DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/19/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Milley’s disclosure relates to “a cable modem terminal system” (CMTS) in a “hybrid-fiber coaxial (HFC) network,” which does not pertain to the operation of wireless cellular networks at all…Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Thakar’s wireless cellular network in view of Milly, as he would have recognized that the two references are directed to non-analogous subject matter.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that Milley’s disclosure (similar to Thakar’s disclosure) also discloses a cellular network. For example, see col. 15 lines 7-20, wherein disclosed is that the computing device can “communicate with other devices, such as over a wireless network in a distributed computing environment, a satellite link, a cellular link, and comparable mechanisms.” Thus, Milley explicitly discloses that its disclosure can be used in a cellular network, similar to Thakar’s disclosure. As such, and contrary to Applicant’s remarks, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Thakar and Milley as analogous art.
As a side point, Examiner further notes that Thakar is classified in at least H04L12/24 and Milley is classified in at least CPC area H04L12/815, which are closely related classifications, as they both share the CPC area H04L12 search subclass, which is termed “Data switching networks,” which is further support that Thakar and Milley are closely related and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify Thakar using Milley.
Applicant further states that Milley’s disclosure simply indicates that a system can track how much data is used collectively by a particular user, specifically by tracking the amount of data that is transmitted by the user’s cable mode. Milley’s system does not generate any usage data specific to individual applications (e.g., any data analogous to the claimed “first data”), much less use that data to determine several composite network usage characteristics for the applications collectively (e.g., any data analogous to the claimed “second data”).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the primary reference of Thakkar was ultimately relied upon to disclose the step of selecting, based on data, a first modem configuration from among a plurality of candidate modem configurations. However, the data that Thakkar discloses that is used to select the modem configuration is different than the claimed data and thus, Milley was relied upon to disclose said data. Milley, in the cited sections of col. 6 lines 30-45 and col. 9 lines 18-33, discloses the claimed first data (“individual usage”) and the claimed second data (“total data usage”), wherein the total data usage is based on the individual usage, and thus, the second data is based on the first data, just as recited in the claim language. As such, Examiner notes that the combination of Thakar in view of Milley discloses the claimed limitation in question.
Examiner further notes that the claim language is currently drafted in a broad enough manner that allows for the above interpretation.
Finally, Applicant stats that Milley’s operations are performed in order to identify excessive usage to determine whether a modem is infected with malware, and Applicant states that this does not pertain to selecting a particular modem configuration from among a plurality of modem configurations.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s statements amount to individually analyzing each of the references of Thakar and Milley, rather than viewing them in combination with, and in light of, each other. As noted above, the primary reference of Thakar clearly discloses the step of selecting a particular modem configuration from among a plurality of modem configurations, while Milley discloses the first and second data. Since the claims were rejected via 35 U.S.C. 103, Milley’s teachings must be viewed in combination with Thakar’s teachings, which results in the claimed invention.
Thus, based on all of the above, Examiner maintains the rejection. However, upon receiving this Office Action and reviewing the above remarks, Examiner invites Applicant to a telephonic interview to discuss possible claim amendments that would clearly overcome the prior art references of Milley in view of Thakar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 9, 14, 17-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar (USPAN 2014/0293886) in view of Milley (USPN 11,336,575).
Consider claims 1, 19, and 20, Thakkar discloses a UE device comprising one or processors and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors (see figure 2, wherein disclosed is said UE comprising a processor 202 and storage device 208), and a corresponding apparatus comprising one or more baseband processors (see figure 2, wherein disclosed is said apparatus), and a corresponding method (see figure 4, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method) to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining data regarding one or more applications running on the UE device; selecting, based on the data, a first modem configuration from among a plurality of candidate modem configurations; and causing a modem of the UE device to operate according to the first modem configuration (see figure 2 and paragraph 34, wherein disclosed is that access terminals are adapted to switch to different modem configurations to operate with a particular carrier desired by the user. That is, aspects of the present disclosure provide for access terminals with a communications interface having multimode or multi-carrier capabilities, where selection of one modem configuration from a plurality of modem configurations may be automatically accomplished without the need for user interaction. In various examples, the access terminal is adapted to select the particular modem configuration based on a carrier identifier associated with the access terminal.).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thakkar does not disclose obtaining first data regarding one or more applications running on a UE’s device, wherein the first data represents, for each of the one or more applications, an individual network usage characteristic of that application and determining, based on the first data, second data regarding the one or more applications, wherein the second data represents a composite network usage characteristic of the one or more applications.
Milley discloses obtaining first data regarding one or more applications running on a UE’s device, wherein the first data represents, for each of the one or more applications, an individual network usage characteristic of that application and determining, based on the first data, second data regarding the one or more applications, wherein the second data represents a composite network usage characteristic of the one or more applications (see col. 6 lines 30-45 and col. 9 lines 18-33: wherein disclosed is that a proportional data usage may be determined for each subscriber by comparing each individual subscriber's data usage on the first node 208 to a total data usage of the first set of the subscribers 112 on the first node 208. The predetermined threshold may be a data usage percentage of five percent or more per subscriber. If a modem of the first subscriber 320 transmits one terabyte of data in a week period to the CMTS 206 via the first node 208 and the modems 218 transmit a total of ten terabytes collectively over the week period to the CMTS 206 via the first node 208, then the first subscriber 320 may represent ten percent of the upstream usage of the first node 208 over the week period. Because the first subscriber 320 has exceeded the predetermined threshold, the first subscriber 320 may be included within the subset of subscribers 318 having excessive data usage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thakkar and combine it with the noted teachings of Milley. The motivation to combine these references is to provide an efficient method for identifying and resolving excessive data usage in order to alleviate network congestion (see col. 2 lines 7-10 of Milley).
Consider claim 9, Thakkar discloses that each of the candidate modem configurations represents one or more parameters for transmitting and/or receiving data using the modem (see elements 404 and 406 in figure 4, wherein the modem configurations are selected based on carrier identity, which thereby represents parameters for transmitting/receiving data via the modem).
Consider claim 14, Thakkar discloses that causing the modem to operate according to the first modem configuration comprises: causing the modem to switch from a second first modem configuration from among the plurality of candidate modem configurations to the first modem configuration (see figure 4 and paragraph 34, wherein disclosed is that the modem configuration is selected based on carrier identity, therefore the modem configuration can be changed either from a first configuration to a second configuration or vice versa).
Consider claim 17, Thakkar discloses that at least some of the plurality of candidate modem configurations is received by the UE device from a base station (BS) of a wireless network (see paragraph 53: the configurations may be “loaded onto the access terminal 200 from another source,” and since the access terminal 104 is in direct communication with the base station 102, as shown in figure 1, it can be implied that the configuration is loaded onto the access terminal by the base station).
Consider claim 18, Thakkar discloses that at least some of the plurality of candidate modem configurations are transmitted from the UE device to a base station (BS) of a wireless network (see paragraph 53: the configurations can be updated and loaded/transmitted to other nodes, and since the access terminal 104 is in direct communication with the base station 102, as shown in figure 1, it can be implied that the configuration is loaded onto the access terminal by the base station).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412