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 with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-16, and 18-20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 14-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran (US Publication No. 20200178127) in view of Werner (US Publication No. 20030008619).
As to claims 1 and 14, Ravichandran teaches a processor of a user equipment and a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (fig. 1 and fig. 3), comprising: identifying an occurrence of one or more user events when the UE is in a first type of network coverage (fig. 1, pp0024, the computing device 108A provides a display (e.g., on the screen of computing device 108A) indicating the break in the connection, pp0023, allows the user of the computing device to identify a break in connection for the application, and pp0050, upon losing connectivity or out of range of the first RAT); determining, after the one or more user events have occurred, the change in network coverage from the first type of network coverage to a second type of network coverage (fig. 1, fig. 4, #404, pp0047, pp0050, upon losing connectivity or out of range of the first RAT, detect change in RAT, fig. 2, and pp0024, the computing device 108A provides a display (e.g., on the screen of computing device 108A) indicating the break in the connection and the move to the new RAT); and generating an alert in response to determining the change in network coverage based on the occurrence of the one or more user events, wherein the alert is configured to notify the user of the UE to the change in network coverage (fig. 1, fig. 4, pp0047, pp0050, notifying user of the change in RAT, e.g. WI-FI to cellular, fig. 2, and pp0024, the computing device 108A provides a display (e.g., on the screen of computing device 108A) indicating the break in the connection and the move to the new RAT). However, fails to explicitly teach receiving a user input indicating one or more user events that are to be used to trigger a feature configured to alert a user to a change in network coverage.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Werner teaches the concept of receiving a user input indicating one or more user events (user-defined region) that are to be used to trigger a feature configured to alert a user to a change in network coverage (fig. 4, fig. 5, pp0024, receiving information from a user that defines a geographical region, pp0042, notify a user of changes in GPS coverage or changes in wireless communication services coverage that occur after a user-defined region or regions has been established). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran with the teachings of Werner to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing real-time notification of service coverage in a communication system (Werner, pp0018-pp0019).
As to claim 2, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Ravichandran further teaches wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises a failure to establish or maintain a session for a voice call (fig. 1, fig. 4, pp0047, pp0010, break in connection of the application and pp0035, e.g. voice call).
As to claim 3, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Ravichandran further teaches wherein the first type of network coverage is no network coverage (fig. 1, fig. 4, #404, pp0047, pp0050, upon losing connectivity or out of range of the first RAT, detect change in RAT) and the second type of network coverage comprises a network offering voice call services (fig. 1, fig. 4, pp0047, change to a second or different RAT and pp0035, e.g. providing voice call).
As to claims 6 and 15, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Ravichandran further teaches wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises a failure to establish or maintain a session for an application (fig. 1, fig. 4, pp0010, break in connection of the application).
As to claim 7, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Ravichandran further teaches wherein the first type of network coverage is a legacy radio access technology (RAT) and the second type of network coverage is a long term evolution (LTE) RAT or a fifth generation (5G) new radio (NR) RAT (fig. 1, fig. 4, pp0047, pp0050, notifying user of the change in RAT, e.g. 4G to 5G, fig. 2).
As to claim 8, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Ravichandran further teaches wherein the alert comprises one of audio output and a vibration (fig. 1, fig. 4, #404, pp0047, pp0050, notifying user of the change in RAT, audio or vibrating notification).
As to claims 9 and 16, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Ravichandran further teaches further comprising: performing an operation in response to identifying the change in network coverage without user intervention, wherein the operation comprises one of initiating a voice call, a data session or an emergency call, wherein the operation was previously attempted prior to the change in network coverage (fig. fig. 4, #410, #412, pp0022, application request re-register (i.e. without user intervention) to continue media use by the application and/or continue (i.e. prior communication session) the communication session in a second or different RAT, and pp0052).
Claim(s) 4 and 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran (US Publication No. 20200178127) in view of Werner (US Publication No. 20030008619) and further in view of Faccin et al. (US Publication No. 20110171925).
As to claim 4, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises a failure to establish or maintain a session for an emergency call.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Faccin teaches the concept wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises a failure to establish or maintain a session for an emergency call (fig. 6, pp0193, pp0202, emergency calls established through an H(e)NB might fail). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran and Werner with the teachings of Faccin to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing emergency services via an H(e)NB or via an (e)NB are desirably supported without difference in user experience (Faccin, pp0003).
As to claim 5, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the first type of network coverage is no network coverage and the second type of network coverage permits UE access to emergency services.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Faccin teaches the concept wherein the first type of network coverage is no network coverage (fig. 6, pp0193, pp0202, emergency calls established through an H(e)NB might fail, e.g. connectivity to the operator core network is interrupted because of a failure in the premises IP connectivity) and the second type of network coverage permits UE access to emergency services (fig. 6, pp0236, reselect supported cell for emergency call). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran and Werner with the teachings of Faccin to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing emergency services via an H(e)NB or via an (e)NB are desirably supported without difference in user experience (Faccin, pp0003).
Claim(s) 12 13, 19, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran (US Publication No. 20200178127) in view of Werner (US Publication No. 20030008619) and further in view of Gupta et al. (US Publication No. 20210099936).
As to claims 12 and 19, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises receiving user input in response to a request for the user to enable the feature configured to alert the user to the change in network coverage, and wherein the request is displayed at the UE in response to a predetermined condition.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gupta teaches the concept wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises receiving user input in response to a request for the user to enable the feature configured to alert the user to the change in network coverage (fig. 1, fig. 14, fig. 27, #2716, #2718, user input to notify a user of the poor state of the network, and change the network based thereon, pp0136, pp0078), and wherein the request is displayed at the UE in response to a predetermined condition (fig. 1, fig. 27, and pp0224, the processor 120 may display an interface 2710, displaying an indicator indicating a change to another AP at the time of a backhaul failure). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran and Werner with the teachings of Gupta to achieve the goal of efficiently providing seamless communication network and selecting the optimal network for the user in a communication system (Gupta, pp0003).
As to claims 13 and 20, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition is based on one or more of a type of network coverage being unavailable, a duration of time the UE is deployed within the first type of network coverage, a number of times a display device of the UE is activated, a number of times the UE is unlocked, a failure to establish a communication session while deployed in the first type of network or a number of times the UE identifies the first type of network coverage within a time window.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gupta teaches the concept wherein the predetermined condition is based on one or more of a type of network coverage being unavailable, a duration of time the UE is deployed within the first type of network coverage, a number of times a display device of the UE is activated, a number of times the UE is unlocked, a failure to establish a communication session while deployed in the first type of network or a number of times the UE identifies the first type of network coverage within a time window (fig. 1, fig. 27, and pp0224, the processor 120 may display an interface 2710, displaying an indicator indicating a change to another AP at the time of a backhaul failure (i.e. connection lost)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran and Werner with the teachings of Gupta to achieve the goal of efficiently providing seamless communication network and selecting the optimal network for the user in a communication system (Gupta, pp0003).
Claim(s) 11 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran (US Publication No. 20200178127) in view of Werner (US Publication No. 20030008619) and further in view of Toebes et al. (US Publication No. 20130024932) and Chen (US Publication No. 20130162392).
As to claims 11 and 18, Ravichandran in view of Werner teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises activating a display of the UE or unlocking the UE a predetermined number of times while deployed within the first type of network coverage.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Toebes teaches the concept wherein the occurrence of the one or more user events comprises activating a display of the UE or unlocking the UE while deployed within the first type of network coverage (fig. 1, pp0064, unlocking screen of the computer when the computer is detected within the network, pp0028, defining first range 104 as an area within which Bluetooth communications between a device (not shown) and a token (not shown) may occur, an area within which a wireless network such as a WiFi network signal may be detected). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran and Werner with the teachings of Toebes to achieve the goal of efficiently and securely avoiding a wrongdoer to have access which may cause significant damage if he or she is able to unlock a smart phone that belongs to someone else in a communication system (Toebes, pp0003). However, they failed to explicitly teach activating a display of the UE or unlocking the UE a predetermined number of times.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chen teaches the concept of activating a display of the UE or unlocking the UE a predetermined number of times (fig. 1, clm. 1, unlocks the screen when a number of the activation times is the same as a predefined number). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravichandran, Werner, and Toebes with the teachings of Chen to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably avoiding the need to perform a slide operation on the screen to unlock the screen, thus avoiding frequent slides and damage to the screen (Chen, pp0004).
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 OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights