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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 02/17/2026 for response of the office action mailed on 11/19/2025. Independent Claims 1 and 7 and dependent Claims 2-6 and 8-19 are amended. Claims 20 is canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent Claims 1 and 7 (filed 02/17/2026) and by extension dependent claims 2-6 and 8-13, have been fully 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.
Applicant's arguments independent Claim 14 (filed 02/17/2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (page 11): Abdelmalek and Ekici, alone or on combination, fail to teach all the elements of Claim 14 and its dependent claims, particularly “determination that the wireless device is near an edge of a coverage area of the local router” and “a determination that an amount of available resources of the access node exceeds a threshold.” [emphasis added]. …
Reply: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Claim 14, Examiner relied upon Abdelmalek to teach "switching” communication between resources WLAN and cellular networks over the threshold/boundary, interpreted to correspond to an “edge of coverage region” (¶0004) and to teach the network device including a router / “local router” (¶0006, as cited in previous office action and herein).
Moreover, Ekici at ¶0129, was relied upon to teach a threshold being set by a network operator. Examiner interpreted the resource requirements being based on network operator preferences and the cited paragraph continues to state network operator preference for a first RAT over a second RAT may be incorporated as a predetermined RAT preference threshold and exceeding a RAT preference threshold to trigger reselection to the second RAT as the preferred RAT. For further illustration, Ekici teaches a smart phone/device at the edge of a cell triggering cell reselection based on coverage conditions; geographic location and signal strength (FIG. 8-10; ¶0061) and the resource requirements may be based (at least in part) on coverage information, [where] stronger coverage for a second RAT (e.g., as compared to a first RAT) may allow for communication using the second RAT to proceed with a lower transmit power as compared to the first RAT with weaker coverage (¶0128).
Therefore, Examiner maintains the obviousness rejection of Claim 14 under 35 USC § 103, and by extension, dependent Claims 15-20 and newly added Claim 21.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 20210120471 A1), hereinafter CHOI, in view of CHIN et al. (US 20160105835 A1), hereinafter CHIN.
Regarding Claim 1, CHOI teaches a method of managing network resources (CHOI, ¶0001; ¶0055, method for performing a handover in a wireless communication system; FIG. 4-9 ¶0120-0121 disclosure mainly described a handover from LTE to Wi-Fi or a handover from Wi-Fi to LTE), comprising:
setting a communication threshold (CHOI, ¶0060 setting a parameter for handover/triggering condition /entering condition. . . e.g., through a threshold value (¶0065-0066); . . . ¶0077 terminal may configure an entering condition . . .through a first threshold value . . .; ¶0061 the trigger parameter may include at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), a received signal strength indicator (RSRI), a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR), a carrier to interference and noise ratio (CINR), a signal to noise ratio (SNR));
monitoring a communication parameter (CHOI, ¶0061 a trigger parameter, metric, RSRP, RSRQ, RSRI, SINR, CINR, SNR, etc.,; see also HO parameter FIG. 8;) for a wireless device connected to a network (CHOI FIG. 4, FIG. 8,for a terminal/UE/STA,110), wherein the wireless device is configured for communicating with the network using a first communication technology and for communicating with the network using a second communication technology (CHOI FIG. 4, ¶0074, at 403 terminal may measure a first quality of a first signal of the first RAT/ ”first communication technology” and a second quality of a second signal of the second RAT/ “second communication technology” based on configuration information; FIG. 1 e.g. terminal/UE 110);
receiving a resource status from the network (CHOI, ¶0077-0078 equation 1, the serving cell/first RAT takes the measurement (first event) / “resource status”);
in response to a determination that the communication parameter is below the communication threshold and based on the resource status, causing the wireless device to switch from communicating with the network using the first communication technology to communicating with the network using the second communication technology (CHOI, ¶0077-0078 [w]hen the measurement value of the serving cell/First RAT / “first communication technology” is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting the hysteresis value from the first threshold value (upper limit threshold value), the terminal may start to determine whether to perform a handover to a second node; see also FIG. 4 at 405, the terminal may perform a handover according to a configuration corresponding to each event/”resource status” through parameters received for the handover between LTE and Wi-Fi, the configuration information); . . .
CHOI does not explicitly teach preventing a subsequent switch from communicating with the network using the second communication technology to communicating with the network using the first communication technology for a predetermined amount of time.
However, in the analogous art, CHIN explicitly discloses preventing a subsequent switch from communicating with the network using the second communication technology to communicating with the network using the first communication technology for a predetermined amount of time (CHIN, FIG. 6; ¶0057, a user equipment (UE) avoids entering a limited service state during a period of time when the UE enters an undesirable coverage area (“a predetermined amount of time”) . . [and] communicates on a first radio access technology (RAT), as shown in block 602 [and] UE remains on the first RAT [during a service outage, based on a location of the UE] by preventing switching from the first RAT to a second RAT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system with CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication. The motivation would be to advance and enhance the user experience. [CHIN, ¶0005].
Regarding Claim 4, CHOI and CHIN teach Claim 1.
CHOI further teaches the second communication technology is a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) radio access technology (RAT) and the first communication technology includes a local connection (CHOI, ¶0056, the first RAT may be a communication technology for providing a wireless LAN, interpreted as the first communication technology that includes a “local connection” and the second RAT may be a communication technology for providing a cellular network (e.g., 3GPP 5G), “second communication technology”).
Regarding Claim 7, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 1, in apparatus form (a system for managing network resources (CHOI, ¶0034 a wireless communication environment 100, e.g. a 5G system).
Regarding Claim 10, CHOI and CHIN teach claim 7.
CHOI further teaches the at least one electronic processor is further configured to perform operations comprising determining whether an expected communication quality between the network and the wireless device is higher using the first communication technology or using the second communication technology (CHOI, Abstract; ¶0010-0013,¶0015, FIG. 4, ¶0074-0075, at 403, 405; determine whether to perform a handover to a second network node for the second RAT, based on the measured first quality or the measured second quality, and the configuration information may include parameters for the handover between the first RAT and the second RAT; disclosed throughout, FIG. 5, e.g. ¶0054, the terminal may determine the network node for continuously receiving a service by comparing a channel quality provided through an eNB of LTE/ “second communication technology” and a channel quality provided through an AP of Wi-Fi “first communication technology”; see also ¶0060; ¶0066).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 4 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 4.
Claims 2, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI and CHIN, further in view of Abdelmalek et al. (US 20240381472 A1), hereinafter Abdelmalek.
Regarding Claim 2, CHOI and CHIN teach claim 1.
CHOI further teaches the communication parameter corresponds to a signal strength for communications using the first communication technology . . . (CHOI, ¶0007, [t]he terminal determines whether to use wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi)/ “first communication technology” or cellular communication by using the strength of a signal from an AP; ¶0057, the terminal may measure the strength of a signal transmitted from an AP of the Wi-Fi (an RF signal strength), in order to determine whether to establish Wi-Fi connection. ¶0061 the trigger parameter/”communication parameter” may include, i.e. “correspond to” at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), a received signal strength indicator (RSRI), a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR), a carrier to interference and noise ratio (CINR), a signal to noise ratio (SNR)).
CHOI and CHIN do not explicitly teach . . . using the first communication technology between the wireless device and a local router.
However, in the analogous art Abdelmalek explicitly discloses using the first communication technology between the wireless device and a local router (Abdelmalek, ¶0005, provisioning, by the at least one network device according to the URSP, a set of resources of the WLAN for a wireless communication device on the WLAN; ¶0006, [t]he at least one network device can include at least one of a router, a modem or an access point, interpreted to correspond to a “local router”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system and CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication with Abdelmalek’s systems and methods for management of network traffic across different networks. The motivation would be to allow the UE device to utilize on the WLAN side of the FWA system the same or similar operational level/resources for its network communication as enjoyed by the UE device on the cellular network [Abdelmalek, ¶0028].
Regarding Claim 8, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 2 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, CHOI and CHIN teach claim 11.
CHOI and CHIN do not explicitly teach the second communication technology is an Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) RAT and the first communication technology is a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) RAT.
However, in the analogous art, Abdelmalek explicitly discloses the second communication technology is an Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) RAT (Abdelmalek, FIG. 4; a cellular network 406 / ”second communication technology”; ¶0077, the network slice 434 can be an eMBB slice of a 5G cellular network; see also FIG. 6) and the first communication technology is a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) RAT (¶0003, UE accesses a wireless cellular network (e.g., a 4G or a 5G network) through fixed wireless access (FWA)/”first communication technology”; see also ¶0004; ¶0027, a UE communicating over a cellular network can access the cellular network via a FWA system that can include a Wi-Fi modem and/or a router; . . . UE connected on the WLAN side of the FWA system; ¶0075 [t]he at least one network device of the IND 410 can include at least one, or any combination of a router 505, a modem 510 or an access point 105. The IND 410 can include a FWA device or a system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system and CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication with Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network. The motivation would be to allow the UE device to utilize on the WLAN side of the FWA system the same or similar operational level/resources for its network communication as enjoyed by the UE device on the cellular network [Abdelmalek, ¶0028].
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI and CHIN and further in view of Soldati et al. (US 20240196252 A1), hereinafter Soldati.
Regarding Claim 3, CHOI and CHIN teach claim 1.
CHOI and CHIN do not explicitly teach the resource status corresponds to an amount of available resources for communications using the second communication technology between the wireless device and an access node.
However, in the analogous art, Soldati explicitly discloses the resource status corresponds to an amount of available resources for communications using the second communication technology between the wireless device and an access node (Soldati, ¶0093 at 720, a record of resource status information describing usage, during a historical time period, of RAN resources controlled by the second node. . . FIG. 7e illustrates the metrics that may be included in the record of resource status information (701) received at step 720. . . FIG. 7e, ¶0094 . . . these metrics include: ¶0095 number of active wireless devices served by the second node, interpreted to correspond to “amount of available resources”; see also ¶0007 Resource Status Update, the XnAP and X2AP procedures are defined in 3GPP/ ie. the “second communication technology” so that a RAN node can provide another RAN node with Resource Status Update related to different procedures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system and CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication with Soldati’s methods for managing radio resources in a Radio Access Network (RAN) of a communication network. The motivation would be improved overall resource management and improved mobility decision making such as for handover or traffic steering [Soldati, ¶0152; ¶0159].
Regarding Claim 9, CHOI and CHIN teach claim 7.
CHOI and CHIN do not explicitly teach monitoring the resource availability includes receiving, from the access node, information regarding a radio resource usage of the access node.
However, in the analogous art, Soldati explicitly discloses monitoring the resource availability includes receiving, from the access node, information regarding a radio resource usage of the access node (Soldati, Soldati, ¶0093 at 720, a record of resource status information describing usage, during a historical time period, of RAN resources controlled by the second node. . . FIG. 7e illustrates the metrics that may be included in the record of resource status information (701) received at step 720. . . FIG. 7e, ¶0094 . . . these metrics include: ¶0095 number of active wireless devices served by the second node, interpreted to correspond to “amount of available resources”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system and CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication with Soldati’s methods for managing radio resources in a Radio Access Network (RAN) of a communication network. The motivation would be improved overall resource management and improved mobility decision making such as for handover or traffic steering [Soldati, ¶0152; ¶0159].
Claims 5 – 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI, in view of CHIN and further in view of Lunardi et al. (US 20230403606 A1), hereinafter Lunardi.
Regarding Claim 5, CHOI and CHIN teach claim 1.
CHOI and CHIN do not explicitly teach receiving the resource status from the network includes querying a machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm.
However, in the analogous art, Lunardi explicitly discloses receiving the resource status from the network includes querying a machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm (Lunardi, ¶0031 the method further comprises using a Machine Learning, ML, process to predict, based on the obtained record, resource status information describing usage of RAN resources controlled by the first node within a coverage area of the first node and during a future time period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system and CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication with Lunardi’s computer implemented method for managing resources in a RAN of a communication network. The motivation would be improvement of traffic steering improvement of traffic steering by means of load balancing decisions that reflect the expected load in the system in a better way, more efficient resource usage across multiple nodes in a RAN, reduced interference, improved user experience, etc., more efficient resource usage across multiple nodes in a RAN, reduced interference, improved user experience, etc. [Lunardi, ¶0043].
Regarding Claim 6, CHOI, CHIN and Lunardi teach claim 5.
CHOI and CHIN do not explicitly teach the ML or AI algorithm is configured to determine the resource status based on a historical resource usage of an access node for communications using the second communication technology.
However, in the analogous art, Lunardi explicitly discloses the ML or AI algorithm is configured to determine the resource status based on a historical resource usage of an access node for communications using the second communication technology (Lunardi, ¶0033, [t]he first node is configured to obtain a record of resource status information describing usage, during a historical time period / “a historical resource usage” and within a coverage area of the first node, of RAN resources controlled by the first node . . [and] further configured to use a Machine Learning, ML, process to predict, based on the obtained record, resource status information describing usage of RAN resources controlled by the first node within a coverage area of the first node and during a future time period.; see also ¶0197, the wireless network may comprise and/or interface with any type of communication, telecommunication, data, cellular / “the second communication technology”, . . . ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine CHOI’s techniques relating to handover in a wireless communication system and CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication with Lunardi’s computer implemented method for managing resources in a RAN of a communication network. The motivation would be improvement of traffic steering improvement of traffic steering by means of load balancing decisions that reflect the expected load in the system in a better way, more efficient resource usage across multiple nodes in a RAN, reduced interference, improved user experience, etc., more efficient resource usage across multiple nodes in a RAN, reduced interference, improved user experience, etc. [Lunardi, ¶0043].
Regarding Claim 13, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 5 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 5.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmalek, in view of Ekici et al. (US 20180092007 A1), hereinafter Ekici.
Regarding Claim 14, Abdelmalek teaches a wireless device (Abdelmalek FIG. 4; FIG. 5, UE 110), comprising:
first communication circuitry configured to communicate with an access node (FIG. 4 base station/access point 105) indirectly via a local router using a first communication technology (FIG. 4; FIG. 5, (Abdelmalek FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6 intermediary network device (IND), 410/e.g. WiFi Router, 505), “indirect communication”; ¶0063, the intermediary network device (IND) 410 (which can include a router 505 e.g. “local router”) provides a communication interface between a WLAN 404/”first communication technology” and a cellular network 406, examiner interprets to correspond to “indirect communication”);
second communication circuitry configured to communicate with the access node directly using a second communication technology (Abdelmalek FIG. 6, ¶0049, UE402 can communicate via WLAN 404 /”first communication technology” and via cellular network 406 /”second communication technology”); and at least one electronic processor. . .(Abdelmalek, FIG. 4, ¶0048, UE applications 402; see also ¶0047,[i]implementations of the present disclosure can be realized in a variety of apparatus including electronic devices implemented using any combination of circuitry and software).
Abdelmalek does not explicitly teach [and at least one processor configured to,] in response to a determination that the wireless device is near an edge of a coverage area of the local router and a determination that an amount of available resources of the access node exceeds a threshold, cause the wireless device to switch from communicating with the access node indirectly using the first communication circuitry to communicating with the access node directly using the second communication technology.
However, in the analogous art, Ekici explicitly discloses [and at least one processor configured to,] in response to a determination that the wireless device is near an edge of a coverage area of the local router and a determination that an amount of available resources of the access node exceeds a threshold, cause the wireless device to switch from communicating with the access node indirectly using the first communication circuitry to communicating with the access node directly using the second communication technology (Ekici, ¶0129, the resource requirements may be based (at least in part) on network operator preferences. . . network operator preference for a first RAT over a second RAT may be incorporated as a predetermined RAT preference threshold, e.g., in order to trigger reselection to the second RAT as the preferred RAT, a combination of factors (e.g., based on the requested service, coverage information, and system information as further discussed below) may be required to indicate preference for the second RAT to a degree that exceeds the RAT preference threshold [and] the factors may be considered either separately and/or in combination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network with Ekici’s apparatus, system and method for dynamic RAT selection. The motivation would be to improve cellular communication performance (such as to avoid system interruptions and provide better battery performance) [Ekici, ¶0104].
Regarding Claim 15, Abdelmalek and Ekici teach claim 14.
Abdelmalek further teaches first communication circuitry is configured to communicate with the local router using a Wi-Fi radio access technology (RAT) (Abdelmalek, FIG. 5, ¶0063, the intermediary network device (IND) 410 (which can include a router 505 / modem 510 or access point 105) provides a communication interface between a WLAN 404 and a cellular network 406 and . . .can include a FWA system), and
wherein the local router is configured to communicate with the access node using a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) RAT (Abdelmalek, FIG. 5, ¶0063; ¶0069-¶0070, FWA system components can include a Wi-Fi router 505/”the local router” for providing Wi-Fi access to a variety of UE 110 and HWD 150 devices via a WLAN 404; see also ¶0027 a UE communicating over a cellular network can access the cellular network via a FWA system that can include a Wi-Fi modem and/or a router).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Ekici further in view of NEVIDOMSKY (US 20220322187 A1), hereinafter NEVIDOMSKY.
Regarding Claim 16, Abdelmalek and Ekici teach claim 14.
Abdelmalek and Ekici do not explicitly teach the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the wireless device is near the edge of the coverage area of the local router based on at least one radio frequency (RF) condition for communications between the wireless device and the local router.
However, in the analogous art, NEVIDOMSKY explicitly discloses the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the wireless device is near the edge of the coverage area of the local router based on at least one radio frequency (RF) condition for communications between the wireless device and the local router (NEVIDOMSKY, ¶0026, determine whether UE/”wireless device” is near edge of coverage area based on an SSI value, interpreted as an RF condition for communications between the UE/wireless device and AP/local router).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network and Ekici’s apparatus, system and method for dynamic RAT selection with NEVIDOMSKY’s method for operating network switching by a mobile device. The motivation would be to prevent a sudden automatic network switching from Wi-Fi to a cellular network within the Wi-Fi network distribution area. [NEVIDOMSKY, ¶0009].
Regarding Claim 17, Abdelmalek and Ekici teach claim 14.
Abdelmalek and Ekici do not explicitly teach the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the wireless device is near the edge of the coverage area of the local router at predetermined time intervals.
However, in the analogous art, NEVIDOMSKY explicitly discloses the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the wireless device is near the edge of the coverage area of the local router at predetermined time intervals (NEVIDOMSKY, ¶0026, data collection and auto-tagging are initialized when a Wi-Fi device is connected. RSSI is measured at regular intervals. . . [t]he proposed method is implemented in the user's mobile device, examiner notes it is well established a low RSSI indicates the device is at the coverage edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network and Ekici’s apparatus, system and method for dynamic RAT selection with NEVIDOMSKY’s method for operating network switching by a mobile device. The motivation would be to prevent a sudden automatic network switching from Wi-Fi to a cellular network within the Wi-Fi network distribution area. [NEVIDOMSKY, ¶0009].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Ekici further in view of Cui et al. (US 20160165484 A1), hereinafter Cui.
Regarding Claim 18, Abdelmalek and Ekici teach claim 14.
Abdelmalek and Ekici do not explicitly teach the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the amount of available resources of the access node exceeds a threshold by querying the access node.
However, in the analogous art, Cui explicitly discloses the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the amount of available resources of the access node exceeds a threshold by querying the access node (Cui, ¶0034, the load indicator 124 can identify that a control/signaling load (“available resources”) has exceeded a threshold value; see also ¶0025 overhead communications or messages (“queries”) exchanged between the mobile device/wireless device and the wireless access node 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network and Ekici’s apparatus, system and method for dynamic RAT selection with Cui’s method to manage wireless data traffic. The motivation would be to optimize network resources for data bearer and signaling load, and improve performance of applications [Cui, ¶0092].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Ekici further in view of Lunardi (previously presented, see Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 19, Abdelmalek and Ekici teach claim 14.
Abdelmalek and Ekici do not explicitly teach receiving the resource status from the network includes querying a machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm.
However, in the analogous art, Lunardi explicitly discloses the at least one electronic processor is configured to determine whether the amount of available resources of the access node exceeds a threshold by invoking an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) algorithm (Lunardi, ¶0317, one or both of requesting to send predicted resource status information or requesting provision of predicted resource status information may be triggered (i.e. “invoking algorithm”) by related action within the requesting node, such as for example a start or change in traffic to/from a served UE, and/or an event in relation to a RAN operation performed by in relation to the node, and/or an event in relation to a previously provided prediction, such as prediction uncertainty rising above a threshold or a predicted value changing by more than a threshold amount; see also Claim 5 mapping above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network and Ekici’s apparatus, system and method for dynamic RAT selection with Lunardi’s computer implemented method for managing resources in a RAN of a communication network. The motivation would be improvement of traffic steering improvement of traffic steering by means of load balancing decisions that reflect the expected load in the system in a better way, more efficient resource usage across multiple nodes in a RAN, reduced interference, improved user experience, etc., more efficient resource usage across multiple nodes in a RAN, reduced interference, improved user experience, etc. [Lunardi, ¶0043].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmalek and Ekici further in view of CHIN et al. (US 20160105835 A1), hereinafter CHIN.
Regarding Claim 21, Abdelmalek and Ekici teach claim 14.
Abdelmalek and Ekici do not explicitly teach the at least one electronic processor is configured to wait for a predetermined amount of time after switching to communicating with the network via the access node using the second communication technology to perform a subsequent communication technology switch.
However, in the analogous art, CHIN explicitly discloses the at least one electronic processor is configured to wait for a predetermined amount of time after switching to communicating with the network via the access node using the second communication technology to perform a subsequent communication technology switch (CHIN, FIG. 6; ¶0057, a user equipment (UE) avoids entering a limited service state during a period of time when the UE enters an undesirable coverage area (“a predetermined amount of time”) [and ] the UE communicates on a first radio access technology (RAT), as shown in block 602 [and] UE remains on the first RAT during a service outage,based on a location of the UE by preventing switching from the first RAT to a second RAT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Abdelmalek’s management of network traffic across different networks, including via use of an intermediary between a wireless and cellular network and Ekici’s apparatus, system and method for dynamic RAT selection with CHIN’s multi-mode method of wireless communication. The motivation would be to advance and enhance the user experience. [CHIN, ¶0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHU et al. (US 20230087071 A1): Abstract, ¶0005-0006, techniques and apparatuses for beam management during a tune-away; FIG. 1, ¶0038 the communication manager 140 may configure one or more radio frequency (RF) chains of the UE to communicate using a second RAT for a length of time [and] identify that the length of time satisfies a threshold; see also FIG. 7, ¶0087.
JAMADAGNI et al. (US 20140233386 A1): Abstract; ¶0011; FIG. 2, ¶0046, [a] process of managing network offloading of a UE by an eNB; the UE 202 is attached to a 3GPP network; [and];¶0062, the eNB may also specify the validity period of the modified/updated/enhanced thresholds [and] the validity time implies the eNB decides when the UE should consider moving from the second access network to first access network;¶0068, at Step 15, the UE decides based on the updated/modified/enhanced threshold, whether to be in the existing network or to move to other network; see also Claim 4.
Tabet et al. (US 20130272212 A1): Abstract; FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; ¶0009 the wireless mobile device may tune-away from the first wireless network to monitor activity such as paging activity on a second wireless network.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights