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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments—set forth at p. 7 in the Remarks with respect to independent claims 1 and 11—have been fully considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection relies on one or more reference not applied in the prior rejection of record for some teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected because of the following informalities the limitation, the access point fails not the timeout, should instead recite something like: the access point fails not due to the timeout. The Examiner finds that the ambiguity renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
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 the Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11-2016 (hereinafter, “IEEE 802.11”) (cited in IDS filed 01/25/2023) in view of US 2019/0373659 (hereinafter, “BRUNSON”), and further in view of US 2018/0255601 (hereinafter, “MITSUI”).
Regarding claim 1, IEEE 802.11 discloses:
A radio communication apparatus (§ 1.1 – moving stations (STAs)) comprising:
processing circuitry, which, in operation, scans a radio connection destination candidate, (§ 11.1.4.3.1 - Active scanning involves the generation of Probe Request frames; § 4.3.11.10 - APs that are candidates for a service set transition)
performs join processing to synchronize with the radio connection destination candidate according to a join failure timer; (§ 11.1.4.2. – scanning timer; § 11.1.4.3.1 – [P]rocessing of received Probe Response frames; § 11.1.4.3.2 - e) Initialize a timer to 0 and start it running; . . . g) Process all probe responses received until the timer reaches MaxChannelTime; § 11.1.5 - To response to an MLME-JOIN.request primitive, a STA joining an IBSS shall initialize its TSF timer to 0)
performs association processing with the radio connection destination candidate according to an association timer (§ 11.3.5.1 - Successful association enables a STA to exchange Class 3 frames; § 11.14 – dot11AssociationResponseTimeOut); and
performs key generation processing to perform encrypted data communication with the radio connection destination candidate according to an authentication timer (§ 9.3.3.12 / Table 9-35 - Timeout Interval (reassociation deadline); § 12.7.6.1 - The handshake completes the IEEE 802.1X authentication process; § 12.7.7.1 - The Authenticator uses the Group key handshake to send a new GTK); and
control circuitry, which, when first initial-connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails due to a timeout of the join failure timer, (§ 11.1.4.5 - If the JoinFailureTimeout timer expires prior to the receipt of a Beacon frame from the BSS, the MLME shall issue an MLME-JOIN.confirm primitive indicating the operation was unsuccessful) the association timer, (§ 11.3.5.2 - If an Association Response frame is received with a status code other than SUCCESS or the association fails to complete within dot11AssociationResponseTimeout the state for the AP or PCP shall be set to State 2, and the MLME shall issue an MLME-ASSOCIATE.confirm primitive to inform the SME of the failure of the association. The status code returned in the Association Response frame indicates the cause of the failed association attempt) or the authentication timer (§ 6.3.5.3.2 – AUTH FAILURE TIMEOUT; e.g., pg. 3248 - dot11AuthenticationResponseTimeout), . . .
wherein the radio communication apparatus is a terminal, (§ 3.1: station (STA))
wherein the radio connection destination candidate is an access point, (§ 3.1: access point (AP))
the processing circuitry, in operation, scans the radio connection destination candidate based on the start timing of the second initial-connection processing. (§ 11.1.4.3.2 - f) If a PHY-CCA.indication (BUSY) primitive is not received before the timer reaches MinChannelTime, proceed to step h). . . . h) Set the NAV to 0 and scan the next channel)
IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
determines a start timing of second initial-connection processing differently than when the first initial-connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails not due to the timeout,
when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, the control circuitry does not increase a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing, and
In the same field of endeavor, however, BRUNSON teaches:
determines a start timing of second initial-connection processing differently than when the first initial-connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails not due to the timeout, (¶ 0051: Back-off manager 255 may also use other criteria when calculating the back-off period including, for example, a reason for the failure to access and/or join. For example, back-off manager 255 may calculate different back-off time periods depending on whether a frequency band/channel was detected during a scanning process, whether the failure relates to a timeout, invalid network credentials, the number of failed attempts to access/join the third party wireless network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence to determine a start timing of a second initial connection processing for timeout failures that differs from the start timing for non-timeout failures, as taught by BRUNSON, to provide a configurable time period so as to enable failure-specific retries of connection processing. See BRUNSON, at ¶ 0050.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, MITSUI teaches:
when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, (¶ 0005: [T]ransmitting, by a base station of the WWAN, a setting message for instructing a radio terminal to be connected to the WWAN base station to perform a process of connecting to the WLAN. The connection process between the radio terminal and the WLAN is sometimes referred to as “association”; ¶ 0007: The radio terminal receives, from the base station, a setting message instructing a connection process between the radio terminal and a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network). The setting message including timer information setting a timer for determining a failure of the connection process between the radio terminal and the WLAN. The radio terminal starts a timer based on the timer information. The radio terminal determines that the connection process has failed, if the timer expires. The radio terminal transmits, to the base station, a failure message indicating a failure of the connection process. The failure message includes information indicating that a cause of the failure of the connection process is timeout)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence to provide initial-connection processing, as taught by MITSUI, to implement a waiting time such that a setting message includes timer information setting a timer for determining a failure of the connection process between the radio terminal and the WLAN. See MITSUI, Abstract.
Regarding the requirement that the control circuitry does not increase a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing, the Examiner has concluded that this requirement would have been “obvious to try” for at least the following reasons. See MPEP § 2143.I.E. For example, at the time of Applicant’s invention, there was a recognized challenge in the art to manage processing overhead related to a UE’s re-attempt(s) to establish a connection with an AP following a failed connection attempt, by configuring “wait times” for retry. See, e.g., MITSUI at ¶ 0005. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been presented with a finite number of predictable, potential solution for configuring a wait time subsequent to a failed attempt. Particularly, a successive wait time(s) could have been configured by 1) increasing, 2) decreasing, or 3) leaving unchanged a wait time(s) for triggering a successive attempt(s) to connect. The Examiner notes that two of these solutions, namely, 2) decreasing and 3) leaving unchanged, would have corresponded to not increasing a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued either of these known potential solutions given the reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that it would have been “obvious to try” the limitation, the control circuitry does not increase a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing.
Regarding claim 11, IEEE 802.11 discloses:
A radio communication method comprising: (Figs. 11-13 – Relationship between state and services between a given pair of non-mesh STAs)
scanning, by a terminal (§ 1.1 – moving stations (STAs)), an access point (§ 3.1: access point (AP)), (§ 11.1.4.3.1 - Active scanning involves the generation of Probe Request frames; § 4.3.11.10 - APs that are candidates for a service set transition)
performing, by the terminal, join processing to synchronize with the access point according to a join failure timer; (§ 11.1.4.2. – scanning timer; § 11.1.4.3.1 – [P]rocessing of received Probe Response frames; § 11.1.4.3.2 - e) Initialize a timer to 0 and start it running; . . . g) Process all probe responses received until the timer reaches MaxChannelTime; § 11.1.5 - To response to an MLME-JOIN.request primitive, a STA joining an IBSS shall initialize its TSF timer to 0)
performing, by the terminal, association processing with the access point according to an association timer; (§ 11.3.5.1 - Successful association enables a STA to exchange Class 3 frames; § 11.14 – dot11AssociationResponseTimeOut)
performing, by the terminal, key generation processing to perform encrypted data communication with the access point according to an authentication timer; (§ 9.3.3.12 / Table 9-35 - Timeout Interval (reassociation deadline); § 12.7.6.1 - The handshake completes the IEEE 802.1X authentication process; § 12.7.7.1 - The Authenticator uses the Group key handshake to send a new GTK)
determining, by the terminal, when first initial-connection processing to the access point fails due to a timeout of the join failure timer (§ 11.1.4.5 - If the JoinFailureTimeout timer expires prior to the receipt of a Beacon frame from the BSS, the MLME shall issue an MLME-JOIN.confirm primitive indicating the operation was unsuccessful), the association timer (§ 11.3.5.2 - If an Association Response frame is received with a status code other than SUCCESS or the association fails to complete within dot11AssociationResponseTimeout the state for the AP or PCP shall be set to State 2, and the MLME shall issue an MLME-ASSOCIATE.confirm primitive to inform the SME of the failure of the association. The status code returned in the Association Response frame indicates the cause of the failed association attempt), or the authentication timer (§ 6.3.5.3.2 – AUTH FAILURE TIMEOUT; e.g., pg. 3248 - dot11AuthenticationResponseTimeout), . . .
scanning, by the terminal, the access point based on the start timing of the second initial-connection processing.
IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
a start timing of second initial-connection processing differently than when the first initial-connection processing to the access point fails not [due to] the timeout, and
when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, the control circuitry does not increase a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing, and
In the same field of endeavor, however, BRUNSON teaches:
a start timing of second initial-connection processing differently than when the first initial-connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails not [due to] the timeout, and (¶ 0051: Back-off manager 255 may also use other criteria when calculating the back-off period including, for example, a reason for the failure to access and/or join. For example, back-off manager 255 may calculate different back-off time periods depending on whether a frequency band/channel was detected during a scanning process, whether the failure relates to a timeout, invalid network credentials, the number of failed attempts to access/join the third party wireless network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence to determine a start timing of a second initial connection processing for timeout failures that differs from the start timing for non-timeout failures, as taught by BRUNSON, to provide a configurable time period so as to enable failure-specific retries of connection processing. See BRUNSON, at ¶ 0050.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, MITSUI teaches:
when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, (¶ 0265: If the AP does not detect 908 the PLCP header of the multi-user transmission packet from the transmitter STAs before timeout, then the RTA-TF transmission fails as seen at block 910 and the AP has to wait a backoff time and execution moves to block 904 where it re-contends for channel access and retransmits the RTA-TF packet. In block 910 is should be noted that the contention window for the backoff time would not increase although it can be reduced)
Regarding the requirement of not increasing a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing, the Examiner has concluded that this requirement would have been “obvious to try” for at least the following reasons. See MPEP § 2143.I.E. For example, at the time of Applicant’s invention, there was a recognized challenge in the art to manage processing overhead related to a UE’s re-attempt(s) to establish a connection with an AP following a failed connection attempt, by configuring “wait times” for retry. See, e.g., MITSUI at ¶ 0005. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been presented with a finite number of predictable, potential solution for configuring a wait time subsequent to a failed attempt. Particularly, a successive wait time(s) could have been configured by 1) increasing, 2) decreasing, or 3) leaving unchanged a wait time(s) for triggering a successive attempt(s) to connect. The Examiner notes that two of these implementations, namely, 2) decreasing and 3) leaving unchanged, would have satisfied the requirement of not increasing a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued either of these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that it would have been “obvious to try” the limitation, not increasing a waiting time for the start timing of the second initial-connection processing.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first initial-connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails not due to the timeout when the failure is caused by password settings or encryption settings.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MITSUI teaches:
wherein the first initial-connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails (Abstract: A radio terminal according to an embodiment is to be connected to a base station of WWAN (Wireless Wide Area Network). The radio terminal receives, from the base station, a setting message instructing a connection process between the radio terminal and a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network). The setting message including timer information setting a timer for determining a failure of the connection process between the radio terminal and the WLAN)
Also, in the same field of endeavor, BRUNSON teaches:
wherein the . . . connection processing to the radio connection destination candidate fails not due to the timeout when the failure is caused by password settings or encryption settings. (¶ 0051: [D]ifferent back-off time periods depending on . . . invalid network credentials)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence to determine a start timing of a second initial connection processing for timeout failures that differs from the start timing for non-timeout failures, as taught by BRUNSON, to provide a configurable time period so as to enable failure-specific retries of connection processing. See BRUNSON, at ¶ 0050.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11 in view of BRUNSON and MITSUI, as applied above, and further in view of IDA US 2002/0177441 (hereinafter, “IDA”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, the control circuitry determines whether to skip scan processing in the second initial-connection processing, based on a list of one or more connection destinations of the radio communication apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MITSUI teaches:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, (Abstract: The radio terminal determines that the connection process has failed, if the timer expires. The radio terminal transmits, to the base station, a failure message indicating a failure of the connection process. The failure message includes information indicating that a cause of the failure of the connection process is timeout)
Also, in the same field of endeavor, IDA teaches:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails . . . , the control circuitry determines whether to skip scan processing in the second initial-connection processing, based on a list of one or more connection destinations of the radio communication apparatus. (¶ 0037: [C]ontrol unit 112 performs frequency search processing; ¶ 0043: [F]requency list 1 is selected, and the first search processing step L1 is performed targeting the frequency in the frequency information list 1 (S3). Then, a check is made as to whether the frequency set in the frequency list 1 is in agreement (hit) with a frequency of a receiving signal; ¶ 0044: [I]f the frequency set in the frequency information list 1 does not match with the frequency of the received signal after a predetermined number of attempts, which may occur for a certain reason (for example, a movement of the mobile station from an area to another area that uses a different frequency, a temporary and partial service suspension for maintenance of a mobile communications system, and a trouble in the mobile communications system), the frequency information list 2 is chosen, and the second search processing step L2 is performed (S5))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence procedure to provide—due to a cell search processing failure—processing step decision-making based on frequency information lists as taught by IDA, i.e., applying the known technique of using a “blacklist” in the same way. Doing so would attain “an efficient search processing . . . according to the situation of use of the frequency in a mobile communications system.” See IDA, ¶ 0059.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing does not fail due to the timeout, the control circuitry determines the start timing based on a list of one or more connection destinations to be excluded from a processing target of the first or second initial-connection processing.
In the same field of endeavor, however, IDA teaches:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing does not fail due to the timeout, the control circuitry determines the start timing based on a list of one or more connection destinations to be excluded from a processing target of the first or second initial-connection processing. (¶ 0059: [F]requencies set as search targets in a processing step can be excluded from another processing step. For example, a frequency detected by the last search processing and set in the frequency information list 1 may be excluded from the frequency information list 2, and frequencies included in the frequency information list 1 and the frequency information list 2 may be excluded from the frequency information list 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence procedure to provide—due to a cell search processing failure—processing step decision-making based on frequency information lists as taught by IDA, i.e., applying the known technique of using a “blacklist” in the same way. Doing so would attain “an efficient search processing . . . according to the situation of use of the frequency in a mobile communications system.” See IDA, ¶ 0059.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11 in view of BRUNSON and MITSUI, as applied above, and further in view of CN 104080148 (hereinafter, “WANG,” Note: citations are to the previously-provided machine translation of the original non-English document).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, the control circuitry deletes a connection destination of a processing target of the first initial-connection processing from a list of one or more connection destinations to be excluded from the processing target of the first initial-connection processing.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MITSUI teaches:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, (Abstract: The radio terminal determines that the connection process has failed, if the timer expires. The radio terminal transmits, to the base station, a failure message indicating a failure of the connection process. The failure message includes information indicating that a cause of the failure of the connection process is timeout)
Also, in the same field of endeavor, WANG teaches:
when the first initial-connection processing fails . . . , the control circuitry deletes a connection destination of a processing target of the first initial-connection processing from a list of one or more connection destinations to be excluded from the processing target of the first initial-connection processing. (¶ 0121: When there is a failed BSSID record, updating a blacklist, and deleting the invalid BSSID record from the blacklist)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence procedure to provide—due to a cell search processing failure—for updating of a connection destination list as taught by WANG, i.e., applying the known technique of updating a “blacklist” in the same way, as a generalized access control concept irrespective of specific networking standards. Doing so would dynamically update/manage availability of standard-agnostic wireless networks and thus improve the efficiency of network access. See WANG, ¶ 0063.
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11-2016 in view of BRUNSON and MITSUI, as applied above, and further in view of JP 2002-186009 (hereinafter, “MOTOYUKI,” Note: citations are to the previously-provided machine translation of the original non-English document).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, the control circuitry does not add a connection destination of a processing target of the first initial-connection processing to a list of one or more connection destinations to be excluded from the processing target of the first initial-connection processing.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MITSUI teaches:
wherein when the first initial-connection processing fails due to the timeout, (Abstract: The radio terminal determines that the connection process has failed, if the timer expires. The radio terminal transmits, to the base station, a failure message indicating a failure of the connection process. The failure message includes information indicating that a cause of the failure of the connection process is timeout)
Also, in the same field of endeavor, MOTOYUKI teaches:
the control circuitry does not add a connection destination of a processing target of the first initial-connection processing to a list of one or more connection destinations to be excluded from the processing target of the first initial-connection processing. (¶ 0104-0106: [I]s added to the cell search failure count 1 (step S4007), the process proceeds to the step (step S4008) of comparing the cell search failure frequency 1 with the cell search failure frequency threshold value L. . . . When the cell search failure frequency l exceeds the cell search failure frequency threshold L, the cell search interval t2 is changed so that the cell search interval t2 becomes a long cycle (step S4009). Furthermore, since the cell search operation within a certain period of time is reduced and the time until the cell search of a certain number of times is completed becomes longer due to the longer period, the cell search failure number threshold L is adjusted to the cell search interval t2. To change (step S4010). . . . After the above operation is completed, the process returns to step S4001 to repeat from the initialization of the cell search failure count l) [That is, a connection destination of a processing target is not excluded from the repeated the initialization of the cell search failure count l]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IEEE 802.11’s connection sequence to determine a start timing of a second initial connection processing for timeout failures that is not later than the start timing for non-timeout failures, as taught by MOTOYUKI, to provide a configurable time period so as to enable failure-specific retries of connection processing, such that since the cell search interval can be changed, the current consumption of the wireless mobile device can be reduced and the standby time can be lengthened. See MOTOYUKI, at ¶ 0010.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1.
IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control circuitry shortens a period of scan processing included in the first or second initial-connection processing.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MOTOYUKI teaches:
wherein the control circuitry shortens a period of scan processing included in the first or second initial-connection processing. (¶ 0109: [T]he cell search interval t1 is changed so that the cell search interval t1 becomes a short cycle (Step S4018))
Regarding claim 10, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control circuitry changes a timeout value of the join failure timer, the association timer, or the authentication timer.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MOTOYUKI teaches:
wherein the control circuitry changes a timeout value of the join failure timer, the association timer, or the authentication timer. (¶ 0109: [T]he cell search interval t1 is changed so that the cell search interval t1 becomes a short cycle (Step S4018); ¶ 0111: [T]he cell search interval t1 is changed so that the cell search interval t1 has a long cycle (step S4015))
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11 in view of BRUNSON and MITSUI, as applied above, and further in view of WO 2017/171920 (hereinafter, “MITTY”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of IEEE 802.11, BRUNSON, and MITSUI, as applied above, renders obvious the radio communication apparatus of claim 1. IEEE 802.11 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the timeout indicates a deterioration of a communication environment of the radio communication apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MITTY teaches:
wherein the timeout indicates a deterioration of a communication environment of the radio communication apparatus. (¶ 0086: LTE network may be unavailable due to congestion. In this case, the UE may start the back-off (T3346) timer. The T3346 timer is a backoff timer set as above when the NAS level MM congestion control is activated.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BRUNSON’s “various criteria” for calculating back-off time periods to provide the T3346 timer with an extended period—such as several hours—as taught by BRUNSON to provide that while T3346 is running, the UE does not start the attach procedure unless the UE needs to attach for emergency bearer services such that the UE may not initiate the Attach procedure, the TAU procedure, and the Service Request procedure, until the T3346 timer expires. See MITTY, at ¶ 0086.
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 Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644