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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' response to restriction requirement received on 07/10/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-18, 21-22 are currently presenting for examination.
Claims 19-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 to Fig. 10 contain unclear lines and/or texts. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claimed subject matters that the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for are:
“wherein the first threshold is selected to allow continued high-quality communication until a process for wirelessly connecting the mobile communications device to the second other access point is initiated.” (claim 8)
“wherein the first threshold is selected to allow continued high-quality communication until wirelessly connecting the mobile communications device to the second other access point is completed” (claim 9)
Despite multiple readings of the specification, Examiner couldn’t locate anything regarding “wherein the first threshold is selected to allow continued high-quality communication until a process for wirelessly connecting the mobile communications device to the second other access point is initiated.” (claim 8) and/or “wherein the first threshold is selected to allow continued high-quality communication until wirelessly connecting the mobile communications device to the second other access point is completed” (claim 9).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18, 21-22 are objected to because of the following reasons:
For claims 2-18, 21-22, to improve clarity and avoid possible antecedent basis and/or indefinite issues, Examiner recommends Applicants to change “A method according to claim…” to “The method according to claim…”.
For claim 6, the phrase “wherein determining a location of a mobile communication device in relation to the geographical location data; and retrieving from the lookup table a second other access point accessible based on the location of the mobile communication device; are performed when a signal quality of mobile communication via the first protocol is below a first threshold” is unclear, Examiner recommends Applicants to remove the semicolon after “data” and the semicolon after “device” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 15, 17-18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite because of the following reasons:
For claim 4, the limitation “wherein wirelessly connecting is performed via a second other protocol” contradicts with the limitation “wherein wirelessly connecting is performed via the first protocol” of claim 2 which claim 4 depends on (claim 4 depends on claim 3 which depends on claim 2).
To resolve the issue, Examiner recommends Applicants to amend claim 4 so that it depends on claim 1 instead of claim 3.
Claims 15, 17-18, 22 are indefinite because there are insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations:
“the expected signal quality” (claim 15)
“the first threshold” (claim 17)
“the first threshold” (claim 18)
“the network” (claim 22)
“the at least a second access point” (claim 22)
Claim 22 is also indefinite because of the following reasons:
For claim 22, the phrase “when the second other access point other than comprises the first access point” is unclear. Also it’s unclear why there is a period in the middle of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-18, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunkeler, US 20040063426.
For claim 1. Hunkeler teaches: A method comprising:
providing a mobile communication device in communication with a first access point via a first protocol; (Hunkeler, fig 7, paragraph 45-46, WTRU communicates with AP in WLAN; paragraph 21-23, WLAN uses 802.11b protocol)
providing a lookup table comprising data relating to access points and geographical location data; (Hunkeler, fig 4, paragraph 29-32, list (lookup table) of multiple alternative systems in the same geographical area is provided)
determining a location of a mobile communication device in relation to the geographical location data; (Hunkeler, fig 1, paragraph 21-23, WTRU is located in the WLAN’s geographical coverage area; for more information, also see fig 5, paragraph 33-41)
retrieving from the lookup table a second other access point accessible based on the location of the mobile communication device; (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 37-41, selects an alternative system that has a coverage area that overlaps that of the WLAN network where WTRU is located (see paragraph 21-23) and satisfy a criteria)
and wirelessly connecting the mobile communication device to the second other access point; and disconnecting the mobile communication device from the first access point. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system; hand over means to connect to the alternative system and disconnect from the WLAN)
For claim 2. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein wirelessly connecting is performed via the first protocol. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, the technologies that overlap with the WLAN may be the same type of technology being used in the WLAN, that is, an alternative technology may be the same type of system as that which a WTRU hands over from, for example handover is from one 802.11b network to another 802.11b network)
For claim 3. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the first protocol is a WIFI protocol. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, 802.11b is a wifi protocol)
For claim 4. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein wirelessly connecting is performed via a second other protocol. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, WTRU is handed over to alternative system using alternative technologies such as CDMA, UMTS, 802.16)
For claim 5. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the first protocol is a WIFI protocol. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, 802.11b is a wifi protocol)
For claim 6. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein determining a location of a mobile communication device in relation to the geographical location data; (Hunkeler, fig 1, paragraph 21-23, WTRU is located in the WLAN’s geographical coverage area; for more information, also see fig 5, paragraph 33-41)
and retrieving from the lookup table a second other access point accessible based on the location of the mobile communication device; (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 37-41, selects an alternative system that has a coverage area that overlaps that of the WLAN network where WTRU is located (see paragraph 21-23) and satisfy a criteria)
are performed when a signal quality of mobile communication via the first protocol is below a first threshold. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, determining alternative systems is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system)
For claim 7. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the first threshold is sufficient for continued high quality communication. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, determining alternative systems is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system)
For claim 10. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein retrieving is performed in dependence upon an identifier from the mobile communication device (Hunkeler, fig 4, paragraph 29-32, list (lookup table) of multiple alternative systems for which information is retrieved from contains capability information and ssid information both of which are identifiers)
and wherein the second other access point is selected from access points accessible to the mobile communication device. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 37-41, the chosen alternative system is selected from alternative systems that are available to the WTRU)
For claim 11. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the first protocol is a wireless protocol for stationary device communication. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, 802.11b is a wireless protocol for stationary device communication)
For claim 12. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the second other access point is accessed via the first protocol. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, the technologies that overlap with the WLAN may be the same type of technology being used in the WLAN, that is, an alternative technology may be the same type of system as that which a WTRU hands over from, for example handover is from one 802.11b network to another 802.11b network)
For claim 13. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein first data relating to the second other access point is stored within the mobile communication device (Hunkeler, fig 4, paragraph 29-32, list (lookup table) of multiple alternative systems in the same geographical area is provided to the WTRU, implicit the list is stored since it is used to select an alternative system as described in fig 5, paragraph 37-41)
and wherein wirelessly connecting the mobile communication device to the second other access point is performed for fewer than all second other access points for which first data is stored. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 37-41, only one alternative system is connected to which is fewer the multiple alternative systems in the list described in fig 4, paragraph 29-32, implicit the list is stored since it is used to select an alternative system)
For claim 14. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 13 and Hunkeler further teachs: wherein wirelessly connecting the mobile communication device to the second other access point is performed when the communication with the first access point has a signal quality below a first known threshold. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, hand over to alternative system is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system)
For claim 15. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 13 and Hunkler further teaches: wherein wirelessly connecting the mobile communication device to the second other access point is performed when the communication with the first access point has a signal quality having a ratio with the expected signal quality of the second other access point below a first known threshold ratio. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, hand over to alternative system is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system)
For claim 16. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 13 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein wirelessly connecting the mobile communication device is performed via a WIFI standard. (Hunkeler, paragraph 20-22, the technologies that overlap with the WLAN may be the same type of technology being used in the WLAN, that is, an alternative technology may be the same type of system as that which a WTRU hands over from, for example handover is from one 802.11b network to another 802.11b network; 802.11b is a WIFI standard)
For claim 17. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the first threshold represents a quality of communication that is below a highest quality but above a quality level that substantially impedes communication quality. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, hand over to alternative system is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient to support the required communication, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system; sufficient means below highest quality but above a quality level that substantially impedes communication quality)
For claim 18. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and Hunkeler further teaches: wherein the first threshold represents a quality of communication that is statistically likely to be below other available access points for any given geographic location. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, hand over to alternative system is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient to support the required communication, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system; sufficient means likely to be below quality of communications of other access points)
For claim 21. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: comprising: Wherein determining a location is performed when a signal quality received at the mobile communication device is below a first threshold. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 34-36, hand over to alternative system is performed when quality of service of WLAN falls below a predetermined value; paragraph 37-41, if signal strength measurements of the chosen alternative system are sufficient to support the required communication, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system; hand over implicitly includes determining a location since fig 5, paragraph 37-41 discuss select an alternative system that has a coverage area that overlaps that of the WLAN network where WTRU is located (see paragraph 21-23) and satisfy a criteria)
For claim 22. Hunkeler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Hunkeler further teaches: comprising: when the second other access point comprises the first access point, wirelessly communicating with the network via the first access point. (Hunkeler, paragraph 37-41, implicit that when no alternative system is available, WTRU continues to communicate via WLAN)
when the second other access point other than comprises the first access point, wirelessly communicating with the network via another access point of the at least a second access point. (Hunkeler, fig 5, paragraph 37-41, when alternative systems are available and if signal strength measurements of a chosen alternative system are sufficient, WTRU is handed over to the chosen alternative system; hand over means to connect to the alternative system and communicate using the alternative system)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA B HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1:00 PM - 9:35 PM.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/KHOA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights