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 .
Election/Restrictions
The reply filed 2/25/2026 which adds new claim 21 which includes the limitation of the dependent claims of non-elected species 2 and 3. Applicant elects species 1 and claim 21. In reply, a newly added claims does not belong to the elected species.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03-821.04 for the following reasons:
Claim 21 is not part of the elected species 1.
Claim 21 which depends from claim 5 of the elected Species 1, recites limitation that are drawn specifically from the Non-elected species 2 and 3. Therefore, a claim that combination of features of plurality of restricted species is not proper as an elected species claim because the applicant selects multiple species and must be withdrawn.
Accordingly, claim 21 is hereby withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03-821.04.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species 1, 2 and 3 are not distinct species based on (1) adding dependent claim 21 into the elected species which includes the limitation that are drawn specifically from the Non-elected species 2 and 3 and (2) the Office's identification of the species by claim is improper because "[c]laims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species. Species always refer to the different embodiments of the invention." MPEP§ 806.04(e) (emphasis in the original). Accordingly, the requirement for an election of species should be withdrawn. In response to (1) this is not found persuasive because claim 21 which includes the features of non-elected species, is an improper attempt to circumvent the restriction requirement and (2) this is not found persuasive because the examiner allowed to map species onto claims for clarity. The MPEP allows identification of species via claim groupings. The real issue is whether the species are properly defined and patentably distinct, not how they’re labeled and applicant has not argued patentability distinction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 a network policy that identifies a set of networks [Fig 6, Ref 600-605 discloses identify a set of networks such as non-3GPP, WLAN and 3GPP, LTE, Par. 0023, 0053-0054] and that identifies at least a first network within the set of networks as a preferred network [Fig 6, Ref 620 discloses identify a preferred network, Par. 0033, 0057], wherein the set of networks comprises a first third-generation partnership project (3GPP) network and a first non-3GPP network [Par. 0054, 0095 discloses a set of networks such as non-3GPP, WLAN and 3GPP, LTE]; determining that the first network is available [Par. 0092 discloses determining if the preferred network is available network in the list of available networks, Par. 0033]; and as a result of determining that the first network is available, setting the first network as the active network for the communication device [Fig 6, Ref 625, Par. 0058]. However, Sirotkin [US 2016/0066251] fails 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 Sirotkin. The motivation would have been to maintain the quality of signal.
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] 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] 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 and Gupta. The motivation would have been to maintain the quality of signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Logan [US 2019/0045517] discloses a method and system comprising determining and assigning a priority preferred network based on the policy.
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