DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0197606)
Referring to Claim 1, Bergman et al. disclose a method comprising: communicating performance information over a first wireless communication link through a first wireless access point to a controller (par 54, measurement report from user equipment to radio network controller via source cell), the performance information indicating wireless connectivity performance between a communication device and a second wireless access point (par 54, signal quality of another/target cell); receiving control information from the controller, the control information indicating to handoff the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 56 and 57, serving cell change message); and in response to receiving the control information, initiating the handoff of the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 54-57 and 60, change serving cell).
Referring to Claim 2 as applied to Claim 1 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, wherein the controller is operative to produce the control information based on the performance information (pars 55-57, radio network controller receives report, determines cell change, sends message).
Referring to Claim 4 as applied to Claim 2 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, wherein receiving the control information includes: receiving an identity of the second wireless access point (par 57, instruct user equipment to change serving cell to target cell).
Referring to Claim 5 as applied to Claim 4 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, further comprising: as a response to receiving the identity of the second wireless access point, communicating an acknowledgement message from the communication device to the controller, the acknowledgement message confirming receipt of notification of the handoff from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 57 and 60, acknowledgement after handover instruction).
Referring to Claim 6 as applied to Claim 1 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, wherein the control information includes results of the controller pre-authenticating the communication device with the second wireless access point (par 55, configuration; Also, par 56, activation/commit; Also, par 57, common H-RNTI).
Referring to Claim 7 as applied to Claim 6 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, wherein the pre-authenticating of the communication device with the second wireless access point alleviates a need for the communication device to perform authentication of the communication device with the second wireless access point (par 55, configuration; Also, par 56, activation/commit; Also, par 57, common H-RNTI; Also, par 77, configured).
Referring to Claim 9 as applied to Claim 1 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, wherein the controller is operative to derive a ranking of the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point based on the performance information (pars 54-57, strongest cell).
Referring to Claim 10 as applied to Claim 1 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method, further comprising: communicating a notification to the controller, the notification indicating the handoff of the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (par 60, acknowledgement).
Referring to Claim 11, Bergman et al. disclose a system comprising: a communication device operative to: communicate performance information over a first wireless communication link through a first wireless access point to a controller (par 54, measurement report from user equipment to radio network controller via source cell), the performance information indicating wireless connectivity performance between a communication device and a second wireless access point (par 54, signal quality of another/target cell); receive control information from the controller, the control information indicating to handoff the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 56 and 57, serving cell change message); and in response to receiving the control information, initiate the handoff of the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 54-57 and 60, change serving cell).
Referring to Claim 12 as applied to Claim 11 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the controller is operative to produce the control information based on the performance information (pars 55-57, radio network controller receives report, determines cell change, sends message).
Referring to Claim 14 as applied to Claim 12 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the communication device is further operative to: receive an identity of the second wireless access point (par 57, instruct user equipment to change serving cell to target cell).
Referring to Claim 15 as applied to Claim 14 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the communication device is further operative to: as a response to receiving the identity of the second wireless access point, communicating an acknowledgement message from the communication device to the controller, the acknowledgement message indicating completion of the handoff from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 57 and 60, acknowledgement after handover instruction).
Referring to Claim 16 as applied to Claim 11 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the control information includes results of the controller pre-authenticating the communication device with the second wireless access point (par 55, configuration; Also, par 56, activation/commit; Also, par 57, common H-RNTI).
Referring to Claim 17 as applied to Claim 16 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the pre-authentication of the communication device with the second wireless access point alleviates a need for the communication device to perform authentication of the communication device with the second wireless access point (par 55, configuration; Also, par 56, activation/commit; Also, par 57, common H-RNTI; Also, par 77, configured).
Referring to Claim 19 as applied to Claim 11 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the controller is operative to derive a ranking of the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point based on the performance information (pars 54-57, strongest cell).
Referring to Claim 20 as applied to Claim 11 above, Bergman et al. disclose the system, wherein the communication device is further operative to: communicate a notification to the controller, the notification indicating completion of the handoff of the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (par 60, acknowledgement).
Referring to Claim 21 as applied to Claim 1 above, Bergman et al. disclose a computer-readable storage hardware (Memory 310 – Figure 3) having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when carried out by computer processor hardware, cause the computer processor hardware to: communicate performance information over a first wireless communication link through a first wireless access point to a controller (par 54, measurement report from user equipment to radio network controller via source cell), the performance information indicating wireless connectivity performance between a communication device and a second wireless access point (par 54, signal quality of another/target cell); receive control information from the controller, the control information indicating to handoff the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 56 and 57, serving cell change message); and in response to receiving the control information, initiate the handoff of the communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point (pars 54-57 and 60, change serving cell).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0197606) in view of Iguchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0147020)
Referring to Claims 3 and 13 as applied to Claims 2 and 12 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method and system, further comprising: in response to receiving the control information at the communication device, communicating an acknowledgement from the communication device through wireless access point to the controller (par 60, acknowledgement).
However, Bergman et al. do not explicitly disclose acknowledgement through the first wireless access point.
In the same field of endeavor, Iguchi et al. disclose acknowledgement through the first wireless access point (par 103, handoff completion message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate acknowledgement through the first wireless access point, as taught by Park et al., in the method and system of Bergman et al., for the purpose of achieving efficient use of channels in a mobile communication system (Iguchi et al., Abstract).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0197606) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0174362)
Referring to Claims 8 and 18 as applied to Claims 6 and 16 above, Bergman et al. disclose the method and system, wherein the results of the controller pre-authenticating the communication device includes information, the method further comprising: at the communication device, in furtherance of the handoff, utilizing the information to establish a second wireless communication link between the communication device and the second wireless access point (pars 56 and 57, change message).
However, Bergman et al. do not explicitly disclose security information.
In the same field of endeavor, Yang et al. disclose security information (pars 123-127, security; par 135, security)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate security information, as taught by Yang et al., in the method and system of Bergman et al., for the purpose of performing efficient handover (Yang et al., Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 21 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 33 and 32, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11483746.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 21 of the present application are a broader version of claims 33 and 32, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11483746. The difference being in U.S. Patent No. 11483746, claims 33 and 32 are similar to claims 1 and 21 the of present application but further states the limitations of network environment, pre-authenticating, and security information.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitations from the above claims of the present application made these claims broader versions. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 of the present application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11483746.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHAIL KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7187. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8:30am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 5712727915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
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.
/Suhail Khan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642