DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 27 February 2026 (including amendment filed 23 December 2025). Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application. This office action is made Non-Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williammee et al. (US 2019/0166534 A1; hereinafter Williammee).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Williammee discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums storing one or more computer programs for performing policy-based network selection, the one or more computer programs configured to cause at least one processor to { (see pg. 1, [0003, lines 1-4]; pp. 8-9, [0060, 0062, 0067, 0069]; Figs. 1-6) }:
determine, based on a policy for user equipment (UE) (e.g., UE 300) attached to a first carrier network (e.g., 120a), that the UE should attach to a different carrier network (e.g., 120b) { (see pg. 1, [0003, lines 1-4,13-17]; pg. 3, [0025]; Figs. 1-6), where the system provides multiple carrier networks (120a-b) for a UE (300) to connect and switch from a first carrier network (120a) to a second carrier network (120b) (see pg. 3, [0028-0029]) };
determine a second carrier network (e.g., 120b) that the UE (e.g., 300) should attach to based on the policy { (see pg. 1, [0003, lines 1-4,13-17]; pg. 3, [0025]; Figs. 1-6), where the system provides multiple carrier networks (120a-b) for a UE (300) to connect and switch from a first carrier network (120a) to a second carrier network (120b) (see pg. 3, [0028-0029]) }; and
instruct the UE (e.g., 300) to configure parameters of the UE (e.g., 300) for the second carrier network (e.g., 120b) { (see pg. 1, [0003, lines 1-4,13-17]; pg. 3, [0025]; Figs. 1-6), where the system provides multiple carrier networks (120a-b) for a UE (300) to connect and switch from a first carrier network (120a) to a second carrier network (120b) (see pg. 3, [0028-0029]) }.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (hereinafter Da Silva) (US 2021/0337442 A1; also, see US 11412425 B2) in view of further support by Williammee et al. (US 2019/0166534 A1; hereinafter Williammee).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Da Silva discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums storing one or more computer programs for performing policy-based network selection, the one or more computer programs configured to cause at least one processor to { (see pg. 6, [0092]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }:
determine, based on a policy for user equipment (UE) (e.g., wireless device 10) attached to a first carrier network (e.g., 12, 11), that the UE should attach to a different carrier network { (see pg. 6, [0091-0093]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12), where the system provides a network node (12) determines to handover wireless device to a second network node (13) (see pg. 3, [0045]; pg. 4, [0048]) };
determine a second carrier network (e.g., 13, 14) that the UE (e.g., 10) should attach to based on the policy { (see pp. 3-4, [0093-0094]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12), where the system provides a second network node (13) for handover of the wireless device (10) from a first network node (12) (see pg. 5, [0069-0070]), and the system has one or more core node (CNs) and one or more RANs that can use a number of different technologies (RATs) (see pp. 4-5, [0067-0068]; Fig. 8), and the system can provide a virtual cell ID and virtual network slices (see pg. 2, [0017, lines 23-24]; Fig. 8), and the system provides handover with mobility such as inter-cell, inter-node, and inter-RAT that can provide the option of switching between carrier networks (e.g., nodes/RAT) (see pg. 6, [0086, lines 10-15]; pg. 8, [0124, lines 6-10]). Also, see items 5a-c above; item 7a) } and
instruct the UE (e.g., 10) to configure parameters of the UE for the second carrier network { (see pp. 3-4, [0093-0094]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12), where the system provides the wireless device (10) with a beam configuration }.
Da Silva inexplicitly disclose having the feature(s) determine a second carrier network that the UE should attach to based on the policy. However, in the alternative, the examiner maintains that the feature(s) determine a second carrier network that the UE should attach to based on the policy was well known in the art, as taught by Williammee.
As further alternative support in the same field of endeavor, Williammee discloses the feature(s)
determine a second carrier network (e.g., 120b) that the UE (e.g., 300) should attach to based on the policy { (see pg. 1, [0003, lines 1-4,13-17]; pg. 3, [0025]; Figs. 1-6), where the system provides multiple carrier networks (120a-b) for a UE (300) to connect and switch from a first carrier network (120a) to a second carrier network (120b) (see pg. 3, [0028-0029]) }.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Da Silva as further alternatively supported by Williammee to have the feature(s) determine a second carrier network that the UE should attach to based on the policy, in order to provide a method for switching carrier networks, as taught by Williammee (see pg. 1, [0004]).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: receive information providing hardware capabilities of the UE, software capabilities of the UE, or both; and use the received hardware capabilities of the UE, software capabilities of the UE, or both, in the determining of the second carrier network that the UE should attach to based on the policy { (see pg. 6, [0089, 0092]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 1, wherein configuring the parameters of the UE for the second carrier network comprises activation of one or bands, deactivation of one or more bands, changing a band selection order, changing a packet size, using carrier aggregation (CA), using a universal subscriber identity module (SIM), configuring the parameters for lowest cost available carrier network that meets minimum quality parameters, or configuring the parameters for a carrier network with a highest quality, or any combination thereof { (see pg. 6, [0089, 0092]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 1, wherein the second carrier network is determined for a first service and the one or more computer programs are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: determine a third carrier network that the UE should attach to for a second service based on the policy; and instruct the UE to configure the parameters of the UE for the third carrier network { (see pg. 6, [0091-0093]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12), where the system provides a network node (12) determines to handover wireless device to a second network node (13) (see pg. 3, [0045]; pg. 4, [0048]) }.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 4, wherein the first service comprises data and the second service comprises voice and short message service (SMS), or vice versa { (see pp. 4-5, [0067-0068]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Da Silva discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: poll a plurality of carrier networks for respective network information; and use the network information from the polled plurality of carrier networks in the determination of the second carrier network that the UE should attach to based on the policy { (see pg. 6, [0091-0093]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 6, wherein the network information comprises current network congestion statistics { (see pg. 6, [0091-0093]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 1, wherein: the first carrier network instructs the UE to configure the parameters of the UE for the second carrier network, and the second carrier network is determined based on a subscription of the UE, current or anticipated future congestion conditions on the first carrier network, or a determination that an event likely to cause congestion conditions is occurring or will occur { (see pg. 6, [0091-0093, 0085-0089]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combination of Da Silva and Williammee discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 1), in addition Da Silva further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: train an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model for policy-based network selection using signal strength data, congestion data, location data, data pertaining to carrier networks, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) data, signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) data, throughput data, call quality data, or any combination thereof; and use the trained AI/ML model to determine that the UE should attach to the different carrier network based on the policy, determine the second carrier network that the UE should attach to based on the policy, or both { (see pg. 6, [0091-0093, 0085-0089]; pg. 11, [0155]; pg. 12, [0163]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12) }.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the applied reference(s) provide more than adequate support and to further clarify (see the above claims for relevant citations and comments in this section).
Repeat from office action mailed 15 January 2026 - Regarding applicant’s argument of claim 1 on pg. 1, “…does not disclose a second carrier network…”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has failed to interpret and appreciate the teachings of well-known prior art Da Silva that clearly discloses the claimed feature(s) as would be clearly recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As a note, applicant admits the following:
Admission #1: Applicant admits “…the reference do arguably disclose a handover procedure…between radio network node 13 and radio network node 12…” (see pg. 1, 1st full par., lines 1-3).
Admission #2: Applicant admits “…the reference does disclose…carrier…” (see pg. 1, 2nd full par., line(s) 1).
Admission #3: Applicant admits “…the reference does disclose…a first radio access technology (RAT) such as NR, LTE, Wi-Fi…and states a second radio access technology (RAT) such as NR, LTE, Wi-Fi…” (see pg. 1,3rd full par., lines 1-5).
In particular, Da Silva discloses the language as related to the claimed feature(s)
determine a second carrier network (e.g., 13, 14) that the UE (e.g., 10) should attach to based on the policy { (see pp. 3-4, [0093-0094]; Figs. 3, 5, & 7-12), where the system provides a second network node (13) for handover of the wireless device (10) from a first network node (12) (see pg. 5, [0069-0070]), and the system has one or more core node (CNs) and one or more RANs that can use a number of different technologies (RATs) (see pp. 4-5, [0067-0068]; Fig. 8), and the system can provide a virtual cell ID and virtual network slices (see pg. 2, [0017, lines 23-24]; Fig. 8), and the system provides handover with mobility such as inter-cell, inter-node, and inter-RAT that can provide the option of switching between carrier networks (e.g., nodes/RAT) (see pg. 6, [0086, lines 10-15]; pg. 8, [0124, lines 6-10]). Also, see items 5a-c above; item 7a) }.
Therefore, as addressed above, the applied reference more than adequately meets the claim limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument(s) of claims 2-20, the claims are addressed for the same reasons as set forth above and as applied above in each claim rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kazmi et al. (US 2013/0322395 A1) discloses a first network node and a second network node and methods therein.
Tan (US 2018/0124692 A1) discloses a method, apparatus and system with carrier network switching control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIE J DANIEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-7907. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 - 6.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420. 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.
/WILLIE J DANIEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
WJD,Jr
03 September 2026
Prosecution Insights