-2 to the cellular RF chain (col. 9, lines 20–55). ‘559 Patent teaches transmitting an IMS re-registration message over the cellular interface to register the subscriber back to cellular IMS (paras. [0045]–[0052], [0080]–[0088]).
Predictable variation (MPEP § 2143(A)). Returning SIM-2 to the cellular transceiver once the first call ends restores normal dual-standby operation, and executing an IMS re-registration over cellular as taught by ‘559 Patent is required by IMS protocol to redirect voice traffic back to LTE. ‘454 Patent and ‘117 Patent teach maintaining multi-network and multi-subscription voice/packet calling across cellular and Wi-Fi paths. ‘559 Patent teaches the standardized signaling architecture of the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) for VoLTE and VoWiFi, specifically evaluating network conditions (Wi-Fi signal power RSSI, Internet connectivity, and cellular/Wi-Fi interworking support) and formatting SIP REGISTER messages with P-Access-Network-Info (PANI) headers indicating "IEEE" or "3GPP" access.
Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another (MPEP § 2143(B)) & Compliance with Industry Standards: A PHOSITA implementing the Wi-Fi offload and multi-RAT voice sessions described in ‘454 Patent and ‘117 Patent would look to ‘559 Patent for standard-compliant IMS signaling procedures.
Technical Necessity of Standardized Signaling: In 3GPP IMS architectures, an operator core network requires explicit identification of access network technology (via PANI headers in SIP REGISTER messages) to properly route packet voice traffic and apply Quality of Service (QoS). Furthermore, verifying AP power thresholds, internet routability, and carrier interworking support prior to initiating Wi-Fi re-registration represents sound engineering practice to prevent dropped calls. Implementing ‘559 Patent's PANI header signaling and Wi-Fi validation logic within the multi-SIM system of ‘454 Patent and ‘117 Patent is nothing more than the predictable application of established telecommunications protocols to solve the known problem of reliable IMS registration.
Claim 10
The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the first re-registration message includes access network information indicating an institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE) standard, and [10.a]
‘454 Patent does not disclose the header parameters of the registration message. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that the first IMS registration message transmitted over Wi-Fi includes access network information indicating an IEEE standard (e.g., P-Access-Network-Info header indicating IEEE-802.11; paras. [0065]–[0074]).
Compliance with known industry standards (MPEP § 2143(B)), as detailed in Limitation 4.a.
wherein the second re-registration message includes access network information indicating 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP). [10.b]
‘454 Patent does not disclose the header parameters of the registration message. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that the second IMS registration message transmitted over cellular includes access network information indicating 3GPP (e.g., P-Access-Network-Info header indicating 3GPP-E-UTRAN-FDD; paras. [0068]–[0078]).
Compliance with known industry standards (MPEP § 2143(B)), as detailed in Limitation 4.b. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 11
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
when the VoWiFi for the second SIM is not supported, perform hand-over from the cellular network to the Wi-Fi network with respect to the first SIM; and [11.a]
‘454 Patent teaches performing hand-over of a call from cellular to Wi-Fi (col. 5, lines 35–65). ‘117 Patent teaches multi-subscription conflict handling wherein if a secondary subscription cannot use an alternate RAT, the primary subscription's call is handed over / transitioned to Wi-Fi to release cellular radio resources for the secondary subscription (col. 11, lines 15–50). ‘559 Patent teaches checking VoWiFi support to determine handover routes (paras. [0040]–[0060]).
Problem-solution coupling (MPEP § 2143(A)). When the secondary SIM cannot use Wi-Fi, handing over the primary SIM's active call to Wi-Fi predictably vacates the cellular transceiver so that the secondary SIM can access the cellular network.
perform the [VoLTE] VoWiFi call associated with the first SIM using the second communication circuitry. [11.b]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches continuing the ongoing voice session as a VoWiFi call over the Wi-Fi network using the second communication circuitry (Wi-Fi transceiver) following handover from LTE (col. 5, lines 50–67; col. 6, lines 1–25). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 12
The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform the hand-over by transmitting a re-registration message including access network information indicating an IEEE standard. [12]
‘454 Patent teaches call handover to Wi-Fi but does not disclose transmitting an IMS re-registration message containing IEEE access network information. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that handover of an active voice call from LTE to Wi-Fi is executed by transmitting an IMS re-registration message (SIP REGISTER) containing a P-Access-Network-Info header specifying an IEEE standard (e.g., IEEE-802.11) to update the IMS media path (paras. [0062]–[0074], [0085]–[0098]).
Standard-compliant substitution (MPEP § 2143(B)). In 3GPP IMS architecture, handing over an active session across access networks requires an updated SIP REGISTER message with an updated PANI header denoting IEEE access to allow the IMS core to redirect the voice media streams to Wi-Fi. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 13
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
when VoWiFi for the first SIM and the second SIM is not supported, perform local deregistration for the second SIM; and [13.a]
‘454 Patent does not teach local deregistration of a second SIM when Wi-Fi calling is unavailable. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches that when an alternate radio access technology (e.g., Wi-Fi) is not available or supported for subscriptions, the device performs local deregistration or suspends the inactive subscription (SIM-2) locally so that the modem does not attempt paging or access for SIM-2 while SIM-1 is engaged (col. 11, lines 35–65; col. 14, lines 1–25).
Predictable method of avoiding RF resource collisions (MPEP § 2143(A)). When neither subscription can offload to Wi-Fi, locally suspending or deregistering the inactive SIM prevents the modem from dropping or interrupting the active VoLTE call on the primary SIM.
perform the VoLTE call associated with the first SIM using the first communication circuitry. [13.b]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 5, lines 15–40; performing the VoLTE call using cellular circuitry). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 14
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the second SIM supports the VoWiFi based on whether a network associated with the second SIM supports interworking between the cellular network and the Wi-Fi network. [14]
‘454 Patent does not disclose determining VoWiFi support based on network interworking support. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that determining whether VoWiFi is supported for a subscription is based on querying or checking whether the operator's core network supports cellular-to-Wi-Fi interworking functionality (paras. [0040]–[0058], [0085]–[0092]).
Predictable application of known network capability inquiries (MPEP § 2143(A)). Conditioning VoWiFi availability on network interworking support is standard practice to verify that the carrier core provides the necessary ePDG gateways before attempting Wi-Fi call operations. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 15
An electronic device, comprising: [15.pre]
Met by UE 102 in ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 10–35; Fig. 1).
a first subscriber identity module (SIM) storing first subscriber information; [15.a]
‘454 Patent does not explicitly disclose a physical or logical SIM module. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches a first SIM (SIM-1) storing first subscriber information (e.g., IMSI, subscription credentials; col. 4, lines 20–45).
Combining known elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)),
a second SIM storing second subscriber information; [15.b]
‘454 Patent does not disclose a second SIM. ‘117 Patent explicitly teaches a second SIM (SIM-2) storing second subscriber information (col. 4, lines 20–45).
Combining known elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)), as detailed above.
a first communication circuitry configured to provide first wireless communication; [15.c]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 25–60; cellular transceiver).
a second communication circuitry configured to provide second wireless communication; [15.d]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 40–65; Wi-Fi transceiver).
at least one processor operatively connected with the first communication circuitry and the second communication circuitry; and [15.e]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 4, lines 1–25; Fig. 6, processor 602 coupled to cellular and Wi-Fi communication transceivers).
a memory operatively connected with the at least one processor, [15.f]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 4, lines 10–30; Fig. 6, memory 604 operatively connected to processor 602).
wherein the memory stores instructions, when executed, causing the at least one processor to perform a plurality of operation comprising:
generating a first registration request message based at least in part on the first subscriber information, [15.g]
‘454 Patent does not describe generating registration messages from subscriber information stored on a SIM. ‘117 Patent teaches generating a registration request message based on subscriber credentials stored in the first SIM (col. 5, lines 10–40).
Combining known elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(A)). A PHOSITA would configure the processor to retrieve credentials from SIM-1 to generate standard network registration requests.
transmitting the first registration request message to a first external server using the first communication circuitry, [15.h]
‘454 Patent does not teach transmitting SIM-1 registration requests to an external server. ‘117 Patent teaches transmitting the registration request over the cellular communication circuitry to an external network server (col. 5, lines 15–45).
Routine execution of cellular attach/registration procedures (MPEP § 2143(A)).
generating a second registration request message based at least in part on the second subscriber information, [15.i]
‘454 Patent does not teach a second SIM or generating registration messages based thereon. ‘117 Patent teaches generating a second registration request message based on the second subscriber information stored in SIM-2 (col. 5, lines 30–60; col. 7, lines 10–35).
Applying established multi-SIM registration techniques (MPEP § 2143(A)).
transmitting the second registration request message to a second external server using the first communication circuitry, [15.j]
‘454 Patent does not teach registering a second SIM over cellular circuitry. ‘117 Patent teaches transmitting the registration request of SIM-2 over the cellular circuitry to its associated network server (col. 5, lines 35–65; col. 7, lines 20–45).
Known DSDS standby procedures (MPEP § 2143(A)). In a multi-SIM standby device, both SIMs initially register over the shared cellular transceiver to maintain network reachability.
connecting voice communication based at least in part of the first subscriber information or data-based voice communication using the first communication circuitry, after transmitting the first registration request message, and [15.k]
‘454 Patent explicitly teaches connecting data-based voice communication (e.g., a VoLTE voice call) using the cellular communication circuitry after registration (col. 5, lines 10–40; col. 6, lines 1–25). Because the primary reference explicitly discloses this limitation, no secondary reference is cited.
while connecting the voice communication or the data-based voice communication using the first communication circuitry:
generating a third registration request message based at least in part on the second subscriber information, and [15.l]
‘454 Patent does not teach generating an updated registration message for a second SIM during an active call. ‘117 Patent teaches detecting an active call on the first subscription and generating an updated registration / re-registration request message for the second subscription based on SIM-2 credentials during the ongoing call (col. 8, lines 20–60). ‘559 Patent teaches formulating an IMS re-registration request (SIP REGISTER) to update access path routing (paras. [0045]–[0065]).
Combining known elements to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143(A), (B)). When the first SIM engages in an active call, generating a re-registration request for SIM-2 enables the device to transition SIM-2 to an alternate network path without interrupting the ongoing call.
transmitting the third registration request message to the second external server using the second communication circuitry for performing a packet-based call associated with the second SIM using the second communication circuitry. [15.m]
‘454 Patent teaches maintaining an ongoing call on cellular while transmitting over Wi-Fi (col. 5, lines 30–65), but lacks transmitting a third registration message for a second SIM. ‘117 Patent teaches steering SIM-2 to the alternate communication circuitry (Wi-Fi) while SIM-1 conducts its call (col. 8, lines 30–67; col. 9, lines 1–35). ‘559 Patent teaches transmitting the registration message (SIP REGISTER) over Wi-Fi to the IMS server to enable packet-based calling (VoWiFi) for that subscriber (paras. [0045]–[0075]).
Simple substitution of a known standard-compliant element (MPEP § 2143(B)). Transmitting the registration request over Wi-Fi to the IMS server as taught by ‘559 Patent predictably enables packet-based calling (VoWiFi) for SIM-2 while the cellular transceiver is fully occupied by SIM-1. It would also have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 16
The electronic device of claim 15, wherein the first wireless communication includes cellular communication, and [16.a]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 25–60; cellular LTE communication).
wherein the second wireless communication includes short-range wireless communication. [16.b]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 40–65; short-range wireless communication, specifically Wi-Fi).
Claim 17
The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the short-range wireless communication includes Wi-Fi communication. [17]
Met by ‘454 Patent (col. 3, lines 40–65; explicitly teaching Wi-Fi communication).
Claim 18
The electronic device of claim 15, wherein the first external server and the second external server are configured to support an internet protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS). [18]
‘454 Patent describes emergency notification servers but does not explicitly characterize the servers as IMS architecture servers. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that external servers to which registration request messages are sent are configured to support an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) (e.g., IMS core nodes including P-CSCF / S-CSCF; paras. [0035]–[0048]; Fig. 1).
Industry standard alignment and predictable substitution (MPEP § 2143(B)). Modern packet voice services (VoLTE and VoWiFi) operate over standard 3GPP IMS core networks; employing IMS-compliant servers to process registration messages is the standard industry implementation. It would also have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 19
The electronic device of claim 15, wherein at least one of the first registration request message, the second registration request message, or the third registration request message includes a session initiation protocol (SIP) REGISTER message defined by 3GPP standard. [19]
‘454 Patent does not specify the protocol formatting of the registration message. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that IMS registration request messages are Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REGISTER messages defined by 3GPP standards (paras. [0042]–[0050], [0065]–[0075]).
Compliance with 3GPP telecommunications specifications (MPEP § 2143(B)). A PHOSITA configuring an electronic device to communicate with an IMS core would predictably format the registration messages as 3GPP SIP REGISTER messages to ensure network interoperability. It would also have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 20
The electronic device of claim 19, wherein the SIP REGISTER message includes a P-access-network-info (PANI) header, and [20.a]
‘454 Patent does not disclose PANI header syntax. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that the SIP REGISTER message includes a P-Access-Network-Info (PANI) header (paras. [0065]–[0078]).
Compliance with industry standards (MPEP § 2143(B)), as detailed above.
wherein the PANI header includes information associated with the first communication circuitry or information associated with the second communication circuitry. [20.b]
‘454 Patent does not disclose PANI header parameters. ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that the PANI header carries access network parameter values reflecting the active access circuitry, specifying 3GPP cellular access information (information associated with the first communication circuitry) when registering over cellular, and specifying IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi access information (information associated with the second communication circuitry) when registering over Wi-Fi (paras. [0065]–[0078]).
Telecommunications protocol compliance (MPEP § 2143(B)). Transmitting the access circuitry type within the PANI header informs the IMS network of the exact radio access technology being used, which is required by the IMS core for appropriate session routing and QoS enforcement.
Claim 23
The electronic device of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform internet protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) re-registration for the second SIM based on the Wi-Fi network to perform the hand-over from the cellular network to the Wi-Fi network with respect to the second SIM. [23]
‘454 Patent does not disclose IMS re-registration for a second SIM to effectuate handover. ‘117 Patent teaches transferring the service of SIM-2 to Wi-Fi while SIM-1 is on a call (col. 8, lines 1–45). ‘559 Patent explicitly teaches that performing hand-over of a subscriber service from cellular to Wi-Fi comprises performing IMS re-registration over the Wi-Fi network (transmitting a SIP REGISTER request over Wi-Fi to bind the IMS contact to the Wi-Fi IP address; paras. [0035]–[0048], [0062]–[0075]).
Simple substitution of a known element according to industry standards (MPEP § 2143(B)). In 3GPP IMS architecture, completing a handover from cellular to Wi-Fi requires an IMS re-registration over the target Wi-Fi network so that the IMS core recognizes the new access routing path; substituting this standard-compliant handover mechanism into the multi-SIM offload framework of ‘117 Patent yields entirely predictable results. It would also have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the prior art because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 10,499,454 B2 (hereinafter ‘454 Patent) in view of US Patent No. 10,231,117 B2 (hereinafter ‘117 Patent), in further view of 10,616,769, (hereinafter ‘769 Patent).
Claim 24
The electronic device of claim 21,
wherein the first communication circuitry configured to perform the wireless communication by transmitting a signal to an evolved node B (eNB) or a next generation node B (gNB) or receiving a signal from the eNB or the gNB. [24]
‘454 Patent teaches cellular communication circuitry communicating with an evolved Node B (eNB) in an LTE network (col. 3, lines 25–40), but does not explicitly recite communication with a next generation Node B (gNB). US '769 explicitly teaches cellular wireless communication systems wherein the UE communication circuitry communicates by transmitting radio signals to and receiving radio signals from an evolved Node B (eNB) in LTE or a Next Generation Node B (gNB) in 5G New Radio (NR) networks (col. 4, lines 15–55; col. 7, lines 30–65; Fig. 1, base stations 105 / eNB / gNB).
Predictable variation / technological upgrading (MPEP § 2143(E)). At the time of the invention, 5G NR deployment was standard; a PHOSITA configuring the cellular communication circuitry of ‘454 Patent to communicate with base stations would find it obvious to configure the transceiver to communicate with either an eNB (4G LTE) or a gNB (5G NR) as taught by US '769, representing a routine technological upgrade yielding predictable cellular connectivity across successive network generations. Claim 24 recites that the cellular communication circuitry communicates with an evolved Node B (eNB) or a Next Generation Node B (gNB). ‘454 Patent describes communication with cellular base stations in LTE networks (eNodeBs). US '769 teaches base station architectures in modern cellular systems encompassing both LTE eNBs and 5G NR gNBs. At the time of the invention, the migration from 4G LTE to 5G New Radio (NR) networks was widely established. A PHOSITA adapting the cellular transceiver of ‘454 Patent to operate across contemporary cellular infrastructure would find it obvious to configure the circuitry to transmit to and receive from either an eNB (4G LTE) or a gNB (5G NR), as taught by US '769. The substitution or concurrent support of gNB base station communications represents an obvious design choice yielding predictable cellular connectivity.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights