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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 3, 7, 9-10, 12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jitkoff et al (US2015/0207800) in view of Brown (2023/0396695) and in further view of Zhang et al (US 2022/0311569).
Regarding Claim 1, 10, and 19, Jitkoff teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a processor on a User Equipment device (UE) (Par.51, Par.73, and Par.75, device 950:cellular phone on cellular network), cause the processor to: instantiate a bridge application (Par.31 and Fig.1:1102, browser) that includes a container application (Par.31 and Fig.1:1104, tab), wherein the bridge application (Fig.1:1102, browser) runs on a container platform (Fig.1 and Par.26, operating system) on the UE and wherein the bridge application is configured to: receive application information from a map system (Par.32-33 and Fig.1: icon 1108 (i.e. application information) obtained from webstore (i.e. map system)) on a network slice (Par.32, segment of internet allowing connection); display the application information (Par.32-33, Fig.1: icon can be displayed as 1108 or to the user prior to download when 1109 is selected), which is received from the map system (Par.32 and Fig.1, icon 1108 from webstore), as one or more icons that represents instances of web applications (Par.33: “causes the installed application to launch, including opening a new tab in the browser application 1102 and directing the new tab to a website associated with the launched application”, hence icons 1108 represent web applications or webpages), that are located on one or more networks different from the map system and the network slice (Par.32-Par.33, webpages are located at different servers/network from where the Webstore is located and is also different from the network slice); and when an application is activated, access a web application among the web applications (Par.32-33, the app selected/activated causing website to be launched), wherein the map system is configured to: receive the application information from a partner for the network (Par.44, developer); store the received application information; and send the application information to the bridge application (i.e. browser 1102) when the bridge application requests the application information (Par.31-Par.32 and Fig.1, using browser user requests app and app (i.e. application information) is downloaded and displayed on the browser). However, Jitkoff does not explicitly teach wherein the map system is configured to: receive the application information from a partner device through a portal.
Brown teaches the map system (i.e. app store) is configured to: receive the application information from a partner device through a portal (Par.11-13, app store receives apps from developers (implicit partner device). Hence there must be a portal (i.e. way to submit) in order to allow submission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Jitkoff teaching the ability for a user device to download applications from a webstore upon user selection through a browser with the further teachings of Brown which teaches that it is well known for developers to submit developed apps to map system. This would provide a system where developers can make money while the app store generates revenue for the companies hosting.
The Primary reference, Jitkoff, teaches the device accessing the web apps over internet can be a cell phone (Par.31-32) and the phone can communicate using various cellular protocols (Par.73, GSM, CDMA, etc), however the combination of Jitkoff and Brown do not explicitly teach the network slice is included in a cellular network and the portal is for a cellular network.
Zhang teaches it is well known in the art for a cellular network to utilize network slicing to provide internet to a UE (Par.127-128 and Par.120, and Fig.2), hence the network slice is included in a cellular network. The cellular network of Jitkoff can be modified to incorporate the teachings of Zhangs cellular network utilizing network slicing to provide internet access to the UE. Also, since the combination of Jitkofff and Brown already teaches the UE accessing internet through a portal, it would be obvious for the portal providing internet access to be for the cellular network based upon Zhangs teachings above. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Jitkoff and Brown with the teachings of Zhang such that an enhanced cellular system is provided. This enhanced system can effectively utilize network slicing to provide Internet to users of a cellular network such that they are provided with high performance at desired levels of Quality of service.
Regarding Claim 3 and 12, Jitkoff further teaches the bridge application (i.e. browser) is further configured to: request, via an operating system running on the UE, the UE to connect to the map application on the network slice (Par.32, browser running via OS allows user to request connection to web store (i.e. map application) somewhere on the internet (i.e. web slice)).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Brown further teaches when the map system receives the application information through the portal, the map system is configured to: receive the application information through a Network Exposure Function (NEF) that relays the application information from the portal to the map system (Par.12-13, apps are known to be submitted over the internet so there must be a portal (i.e. way to submit). Hence there must be a Network Exposure Function (i.e. ability send over the internet/network)).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Jitkoff further teaches the application information includes: a list of Universal Resource Locators (URLs) corresponding to the web applications and icons corresponding to the web applications (Par.33).
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jitkoff et al (US 2015/0207800), Brown (2023/0396695), and Zhang et al (US 2022/0311569) in further view of Ding et al (US 20140047517).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the combination of Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang do not teach
the bridge application is further configured to: access a web kit to execute JavaScript code on the UE; and perform a callback to the web application.
Ding teaches the bridge application (Par.34, webpage requires browser) is further configured to: access a web kit (Par.31, webkit component) to execute JavaScript code on the UE (Par.31, Javascript support); and perform a callback to the web application (Par.34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang with the teachings of Ding such that the bridge application uses a web kit with Javascript code on the UE and calling back to the web application so that a more robust hybrid client device that is able to display up-to-date web apps with minimal latency issues and without requiring a full load of an entire new webpage.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jitkoff et al (US 2015/0207800), Brown (2023/0396695), and Zhang et al (US 2022/0311569) in further view of Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the combination of Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang do not teach the request includes a traffic descriptor, and wherein the UE is configured to: use the traffic descriptor to identify a UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule; and apply the URSP rule to identify the network slice.
AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art for requests to include a traffic descriptor, and wherein the UE is configured to: use the traffic descriptor to identify a UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule; and apply the URSP rule to identify the network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang with the subject matter of the Applicants Admitted Prior Art to ensure that the connection is provided the desired level of quality of service.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jitkoff et al (US 2015/0207800), Brown (2023/0396695), and Zhang et al (US 2022/0311569) in further view of Caceres et al (US 20210400572).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang do not teach the UE is further configured to: receive a UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule for selecting the network slice from an over-the-air server on a provider network; and store the URSP rule in a URSP database.
Caceres teaches a UE is further configured to: receive a UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule for selecting the network slice from an over-the-air server on a provider network; and store the URSP rule in a URSP database (Par.44, stored in UE (i.e. database within UE)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang with the teachings of Caceres such that the UE may connect more quickly in further attempts.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jitkoff et al (US 2015/0207800), Brown (2023/0396695), Zhang et al (US 2022/0311569) and Caceres et al (US 20210400572) in further view of Chen et al (US 20210392491).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Caceres teaches URSP information stored in the mobile device (Par.44), however Jitkoff, Brown, Zhang, and Caceres do not expressly teach the URSP database includes one of: a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM), an embedded SIM, a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC), or an embedded UICC.
Chen further teaches the URSP database includes one of: a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM), an embedded SIM, a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC), or an embedded UICC (Par.57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jitkoff, Brown, Zhang, and Caceres with the teachings of Chen to provide an enhanced device which can help minimize storage issues on mobile device.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jitkoff et al (US 2015/0207800), Brown (2023/0396695), and Zhang et al (US 2022/0311569) in further view of Devine et al (US 2019/0370448).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang teaches the bridge application (i.e. browser) using login/password data to permit access (Par.80) however Jitkoff, Brown and Zhang do not teach wherein when the bridge application is further configured to: receive, from a user, biometrics information; and retrieve user credentials corresponding to the biometrics information; and use the user credentials to authenticate at a provider network that includes the network slice.
Devine teaches receive, from a user, biometrics information; and retrieve user credentials corresponding to the biometrics information; and use the user credentials to authenticate (Par.327 and Par.94, matching credentials to biometric input information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jitkoff, Brown, and Zhang with the teachings of Devine to provide a more secure device that would prevent anyone from downloading content especially in situations with stolen devices or installing spyware.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648