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 .
This Office Action is in response to filing on 07/27/2023.
Claim 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/27/2023. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2023 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 10063080) in view of Au et al (US 10873885).
Regarding claim 1, Altman discloses a method facilitating wireless scanning with a device (), the method comprising:
determining that the device is disconnected from a wireless access point (WAP) (i.e., lack of a wireless connection to a second electronic device, connection or lack of connection to a cellular network, see claim 1, column 11) or from a companion device (i.e., claim 1);
determining at least one condition associated with the device (In response to determining that the condition or conditions are met, see col. 5, ll. 36-41), based on the determining that the device is disconnected from the WAP or from the companion device (The conditions are met, for example, by, e.g., a location may be compared to a predetermined location or area, a current WiFi connection may be compared to a predetermined WiFi connection or lack of a wireless connection may be identified, see col. 5, ll. 38-41, );
determining that the at least one condition satisfies a trigger condition (e.g., The conditions are met, for example, by receipt of selection of an option to enter the reduced battery use state or by determining that conditions of at least one rule are met., see col. 5, ll. 1-52); and based on the at least one condition satisfying the trigger condition (by receipt of selection of an option to enter the reduced battery use state or by determining that conditions of at least one rule are met., see col. 5, ll. 1-52).
Altman does not expressly disclose scanning, by the device, to detect the WAP at a non-standard frequency, wherein the non-standard frequency is less frequent than a standard frequency.
However, in similar endeavor of reducing power consumption Au discloses scanning, by the device, to detect the WAP at a non-standard frequency, wherein the non-standard frequency is less frequent than a standard frequency (i.e., FIG. 4 shows an example method 400 that may be implemented by the cellular communication device so that idle mode 5G signal searching is performed at intervals of variable length in order to reduce power consumption., as described in col. 11, ll. 26-33; and The action 214 comprises pausing the described scanning of 5G frequencies and the described updating of the network identifier to conserve power. While scanning and updating are paused, the network identifier remains unchanged., as described in col. 10, ll. 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Altman with the mechanisms of Au that includes the teachings of scanning, by the device, to detect WAPs at a non-standard frequencies as taught by Au because using non-standard frequencies provides flexibility to choose a spectrum with propagation characteristics and available bandwidth that precisely meet user’s specific communication needs, such as high-capacity networking.
Regarding claim 2, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition comprises the device being stationary associated with a predetermined threshold period of time (conditions for entering the reduced battery use state may include, for example, one or more of a current time of day falling within a predetermined time period, a location identified, for example, utilizing GPS functionality or network connection, see col. 5, ll. 17-26).
Regarding claim 3, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the device is stationary based on at least the device being within an area defined by a geofence (conditions for entering the reduced battery use state may include current time may be compared to a predetermined time period, a current date may be compared to a predetermined day of the week of date, a charge level of the battery may be compared to a predetermined level, a location may be compared to a predetermined location, see col. 5, ll. 17-26).
Regarding claim 5, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the trigger condition is based in part on the device moving at a threshold speed.
However, Au discloses the trigger condition is based in part on the device moving at a threshold speed (i.e., When the device is not moving or moving relatively slowly, scanning intervals may be increased in length over time, because signal conditions are less likely to be changing while the device is not moving, see col. 5, ll. 44-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Altman with the teachings of Au to include the trigger condition based in part on the device moving at a threshold speed as taught by Au for the purpose of enhancing the network mobility management and maintain an efficient and stable connection as the user moves through different coverage areas.
Regarding claim 7, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the trigger condition comprises determining that at least one connection, by the device, to the WAP or one or more WAPs comprise a signals strength below a predetermined threshold signal strength during a time period associated with a historical time period (comprises one or more of a current time of day falling within a predetermined time period, a current date being a predetermined day of the week or date, a charge level of the battery falling to or below a threshold level, claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting the trigger condition by determining a battery power of the device being equal to or below a predetermined power threshold (Such conditions for entering the reduced battery use state may include, a charge level of the battery falling to or below a threshold level, see col. 5, ll. 17-18, 20-22).
Regarding claim 10, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition comprises determining the device is in a location determined to lack one or more WAPs (wireless connection or lack of a wireless connection to a second electronic device, connection or lack of connection to a cellular network, see col. 5, ll. 20-26).
Regarding claim 11, in the obvious combination, Au discloses the method of claim 2 method of claim 1, wherein the scanning, by the device, at the non-standard frequency which is less frequent than the standard frequency (i.e., FIG. 4 shows an example method 400 that may be implemented by the cellular communication device so that idle mode 5G signal searching is performed at intervals of variable length in order to reduce power consumption., as described in col. 11, ll. 26-33; In some embodiments, power consumption may be reduced by scanning periodically, rather than continuously, at intervals that increase in length over time, see col. 4, ll. 5-8) causes the device to utilize less power than an instance in which the device scans to detect the WAP at the standard frequency (The use of varying intervals such as this allows quick updates in conditions where 5G coverage is changing frequently, while conserving power in conditions where coverage is relatively unchanging, see col. 4, ll. 17-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Altman with the teachings of Au to include the scanning, by the device, at the non-standard frequency which is less frequent than the standard frequency causing the device to utilize less power than an instance in which the device scans to detect the WAP at the standard frequency in order to reduce power consumption that may be involved in the signal scanning (see col. 3, ll. 58-60).
Regarding claim 12, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition comprises determining the device is in a location determined to comprise a prohibited WAP (by applying the configuration settings identified at 308 … The portable electronic device 100 may enter the reduced battery use state at 310 by entering an airplane mode in which all network connectivity is disabled, including cellular network connectivity, Wi-Fi connectivity, and Bluetooth® connectivity., see col. 6, ll. 18-22).
Regarding claim 13, In the obvious combination, Altman discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: detecting, based on a scan by the device (The portable electronic device 100 may enter the reduced battery use state at 310 by entering an airplane mode, see col. 6, ll. 18-22), the prohibited WAP, wherein the prohibited WAP prohibits the device to connect to the prohibited WAP (The portable electronic device 100 may enter the reduced battery use state at 310 by entering an airplane mode in which all network connectivity is disabled, including cellular network connectivity, Wi-Fi connectivity, col. 6, ll. 7-22).
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 44, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Altman, or lack of a wireless connection to a second electronic device, col. 5, ll. 23-25).
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Altman, Figure 1, electronic device 100, a processor 102, memory 110).
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 10063080) in view of Au et al (US 10873885) further in view of Sheriff et al (US 10143018).
Regarding claim 4, Altman (US 10063080) in view of Au et al (US 10873885) discloses the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the trigger condition comprises determining one or more time periods that the device historically lacks access to one or more WAPs based on usage patterns over time associated with the device.
However, Sheriff discloses a time period over which an access point is required to continuously have a rate of packet loss that is less than or equal to the current maximum acceptable rate of packet loss (threshold time period), which can stabilize the device's network connection. For example, when two different sorts of networks are in range, the threshold rate of packet loss for connecting to a potentially unstable network (e.g., a WiFi network) may be reduced, thus favoring a historically stable network (e.g., a 3G or 4G mobile network), see Sheriff, col. 26, ll. 52-67.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Altman in view of Au with the teachings of Sheriff so that the threshold rate of packet loss for connecting to a potentially unstable access point (e.g., a poorly positioned access point) may be reduced, thus favoring a historically stable access point (see Sheriff, col. 27, ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Altman (US 10063080) in view of Au et al (US 10873885) discloses the method of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the trigger condition comprises determining that one or more historical attempts, by the device, to connect to the WAP or one or more other WAPs were associated with connections to the WAP or the one or more WAPs associated with a time period equal to or below a predetermined time period.
However, Sheriff discloses or example, a threshold value may be adjusted in terms of a maximum acceptable rate of packet loss (threshold rate of packet loss) and/or a time period over which an access point is required to continuously have a rate of packet loss that is less than or equal to the current maximum acceptable rate of packet loss (threshold time period), which can stabilize the device's network connection, see Sheriff, col. 26, ll. 55-66.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Altman in view of Au with the teachings of Sheriff in order to stabilize the device's network connection (see Sheriff, col. 26, ll. 61-66).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 10063080) in view of Au et al (US 10873885) further in view of Nayak et al (US 10728875).
Regarding claim 9, Altman (US 10063080) in view of Au et al (US 10873885) do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition comprises determining a temperature associated with the device equals or exceeds a predetermined thermal limit.
However, Nayak discloses Such as data related to the status of a battery or other component of the device, a temperature of the device, see Nayak, col. 11, ll. 24-38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism of Altman in view of Au with the teachings of Nayak in order to conserve battery power when there is less remaining charge (see Nayak, col. 11, ll. 28-37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10390273 to Sankaranarayan et al: To enhance user experience associated with a network connection when transitioning the network connection between access points.
US 20180352508 to Fujishiro et al: Controller configured to select a target cell as a serving cell from among cells operated in different frequencies.
US 10015257 to Thanayankizil: Including the steps of establishing short range wireless communication between a vehicle WAP and one or more wireless devices over one or more corresponding communication channels operating over a first frequency band.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644