Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's Patent Application filed on May 31, 2023. Claims 1-20 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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED; Ahmed et al. (US 20170171782 A1), hereafter “MOHAMED,” in view of Potharaju; Shailender et al. (US 20210185541 A1), hereafter “Potharaju.”
Consider claim 1, MOHAMED discloses a system, comprising:
a private radio-based network (see fig. 1, #112); a communication service provider (CSP)-operated radio-based network using licensed spectrum (see fig. 1, #130); and a mobility management service configured to at least (see fig. 1, #134; par. 0005: “an inter-system mobility anchor control point is communicatively coupled to both an HeNB/LTE network and trusted WLAN access network (TWAN)”)): determine to switch a wireless network connection in user equipment (see fig. 1, #162) authorized (see par. 0058: “The STa interface 116 and Diameter application are used for authenticating and authorizing the UE 162 for EPC access via trusted non-3GPP accesses. 3GPP TS 29.273, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, describes the standard TWAN procedures currently supported on the STa interface.”) to connect to both the private radio-based network and the CSP-operated radio-based network from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network based at least in part on at least one Of (see par. 0007: “the MME may determine that the LTE access network is over used and that an existing connection through the LTE access network should be handed over to the WLAN”): a particular application requesting to send data via the wireless network connection, a data type associated with the data, an edge computing resource available through the private radio-based network (see par. 0092: “methods for network-initiated inter-system handover managed by a local mobility anchor point. According to one aspect of the disclosed embodiments, a local mobility anchor point, which may be a server or machine located near the edge of the processing network such as, for example, an MME, is programmed to field requests for handovers and for forming multi-channel connections” Examiner’s comment: claim is written in alternative format), or a predicted network condition that is predicted to affect the CSP-operated radio-based network; and cause the wireless network connection to switch from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network (see fig. 8A, pars. 0129 and 0130: “In the instance where a UE has attached to a PDN, it may be useful to hand over a connection to the PDN to another of the wireless access networks, i.e. WiFi and cellular LTE access networks. For example, where a UE has an established connection to a PDN via HeNB/LTE, the MME 534 may determine to hand over the communication to the PDN to a WLAN connection that the UE has with the PDN”). MOHAMED, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Potharaju, in analogous art; a private radio-based network using Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum (see fig. 1, par. 0027: “Typically, an enterprise utilizes a local private WLAN (e.g. an enterprise Wi-Fi network) to provide wireless communication for UEs on enterprise premises. Looking ahead, an enterprise may additionally utilize a local private 3GPP network operative in a shared spectrum, such as a Citizens Broadcast Radio Services (CBRS) band. Spectrum sharing in a CBRS network is facilitated by a spectrum access system (SAS) which is configured to authorize and manage the use of spectrum of CBRS base stations (or Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices “CBSDs”) across different CBRS networks”).
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 MOHAMED, who discloses at paragraph 129 inter-system handover “MME-Initiated Handover from (H)eNB to Trusted WLAN” and have it include the teachings of Potharaju. The motivation would have been in order to take advantage of the backend service core as traditional LTE deployments offered by the CBRS network (see pars. 0027 and 0028).
Consider claim 5 in view of claim 1 above. MOHAMED further discloses wherein determining to switch the wireless network connection in the user equipment from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network is further based at least in part on at least one of: a location of the user equipment relative to a geofence or a detection of a beacon in the user equipment (see pars. 0129 and 0134: “the UE 562 may also collect and communicate the measurements described above including, for example, RCPI, RSNI, BSS Load, and WAN metrics” Examiner’s comment: claim is written in alternative format)).
9. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED in view of Potharaju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chechani; Pankajkumar V. (US 20160373963 A1), hereafter “Chechani.”
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. MOHAMED further discloses instruct the user equipment to switch from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network (see par. 0007: “the MME may determine that the LTE access network is over used and that an existing connection through the LTE access network should be handed over to the WLAN”).
MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju, does not particularly refer to the following limitation, taught by Chechani, in analogous art; determine, based at least in part on historical network utilization data, that the predicted network condition is predicted to affect the CSP-operated radio-based network at a future time (see par. 0037: “In a further example, network status monitor 306 may predict if a network congestion is to be occurred by watching the trend of the network traffic going through the APs of the wireless network” Examiner’s Analysis: the network status monitor watch a trend of the network traffic (trend is construed as past network traffic since it takes into account watched network traffic)).
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 MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju and have it include the teachings of Chechani. The motivation would have been in order to provide a load balancing mechanism (see par. 0037).
Consider claim 6 in view of claim 1 above. MOHAMED further discloses wherein the mobility management service is further configured to at least: determine to switch the wireless network connection in the user equipment from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based and instruct the user equipment to switch the wireless network connection from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 0007: “the MME may determine that the LTE access network is over used and that an existing connection through the LTE access network should be handed over to the WLAN”).
MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju, does not particularly refer to the following limitation, taught by Chechani, in analogous art; based at least in part on at least one of: the particular application no longer sending data via the wireless network connection, or a predicted network condition that is predicted to affect the private radio-based network (see par. 0037: “In a further example, network status monitor 306 may predict if a network congestion is to be occurred by watching the trend of the network traffic going through the APs of the wireless network” Examiner’s Analysis: the network status monitor watch a trend of the network traffic (trend is construed as past network traffic since it takes into account watched network traffic)). The motivation would have been in order to provide a load balancing mechanism (see par. 0037).
10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED in view of Potharaju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khalid.
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 1 above. MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju, discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, does not particularly refer to the following limitation, taught by Khalid, in analogous art; wherein the CSP-operated radio-based network and the private radio-based network utilize a core network at least partly implemented by a cloud provider network (see fig. 3, par. 0032: “AC 300 may connect APs of a private wireless network through the internal interfaces and connect to a public network, such as the Internet, through the WAN interfaces. It will be apparent to one skilled in the art that AC 300 may be a cloud-based access point controller that may connect to APs through the Internet and manage APs across the Internet from a remote location).
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 MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju and have it include the teachings of Khalid. The motivation would have been in order to provide broader network accessibility (see fig. 3, par. 0032).
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED in view of Potharaju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MAO; Yuanze et al. (US 20230030905 A1), hereafter “MAO.”
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 1 above. MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particularly refer to the following limitation, taught by MAO, in analogous art; wherein the user equipment includes at least one of: a first subscriber identity module (SIM) card authorizing access to the private radio-based network and a second SIM card authorizing access to the CSP-operated radio network; an electronic SIM (eSIM) including a first profile authorizing access to the private radio-based network and a second profile authorizing access to the CSP-operated radio-network; or a SIM card authorizing access to both the private radio-based network and the CSP-operated radio-based network (see fig. 2, par. 0052: “he terminal may access an LTE network, and SIM card 1 and SIM card 2 of the terminal may communicate with the network side device by using the LTE network. As shown in FIG. 2, SIM card 1 may be registered with VoLTE by using an LTE 1 network through communication among the LTE 1 network, an MME 1, a PGW 1, the HSS, and an IMS server. The SIM card 2 may be registered with VoLTE by using an LTE 2 network through communication among the LTE 2 network” Examiner’s Note: this claim is written in alternative format).
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 MOHAMED, as modified by Potharaju and have it include the teachings of MAO. The motivation would have been in order to provide user authentication process to access a given network (see fig. 2, par. 0052).
12. Claims 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED; Ahmed et al. (US 20170171782 A1), hereafter “MOHAMED,” in view of Likar; Bojan et al. US 20180184345 A1), hereafter “Likar.”
Consider claim 7, MOHAMED discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising (see fig. 1, par. 0005: “an inter-system mobility anchor control point is communicatively coupled to both an HeNB/LTE network and trusted WLAN access network (TWAN)”)): determining that a particular application executed in a user equipment (UE) device requests to transfer data via a wireless network connection (see par. 0063: “The radio resources for this default connection may be released during periods of inactivity, however the rest of the connection remains intact and the end-to-end connection can be quickly re-established by reassigning the radio resources in response to UE service requests”); determining to switch the wireless network connection in the UE device (see fig. 1, #162) from a communication service provider (CSP)-operated radio-based network (see fig. 1, #130) to a private radio-based network (see fig. 1, #112; par. 0007: “the MME may determine that the LTE access network is over used and that an existing connection through the LTE access network should be handed over to the WLAN”); causing the wireless network connection to switch from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network (see fig. 8A, pars. 0129 and 0130: “In the instance where a UE has attached to a PDN, it may be useful to hand over a connection to the PDN to another of the wireless access networks, i.e. WiFi and cellular LTE access networks. For example, where a UE has an established connection to a PDN via HeNB/LTE, the MME 534 may determine to hand over the communication to the PDN to a WLAN connection that the UE has with the PDN”); and transferring the data via the wireless network connection using the private radio-based network (see par. 0149: “At step 12, the MME 534 generates and transmits a “Modify Bearer Request” message to the Serving GW 538 for each PDN connection. The message may comprise, for example, a WLAN AN 510 address and TEID for downlink traffic on the S1a-U 592 as provided in Step 5”).
MOHAMED, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Likar, in analogous art; that the determining to switch the wireless network connection in the UE device is based at least in part on the particular application or the data to be transferred by the particular application (see par. 0027: “A hand-off to a different access point can be initiated responsive to a stronger RSSI (receive signal strength indicator) relative to a current connection, lag in response time, location coordinates, responsive to user instructions, application requests, performance issues, or the like”).
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 MOHAMED, who discloses at paragraph 129 inter-system handover “MME-Initiated Handover from (H)eNB to Trusted WLAN” and have it include the teachings of Likar. The motivation would have been in order to facilitate a handover as per application request (see par. 0027).
Consider claim 8 in view of claim 7 above, MOHAMED further discloses determining to switch the wireless network connection in the UE device from
the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 007); and causing the wireless network connection to switch from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 0156: “Of course, the MME 534 may determine to handover communication from the WLAN to a HeNB/LTE connection”).
MOHAMED, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Likar, in analogous art; that the determining to switch the wireless network connection in the UE device is based at least in part on a completion of the particular application transferring data (see par. 0027: “A hand-off to a different access point can be initiated responsive to a stronger RSSI (receive signal strength indicator) relative to a current connection, lag in response time, location coordinates, responsive to user instructions, application requests, performance issues, or the like”). The motivation would have been in order to facilitate a handover as per application request (see par. 0027).
Consider claim 11 in view of claim 7 above, MOHAMED further discloses wherein the CSP-operated radio-based network has a greater signal-to-noise ratio at the UE device than the private radio-based network (see pars. 0134 and 0135).
Consider claim 12 in view of claim 7 above, MOHAMED further discloses wherein the private radio-based network and the CSP-operated radio-based network utilize a cellular network standard (see par. 0033: “Under current practices, mobile network operators (MNOs) typically employ WiFi for offloading “best effort” Internet traffic from their cellular and core networks. However, increased interest in operator deployment of “small cells” and “carrier WiFi” is expected to encourage MNOs to seek better inter-operability across local cellular and WiFi networks. Generally, “small cells” refer to localized geographic areas providing wireless network access via operator-licensed spectrum using 3GPP-defined cellular Radio Access Technologies (RATs)”)
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED in view of Likar as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of England; Jonathan (US 20220286926 A1), hereafter “England.”
Consider claim 9 in view of claim 7 above. MOHAMED, as modified by Likar discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particularly refer to the following limitation, taught by England, in analogous art; wherein determining to switch the wireless network connection in the UE device from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network is further based at least in part on the UE device being at a location within a geofence (see par. 0068: “for example, for aggregation and analysis. In some configurations, the UE 102 may determine a location of the UE 102 relative to a location of a geofenced location. For example, the UE 102 may receive a geofenced location from a network device).
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 MOHAMED, as modified by Likar and have it include the teachings of England. The motivation would have been in order to handover communication which is location based (see par. 0068).
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOHAMED in view of Likar as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chechani.
Consider claim 10 in view of claim 7 above. MOHAMED further discloses wherein determining to switch the wireless network connection in the UE device from the CSP-operated radio-based network to the private radio-based network (see par. 0007).
MOHAMED, as modified by Likar, does not particularly refer to the following limitations as taught by Chechani, in analogous art; is further based at least in part on a predicted network utilization of at least one of: the private radio-based network or the CSP-operated radio-based network ((see par. 0037: “In a further example, network status monitor 306 may predict if a network congestion is to be occurred by watching the trend of the network traffic going through the APs of the wireless network). The motivation would have been in order to provide a load balancing mechanism (see par. 0037).
15. Claims 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid; Saran (US 20210176686 A1), hereafter “Khalid,” in view of Chechani.
Consider claim 13, Khalid discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising (see par. 0211: “embodiments are directed to a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium, e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising code for causing a computer, or multiple computers, to implement various functions, steps, acts and/or operations, e.g. one or more steps described above”): identifying a user equipment (UE) device connected to the private radio-based
Network (see par. 0012: “receive first network performance information (e.g., key performance indicators and/or non-cellular network statistics) from a non-cellular network (e.g., WiFi network) providing performance information relating to a first user equipment (UE) device; operating the service management system to initiate a cellular (e.g., a 3GPP) communications session for the first user equipment device; and operating the service management system to initiate release of non-cellular network resources following establishment of a cellular communications session for said first UE device”); determining to switch a wireless network connection in the UE device from a private radio-based network to a communication service provider (CSP)-operated radio-based network to reduce the network utilization on the private radio-based network (see par. 0009: “Handoffs can be, and sometimes are, initiated, e.g., in response to the service management system detecting congestion affecting a UE obtaining service from the non-cellular network, to switch a UE from using non-cellular wireless communications services via an access point in the non-cellular network to using cellular wireless communications services”); and causing the wireless network connection in the UE device to switch from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 0011: “In this way the NB-IoT connection allows not only for intelligent decisions as to when handoffs should be implemented for a UE from one network to another but can also facilitate a smooth and reliable handoff when a decision is made to switch between which network is to provide service to a particular UE”).
Khalid, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Chechani, in analogous art; determining that a network utilization of a private radio-based network is predicted to meet a utilization threshold (see par. 0037: “In a further example, network status monitor 306 may predict if a network congestion is to be occurred by watching the trend of the network traffic going through the APs of the wireless network. If the network traffic is increasing fast and nearly reach the maximum throughput of the APs, network status monitor 306 may predict that a network congestion will occur and a new AP should be deployed to meet the demands”).
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 Khalid and have it include the teachings of Chechani. The motivation would have been in order to provide a load balancing mechanism (see par. 0037).
Consider claim 16 in view of claim 13 above. Khalid further discloses wherein causing the wireless network connection in the UE device to switch from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network further comprises causing the private radio-based network to disconnect the wireless network connection with the UE device (see pars. 0069 and 0070: “the cellular base station 404, via its cellular interface 434 and the UE 451 communicate radio data link signals 691, e.g., corresponding to the newly created session”).
Consider claim 17 in view of claim 13 above. Chechani further discloses wherein determining that the network utilization of the private radio-based network is predicted to meet the utilization threshold is based at least in part on historical network utilization data (see par. 0037: “In a further example, network status monitor 306 may predict if a network congestion is to be occurred by watching the trend of the network traffic going through the APs of the wireless network” Examiner’s Analysis: the network status monitor watch a trend of the network traffic (trend is construed as past network traffic since it takes into account watched network traffic)). The motivation would have been in order to provide a load balancing mechanism (see par. 0037).
Consider claim 18 in view of claim 13 above. Khalid further discloses wherein identifying the UE device is based at least in part on a classification assigned to the UE device (see par. 0012: “receive first network performance information (e.g., key performance indicators and/or non-cellular network statistics) from a non-cellular network (e.g., WiFi network) providing performance information relating to a first user equipment (UE) device; operating the service management system to initiate a cellular (e.g., a 3GPP) communications session for the first user equipment device; and operating the service management system to initiate release of non-cellular network resources following establishment of a cellular communications session for said first UE device”).
Consider claim 19 in view of claim 13 above. Khalid further discloses wherein identifying the UE device is based at least in part on at least one of: a current location of the UE device, or a predicted location of the UE device (see par. 0012: “receive first network performance information (e.g., key performance indicators and/or non-cellular network statistics) from a non-cellular network (e.g., WiFi network) providing performance information relating to a first user equipment (UE) device; operating the service management system to initiate a cellular (e.g., a 3GPP) communications session for the first user equipment device; and operating the service management system to initiate release of non-cellular network resources following establishment of a cellular communications session for said first UE device”).
Consider claim 20 in view of claim 13 above. Khalid further discloses wherein identifying the UE device is based at least in part on determining that the UE device receives a signal from the CSP-operated radio-based network that meets a signal-to-noise threshold (see par. 0012: “receive first network performance information (e.g., key performance indicators and/or non-cellular network statistics) from a non-cellular network (e.g., WiFi network) providing performance information relating to a first user equipment (UE) device; operating the service management system to initiate a cellular (e.g., a 3GPP) communications session for the first user equipment device; and operating the service management system to initiate release of non-cellular network resources following establishment of a cellular communications session for said first UE device”).
16. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid in view of Chechani as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Chueh; Hsin-Ti et al. (US 20130005333 A1), hereafter “Chueh.”
Consider claim 14 in view of claim 13 above. Khalid further discloses wherein causing the wireless network connection in the UE device to switch from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 0009: “Handoffs can be, and sometimes are, initiated, e.g., in response to the service management system detecting congestion affecting a UE obtaining service from the non-cellular network, to switch a UE from using non-cellular wireless communications services via an access point in the non-cellular network to using cellular wireless communications services”).
Khalid, as modified by Chechani, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Chueh, in analogous art; causing the wireless network connection in the UE device to switch from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network at a predetermined time (see par. 0073: “If the WLAN stays connected for the first predetermined time or the signal strength level of the WLAN is above the predetermined value, the mobile device 100 hands off to the 2G network (e.g. GSM network)”).
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 Khalid, as modified by Chechani and have it include the teachings of Chueh. The motivation would have been in order to provide a load balancing mechanism (see par. 0073). The motivation would have been in order to facilitate time sensitive (see par. 0073).
17. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalid in view of Chechani as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Likar.
Consider claim 15 in view of claim 13 above. Khalid further discloses wherein causing the wireless network connection in the UE device to switch from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 0009: “Handoffs can be, and sometimes are, initiated, e.g., in response to the service management system detecting congestion affecting a UE obtaining service from the non-cellular network, to switch a UE from using non-cellular wireless communications services via an access point in the non-cellular network to using cellular wireless communications services”).
Khalid, as modified by Chechani, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Likar, in analogous art; instructing an application executed in the UE device to switch the wireless network connection from the private radio-based network to the CSP-operated radio-based network (see par. 0027: “A hand-off to a different access point can be initiated responsive to a stronger RSSI (receive signal strength indicator) relative to a current connection, lag in response time, location coordinates, responsive to user instructions, application requests, performance issues, or the like”).
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 Khalid, as modified by Chechani and have it include the teachings of Likar. The motivation would have been in order to facilitate a handover as per application request (see par. 0027).
Conclusion
18. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140328177 A1: discloses connection may be established with at least one of an available WWAN access network or the WLAN access network.
US 20200059983 A1: discloses monitor and manage a wireless local area network (WLAN) access point (AP) in a WLAN network by a WLAN gateway of a cellular network is described.
19. 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
January 29, 2026