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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10-11, 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251] in view of Lu [US 2009/0325581] and Gupta [US 2014/0295913].
As claims 1, 11 and 20, Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251] discloses a method performed by a communication device for selecting an available network to be an active network for the communication device [Fig 3-7 disclose selecting a preferred network based on policy which used to identify a set of networks such as non-3GPP, WLAN and 3GPP, LTE, Par. 0023, 0053-0054], the method comprising: obtaining, from a mobile device management system, a network policy that identifies at least a first set of networks [Fig 6, Ref 600-605 discloses identify a set of networks such as non-3GPP, WLAN and 3GPP, LTE which is received from ANDSF server, Par. 0023, 0053-0054] and that identifies at least a first network within the first set of networks as a preferred network [Fig 6, Ref 620 discloses identify a preferred network, Par. 0033, 0057], wherein the first set of networks comprises a first third-generation partnership project (3GPP) network and a first non-3GPP network [Par. 0054, 0095 discloses a first set of networks such as non-3GPP, WLAN and 3GPP, LTE]. However, Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251] fails to disclose identifying at least a first network within the set of networks as a most preferred network and determining that the currently active network for the communication device is not a In the same field of endeavor, Lu [US 2009/0325581] discloses determining that the currently active network for the communication device is not a [Fig 9, Ref 915 is current network is preferred network]; in response to determining that the currently active network for the communication device is not a most preferred network, determining whether the first network, which is identified as a most preferred network, is available [Fig 9, Ref 930 discloses scan for preferred network in the profile which is received from server to determine if it is available]; and as a result of determining that the first network is available, switching the active network for the communication device from the currently active network to the first network, thereby setting the first network as the new currently active network for the communication device [Fig 9, 935 and 945 disclose if preferred network is available, client handover from current network to preferred network by setting preferred network as new current network]. However, Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251] and Lu [US 2009/0325581] fail to disclose identifying at least a first network within the set of networks as a most preferred network. In the same field of endeavor, Gupta [US 2014/0295913] discloses identifying at least a first network within the set of networks as a most preferred network [Par. 0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for identifying at least a first network within the set of networks as a most preferred network as disclosed by Gupta into the teaching of Lu which discloses a method and system based on profile which is received from server, client determining if current network is preferred network, switch to preferred network if the current network is not preferred network into the teaching of Sirotkin. The motivation would have been to maintain the quality of signal and reduce the cost.
As claims 3 and 13, Sirotkin/Gupta discloses determining that the first network is the most preferred network or one of the most preferred networks, wherein the determining comprises: based on the network policy, determining, for each network identified in the set of available networks, a priority assigned to the network [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, first network, WLAN-A assigned priority one and second network 3GPP assigned priority two]; and based on the assigned priorities, determining that the first network has the highest priority [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, WLAN A is highest priority].
As claims 4 and 14, Sirotkin/Gupta discloses the network policy assigns a first priority to the first set of networks [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, WLAN A is highest priority], the network policy identifies a second set of networks, the network policy assigns a second priority to the second set of networks [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, WLAN A is highest priority], the method further comprises determining whether the first priority is higher than the second priority [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, WLAN A is highest priority], and the first network is set as the active network for the communication device as a result of determining that the first network is available [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, WLAN A is highest priority wherein highest priority is set as active network for conveying data] and that the first priority is higher than the second priority [Sirotkin discloses at Par. 0063, Gupta discloses at Par. 0054, WLAN A is highest priority] wherein highest priority is set as active network for conveying data].
As claims 5 and 15, Sirotkin discloses determining that the first network is available, comprises: determining a quality of the first network based on one or more measurements of one or more signals transmitted by an access point belonging to the first network [Par. 0037 discloses determining quality of signal by measuring the downlink signal and compares it with threshold]; and determining whether the determined quality exceeds a quality threshold [Par. 0037 discloses determining quality of signal by measuring the downlink signal and compares it with threshold].
As claim 10, Gupta disclose obtaining the network policy comprises: determining a geographic location of the communication device [Par. 0040, 0043, 0097 discloses determining geographic location of UE]; and selecting the network policy based on the determined geographic location [Par. 0040, 0043, 0097 discloses select policy based on location].
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251], Lu [US 2009/0325581] and Gupta [US 2014/0295913] as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Raleigh [US 2017/0078922].
As claims 2 and 12, Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251], Lu [US 2009/0325581] and Gupta [US 2014/0295913] fail to disclose what Ovadia discloses determining that the network policy identifies an Ethernet network [Par. 0691 discloses policy includes ethernet network]; and as a result of determining that the network policy identifies the Ethernet network, enabling the communication device to use Ethernet networks [Par. 0691 discloses ethernet network selects based on UE].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising selecting ethernet network if policy includes ethernet network as disclosed by Raleigh into the teaching of Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251], Lu [US 2009/0325581] and Gupta [US 2014/0295913]. The motivation would have been to maintain the quality of signal and reduce cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant argues that claim 21 is not mutual exclusive/overlap in scope from species I based on MPEP 806.05(f). In reply, the examiner apply a new restriction based on original restriction requirement wherein MPEP 821.01 allow the examiner to withdraw claim 21 based on the new added claim is limited to select species I and not species II and III. Since, claim 21 requires both the profile activation/deactivation of species II and the switching limitation of species III which used to distinguish the species II and II from species I. Even though, claim 21 which depends on claim 5, does not cure restriction because a claim 21 includes the limitation of the non-elected species II and III. Therefore, claim 21 is a link/combination of three species and was correctly withdraw from consideration because it must be grouped with species II and III instead of species I. The claim 21, species II and III will be rejoins if species I is found allowable under MPEP 821.04.
Conclusion
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 STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights