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 .
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 newly amended claims 1, 11 and 18 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.
With respect to amended claim 1, the claim recites selectively enabling 5G mode in response to either:
1. a battery level being above a threshold and the device meeting one of the additional conditions, OR
2. WiFi being unavailable while cellular data is on and the device meeting one of the additional conditions.
The claim further recites that the “additional conditions” include:
- the device being in an idle mode,
- a screen of the device being off,
- an LTE System Information Block 24 (SIB24) being present, and
- the device refraining from foreground scanning of 5G cells while enabling the 5G mode.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require that all four listed “additional conditions” be present. Rather, the language “the device meeting one of additional conditions” reasonably means that one of the listed additional conditions is sufficient when selectively enabling 5G mode in response to either of the two recited triggering scenarios. In other words, the claim is broad enough to cover embodiments in which 5G mode is enabled when a battery threshold is satisfied and at least one listed additional condition is satisfied, or when WiFi is unavailable while cellular data is on and at least one listed additional condition is satisfied.
Accordingly, Applicant’s position that the cited references do not expressly disclose the amended limitations is noted. However, the claim remains broad under BRI, and the recited enabling logic is satisfied by disclosure of the general conditions for enabling 5G mode together with disclosure of at least one of the listed additional conditions. Therefore, Ahmed, in combination with the newly added references below are relied upon to teach or render obvious the amended claim limitations.
To the extent Applicant contends that the prior art must disclose the exact combination of:
- the battery threshold or WiFi-unavailable trigger, and
- each of the listed additional conditions,
that interpretation is not consistent with the claim language as amended.
Applicant’s amendment provides the scenario of selectively enabling the 5G mode in response to either a battery level above a threshold and meeting one additional condition OR Wifi being unavailable while cellular data is on while meeting one additional condition. Claim language further clarifies what one additional conditions may be. The claim still provides for enabling 5G mode in response to either a battery threshold or WiFi being unavailable while cellular data is on. Noting that claim now recites multiple additional conditions are known but only one must be when selectively enabling the 5G mode is response to either battery threshold or WiFi unavailable while cellular is on.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad et al (US 2021/0153290) in view of Martin-Cocher (US 2009/0098914) and further in view of Matolia et al (US 11,490,302).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18 (Currently amended), Ahmad teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining a status of an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) registration on a device (figure 2, step 202- determining IMS handling); determining an extent of cellular coverage for the device (para 0021); and selectively disabling a 5G mode of the device based on the status of the IMS registration or the extent of cellular coverage (figure 2, step 204- disable 5G based on voice call or IMS handling);
Ahmad further teaches enabling the setting for the mobile device to connect to the NR base station when the voice call terminates and adds that’s disabling the NR capability may be based on QoS events including WiFi deterioration. However, Ahmed fails to specifically disclose selectively enabling the 5G mode in response to battery above threshold for a feature and enabling or disabling the feature based on the result of the determination.
However, Martin-Cocher teaches selectively enabling or disabling features based on a battery level threshold (figure 2, enabling previously disabled features when battery conditions improve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Martin-Cocher’s teaching of battery management with Ahmad’s dual connectivity device in order to provide the user with battery saving options relating to an improved user experience.
Ahmad as modified by Martin-Cocher fail to specifically disclose the device meeting one of additional conditions, however Matolia teaches scanning optimization in 5G while conditions are monitored such as SIB24 and idle state/mode (Matolia- col 5, lines 4-14 and 45-51- the UE checks SIB24 for 5G reselection and RRC idle and certain RF conditions the UE refrains from power intensive 5G scanning).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Matolia’s teachings of 5G NR multi-RAT environment in order to reduce unnecessary measurement and conserves battery power without affecting network performance.
Note – as discussed in Response to Arguments section above, under BRI, claim language in interpreted to mean only one additional condition of the four additional conditions must be met. In other words, amended claim 1 is interpreted to mean, requiring selective enabling of 5G mode in response to either of two alternative triggering conditions, together with satisfaction of at least one of the recited additional conditions. The claim does not require all of the listed additional conditions to be present simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, Ahmad teaches the 5G mode of the device comprises a 5G New Radio Standalone (NR SA) mode (0003, 0011, 0018- UE is a standalone device).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, Ahmad teaches disabling the 5G mode of the device in response to a Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) connection on the device being available and the IMS being registered over a wireless network (figure 2, step 204).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 20, Ahmad teaches disabling the 5G mode in response to the cellular coverage being disabled and Voice over New Radio (VoNR) or Video over New Radio (ViNR) being unsupported on the device or on a network through which the device exchanges data (0011- when a standalone (SA) mobile device is handling a VoWiFi call, the NR radio may be downgraded to not operate over a 5G NR connection, e.g., the mobile device cannot connect to a 5G NR base station (referred to herein as NR base station & 0021- the NR radio 112 may be downgraded to not operate over a 5G NR connection, e.g., a configuration setting of the mobile device may be changed so that the NR radio 112 is disabled and cannot connect to the NR base station 106.).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ahmad teaches disabling the 5G mode in response to the IMS being registered over WiFi and the device currently participating in an active call session over a wireless network (0021- Thus, when the mobile device 108 is handling a VoWiFi call via the WiFi radio 114 and the WiFi connection point 116 (e.g., the mobile device 108 has received or initiated a voice call via the WiFi connection point 116, or a voice call has been handed over from VoLTE), the NR radio 112 may be downgraded to not operate over a 5G NR connection, e.g., a configuration setting of the mobile device may be changed so that the NR radio 112 is disabled and cannot connect to the NR base station 106).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Ahmad teaches disabling the 5G mode in response to the device currently participating in an active call session, via VoiceOver WiFi (VoWiFi); and the VoWiFi session being handed over to a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) mode (0021- e.g., the mobile device 108 is moving away from the WiFi connection point 116), then the mobile device 108 may perform a handover procedure of the VoWiFi call to the LTE base station 104 as opposed to the NR base station 106 since the NR radio 112 is disabled and the mobile device 108 will handle the call via the LTE radio 110.).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ahmad teaches disabling the 5G mode in response to the device currently participating in an active call session, via Voice Over WiFi (VoWiFi) or via Voice Over LTE (VoLTE); and Voice Over New Radio (VoNR) being unsupported by the cellular coverage (0021- when the mobile device 108 is handling a VoWiFi call via the WiFi radio 114 and the WiFi connection point 116 (e.g., the mobile device 108 has received or initiated a voice call via the WiFi connection point 116, or a voice call has been handed over from VoLTE), the NR radio 112 may be downgraded to not operate over a 5G NR connection, e.g., a configuration setting of the mobile device may be changed so that the NR radio 112 is disabled and cannot connect to the NR base station 106. Thus, if the VoWiFi call needs to be handed over to a cellular network, e.g., the quality provided by the WiFi connection point 116 is diminished or diminishing (e.g., the mobile device 108 is moving away from the WiFi connection point 116), then the mobile device 108 may perform a handover procedure of the VoWiFi call to the LTE base station 104 as opposed to the NR base station 106 since the NR radio 112 is disabled and the mobile device 108 will handle the call via the LTE radio 110).
Regarding claim 8, Ahmad teaches determining a presence of the active call session based on an IMS call setup being in progress (0021- the mobile device 108 is configured as a SA device but is not configured for voice-over 5G, e.g., the mobile device 108 is not configured to handle voice calls via the NR radio 112 and the NR base station 106. Thus, when the mobile device 108 is handling a VoWiFi call via the WiFi radio 114 and the WiFi connection point 116 (e.g., the mobile device 108 has received or initiated a voice call via the WiFi connection point 116, or a voice call has been handed over from VoLTE), the NR radio 112 may be downgraded to not operate over a 5G NR connection).
Regarding claim 10, Ahmad is silent and does not disclose the device being in an idle mode is determined in response to a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection being released by the LTE network.
However, this feature is an inherent feature to Ahamd as a fundamental aspect of LTE and 5G networks protocols. Specifically, RRC Connect and RRC IDLE are part a given aspect of RRC Connection Release and is a standardized process which forms the basis of managing mobile devices state in a network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights