Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's Patent Application filed on August 15, 2023. Claims 1-24 have been canceled via preliminary amendment and claims 25-36 have been newly added, therefore, claims 25-36 are currently pending in the present application. This Action is made Non-Final.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted within this application (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 25, 26, 28-32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho; Casey Kwok Ching et al. (US 20170223599 A1), hereafter “Ho,” in view of Yiu; Candy et al. (US 20200045600 A1), hereafter “Yiu.”
Consider claim 25, Ho discloses a method, implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU, comprising (see fig. 1, #112): transmitting, to a first network via a non-3GPP access, a first message comprising information (see par. 0004: “the mobile computing device can include a memory configured to store a set of instructions, a communication device configured to transmit and receive information” par. 0005: “In some embodiments, the different second cellular network is associated with a short message service (SMS) communication channel. In some embodiments, the alternate communication channel is a WiFi communication channel” and par. 0019: “the mobile computing device 108 may be simultaneously connected to the WiFi computing network”); receiving from the first network, a second message comprising information indicating one or more disaster conditions handling preference of the first network associated with remaining on the first network via the non-3GPP access, and other one or more disaster conditions handling preference associated with roaming to another network (see par. 0018: “When the outage is detected, the server 104 can determine an alternate communication channel by which to communicate with the mobile computing device 108. More particularly, because there is a current or expected outage of the first cellular network of the first cellular carrier 120a, the mobile computing device 108 does not have connectivity to be notified by the server 104 to switch cellular carriers” and par. 0019: “The preferred alternate communication channel could be user-defined or predefined based on expected connection speed and/or cost. For example, WiFi may be preferred because it is typically faster than SMS and is typically free whereas SMS may cost the user money.” Examiner’s Analysis: in paragraphs 18 and 19, Ho discloses detecting network outage and notifying the mobile computing device via a WiFi channel (e.g., non-3GPP) about current and expected outages, so that the mobile computing device will have knowledge of the outage); receiving from the first network, a third message comprising information indicating one disaster condition of the first network associated with a 3GPP access (see fig. 3, par. 0023: “At 308, the server 104 can detect an outage of at least the first cellular network of the first cellular carrier 120a. When the outage is detected, the technique 300 can proceed to 312. Otherwise, the technique 300 can return to 308. At 312, the server 104 can determine an alternate communication channel by which to communicate with the mobile computing device 108. At 316, the server 104 can transmit a carrier switch instruction to the mobile computing device 108 via the alternate communication channel”); and determining whether to remain on the first network via the non-3GPP access or roaming to another network based on the second message based on the one disaster condition handling preference (see fig. 3, par. 0023: “At 316, the server 104 can transmit a carrier switch instruction to the mobile computing device 108 via the alternate communication channel. Receipt of the carrier switch instruction can cause the mobile computing device 108 to (i) terminate the first cellular connection and (ii) initiate a second cellular connection with the different second cellular carrier 120b associated with the MVNO 124. The termination of the first cellular connection and the initiation of the second cellular connection may overlap or at least partially occur simultaneously (e.g., when the mobile computing device 108 has multiple communication devices 204, such as multiple cellular radios or multiple transceivers). The technique 300 can then end or return to 304 for one or more additional cycles”); and remaining on the first network via the non-3GPP access based on the determination (see par. 0021: “In some implementations, the mobile computing device 108 may query the user 112 for permission to switch to the different second cellular carrier 120b. For example, the second cellular carrier 120b may have higher data rates than the first cellular carrier and thus the user 112 may wish to remain disconnected or connected to a computing network, such as the WiFi network.”).
Ho, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Yiu, in the same field of endeavor; a first message comprising information indicating supporting interruption of service (see par. 0015: “In a first embodiment described herein, a UE may signal to the network, on a per-UE basis, the ability to support NCGS interruptions. In a second embodiment described herein, a UE may signal to the network, on a per-component carrier basis of the UE, the ability to support NCGS interruptions.” Examiner’s Analysis: The UE signal to the network that is able to handle Network Controlled Small Gaps (NCSGs), which is an interruption of the network service, so that I can perform some other network activities).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ho and have it include the teachings of Yiu. The motivation would have been in order to mitigate
network service interruptions (see par. 0015).
Consider claim 26 in view of claim 25 above. Ho further discloses wherein the non-3GPP access is a WLAN access and the 3GPP access is a cellular access network (see fig. 1, par. 0005: “the different second cellular network is associated with a short message service (SMS) communication channel. In some embodiments, the alternate communication channel is a WiFi communication channel.”).
Consider claim 28 in view of claim 25 above. Ho further discloses wherein the second message is a registration accept message, or a configuration update command message (see par. 0020: “After determining the alternate communication channel, the server 104 can transmit a carrier switch instruction to the mobile computing device 108 via the alternate communication channel.” Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format and a carrier switch instruction reads on “configuration update command message” ).
Consider claim 29 in view of claim 25 above. Ho further discloses wherein the first network disaster condition is a radio access network failure (see par. 0011: “When there is an outage for a cellular network that a mobile computing device is currently connected to, the mobile computing device may need to switch cellular networks in order to avoid a significant loss of connectivity”).
Consider claim 30 in view of claim 25 above. Ho further discloses wherein at least one of the first network or the another network is a public land mobile network (see par. 0011: “The term “cellular carrier” as used hereinafter can refer to a mobile network operator (MNO), which can also refer to wireless service providers, wireless carriers, and/or mobile network carriers. As previously mentioned, for an MVNO that is associated with multiple MNOs, there may be situations where it is desirable to a switch between cellular carriers at an end user's mobile computing device. Each cellular carrier may operate a plurality of different cellular networks for a given area. These different cellular networks can be different generation cellular networks. Examples of the cellular networks include, but are not limited to, (i) first generation (1G), (ii) second generation (2G), (iii) third generation (3G), and (iv) fourth generation (4G) (also referred to as long-term evolution (LTE) or WiMax)”)
Consider claim 31, Ho discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU, comprising a processor, a transceiver unit and a storage unit, and configured to: (see fig. 2, par. 0004 “the mobile computing device can include a memory configured to store a set of instructions, a communication device configured to transmit and receive information, and one or more processors configured to execute the set of instructions”): transmit, to a first network via a non-3GPP access, a first message comprising information (see par. 0004: “the mobile computing device can include a memory configured to store a set of instructions, a communication device configured to transmit and receive information” par. 0005: “In some embodiments, the different second cellular network is associated with a short message service (SMS) communication channel. In some embodiments, the alternate communication channel is a WiFi communication channel” and par. 0019: “the mobile computing device 108 may be simultaneously connected to the WiFi computing network”); receive from the first network, a second message comprising information indicating one or more disaster conditions handling preference of the first network associated with remaining on the first network via the non-3GPP access, and other one or more disaster conditions handling preference associated with roaming to another network (see par. 0018: “When the outage is detected, the server 104 can determine an alternate communication channel by which to communicate with the mobile computing device 108. More particularly, because there is a current or expected outage of the first cellular network of the first cellular carrier 120a, the mobile computing device 108 does not have connectivity to be notified by the server 104 to switch cellular carriers” and par. 0019: “The preferred alternate communication channel could be user-defined or predefined based on expected connection speed and/or cost. For example, WiFi may be preferred because it is typically faster than SMS and is typically free whereas SMS may cost the user money.” Examiner’s Analysis: in paragraphs 18 and 19, Ho discloses detecting network outage and notifying the mobile computing device via a WiFi channel (e.g., non-3GPP) about current and expected outages, so that the mobile computing device will have knowledge of the outage); receive from the first network, a third message comprising information indicating one disaster condition of the first network associated with a 3GPP access (see fig. 3, par. 0023: “At 308, the server 104 can detect an outage of at least the first cellular network of the first cellular carrier 120a. When the outage is detected, the technique 300 can proceed to 312. Otherwise, the technique 300 can return to 308. At 312, the server 104 can determine an alternate communication channel by which to communicate with the mobile computing device 108. At 316, the server 104 can transmit a carrier switch instruction to the mobile computing device 108 via the alternate communication channel”); and determine whether to remain on the first network via the non-3GPP access or roaming to another network based on the second message based on the one disaster condition handling preference (see fig. 3, par. 0023: “At 316, the server 104 can transmit a carrier switch instruction to the mobile computing device 108 via the alternate communication channel. Receipt of the carrier switch instruction can cause the mobile computing device 108 to (i) terminate the first cellular connection and (ii) initiate a second cellular connection with the different second cellular carrier 120b associated with the MVNO 124. The termination of the first cellular connection and the initiation of the second cellular connection may overlap or at least partially occur simultaneously (e.g., when the mobile computing device 108 has multiple communication devices 204, such as multiple cellular radios or multiple transceivers). The technique 300 can then end or return to 304 for one or more additional cycles”); and remain on the first network via the non-3GPP access based on the determination (see par. 0021: “In some implementations, the mobile computing device 108 may query the user 112 for permission to switch to the different second cellular carrier 120b. For example, the second cellular carrier 120b may have higher data rates than the first cellular carrier and thus the user 112 may wish to remain disconnected or connected to a computing network, such as the WiFi network.”).
Ho, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Yiu, in the same field of endeavor; a first message comprising information indicating supporting interruption of service (see par. 0015: “In a first embodiment described herein, a UE may signal to the network, on a per-UE basis, the ability to support NCGS interruptions. In a second embodiment described herein, a UE may signal to the network, on a per-component carrier basis of the UE, the ability to support NCGS interruptions.” Examiner’s Analysis: The UE signal to the network that is able to handle Network Controlled Small Gaps (NCSGs), which is an interruption of the network service, so that I can perform some other network activities).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ho and have it include the teachings of Yiu. The motivation would have been in order to mitigate
network service interruptions (see par. 0015).
Consider claim 32, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 26. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 26.
Consider claim 34, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 28. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 28.
Consider claim 35, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 29. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 29.
Consider claim 36, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 30. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 30.
9. Claims 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Yiu, as applied to claims 25 and 31 above, and further in view of CHUN; Sungduck (US 20220070815 A1), hereafter “CHUN.”
Consider claims 27 and 33, Ho, as modified by Yiu discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon.
Ho, as modified by Yiu, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by CHUN, in the same field of endeavor; wherein the first message is a registration request message (see par. 0007: “a method for performing, by a user equipment (UE), a registration to a network in a wireless communication system. More specifically, the method comprises performing a registration to a first public land mobile network (PLMN) via a first base station; receiving a disaster related message indicating that a disaster roaming service is provided).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ho, as modified by Yiu and have it include the teachings of CHUN. The motivation would have been to inform the network about mobile device capability upon registration (see par. 0007).
Conclusion
10. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230156553 A1: discloses managing network failures.
US 20220217519 A1: discloses a terminal that joined a first public land mobile network (PLMN) performs a connection.
US 10057927 B2: discloses emergency services sessions by network elements and by a wireless device.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights