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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024, 08/07/2025 and 02/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/30/2024 are approved by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because uses the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises” (see line 2) and “wherein,” (see lines 4.and 9.) A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the UE" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this location is the current location of line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the UE" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this location is the current location of line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the UE" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the location of the UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the indication of the current location of the UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the indication of the current location of the UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-7, they are rejected because thy depend directly from claim 1 and claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the home wireless communication network " in lines 5-6.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the location of the first UE" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the location of the first UE" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the location of the first UE" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the successful rehoming of the first UE" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the location of the first UE" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the successful rehoming of the first UE" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the indication of the current location of the UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the indication of the current location of the UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the indication of the current location of the UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the location of the second UE" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the location of the second UE" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the location of the second UE" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 9-14, they are rejected because thy depend directly from claim 8 and claim 8 is rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first UE" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a preferred network " in line 16. It is not clear if this preferred network is the same than the preferred network of lines 5-6.
Regarding claims 16-20, they are rejected because thy depend directly or indirectly from claim 15 and claim 15 is rejected.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visuri (US 20180213078 A1) in view of Unger (US 20120077488 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Visuri discloses sending a request by a quality of experience (QoE) application executing on a computer system to a subscriber identity module (SIM) applet of a user equipment (UE) for a current location of the UE more often than once every six minutes (abstract. figure 1 paragraphs [0018]-[0094] “In an embodiment, BX platform 110 may periodically download unique identifiers (e.g., BSSIDs MAC addresses, etc.), SSIDs, locations, associated terms and conditions, and/or any other information about participating access points to alternative network 160 that are located in the vicinity of the current location of UE 170.”); receiving a message by the QoE application, wherein the message comprises an indication of the location of the UE and an indication that the UE is attached to a roaming network (abstract. figure 1 paragraphs [0018]-[0094] “In an embodiment, BX platform 110 may periodically download unique identifiers (e.g., BSSIDs MAC addresses, etc.), SSIDs, locations, associated terms and conditions, and/or any other information about participating access points to alternative network 160 that are located in the vicinity of the current location of UE 170. This expedites access to the relevant terms and conditions, and makes it possible to have this information available at UE 170, even in situations where UE 170 does not have an open data connection to the Internet or BX platform 110 (e.g., UE 170 is not able to see a cellular access point or is a Wi-Fi™ only device). The current location of the UE 170 can be obtained from a GPS system, if available, or by having the access point transmit identifiers of access points in its range (e.g., regardless of whether or not the access points are registered with BX platform 110) and having BX platform 110 correlate these access point identifiers to a database of access point locations.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
347
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Visuri doesn’t specifically disclose searching a database by the QoE application based on the indication of the location of the UE; and based on finding a preferred network in the database that is associated with the indication of the location of the UE, sending a short message service (SMS) message to the SIM applet commanding the SIM applet to send a refresh request to a main processor of the UE, wherein the UE is prompted to rescan available cell site frequencies, to detach from the roaming network, and to attach to the preferred network. Unger discloses searching a database by the QoE application based on the indication of the location of the UE (abstract figure 15 block 1506 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]); and based on finding a preferred network in the database that is associated with the indication of the location of the UE, sending a short message service (SMS) message to the SIM applet commanding the SIM applet to send a refresh request to a main processor of the UE, wherein the UE is prompted to rescan available cell site frequencies, to detach from the roaming network, and to attach to the preferred network (abstract figure 15 block 1512 paragraphs [0063]-[0064] )
PNG
media_image2.png
510
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Visuri and Unger are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Visuri the location-based network selection disclosed by Unger. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been connecting a mobile device with one of a plurality of wireless networks (Unger abstract). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claim 8, Visuri discloses sending a request by a quality of experience (QoE) application executing on a computer system to a first subscriber identity module (SIM) applet of a first user equipment (UE) for a current location of the first UE, wherein the first UE is subscribed to receive wireless communication service with the home wireless communication service network (abstract. figure 1 paragraphs [0018]-[0094] “In an embodiment, BX platform 110 may periodically download unique identifiers (e.g., BSSIDs MAC addresses, etc.), SSIDs, locations, associated terms and conditions, and/or any other information about participating access points to alternative network 160 that are located in the vicinity of the current location of UE 170.”); receiving an indication of the location of the first UE by the QoE application from the first SIM applet, wherein the first UE is in a roaming operation mode (abstract. figure 1 paragraphs [0018]-[0094] “In an embodiment, BX platform 110 may periodically download unique identifiers (e.g., BSSIDs MAC addresses, etc.), SSIDs, locations, associated terms and conditions, and/or any other information about participating access points to alternative network 160 that are located in the vicinity of the current location of UE 170. This expedites access to the relevant terms and conditions, and makes it possible to have this information available at UE 170, even in situations where UE 170 does not have an open data connection to the Internet or BX platform 110 (e.g., UE 170 is not able to see a cellular access point or is a Wi-Fi™ only device). The current location of the UE 170 can be obtained from a GPS system, if available, or by having the access point transmit identifiers of access points in its range (e.g., regardless of whether or not the access points are registered with BX platform 110) and having BX platform 110 correlate these access point identifiers to a database of access point locations.”) Visuri doesn’t specifically disclose searching a geo-location database by the QoE application using the indication of the location of the first UE, wherein the geo-location database associates geo-locations to a home network or to a preferred network; based on searching the geo-location database, determining by the QoE application that the home network is located proximate to the indication of the location of the first UE; sending a request by the QoE application to the first SIM applet to perform a refresh operation, wherein the first UE initiates a scan of cell site frequencies, detects a first cell site associated with the home network, and attaches wirelessly to the first cell site; receiving a feedback message by the QoE application from the first SIM applet reporting the successful rehoming of the first UE to the home network via the first cell site and at the indicated location of the first UE; and updating the geo-location database by the QoE application with the information about the successful rehoming of the first UE to the home network, wherein the geo-location database is progressively adapted based on feedback information received from the first UE. Unger discloses searching a geo-location database by the QoE application using the indication of the location of the first UE, wherein the geo-location database associates geo-locations to a home network or to a preferred network (abstract figure 15 block 1506 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]); based on searching the geo-location database, determining by the QoE application that the home network is located proximate to the indication of the location of the first UE sending a request by the QoE application to the first SIM applet to perform a refresh operation, wherein the first UE initiates a scan of cell site frequencies, detects a first cell site associated with the home network, and attaches wirelessly to the first cell site (abstract figure 15 block 1510 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]); receiving a feedback message by the QoE application from the first SIM applet reporting the successful rehoming of the first UE to the home network via the first cell site and at the indicated location of the first UE (abstract figure 15 block 1510 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]); and updating the geo-location database by the QoE application with the information about the successful rehoming of the first UE to the home network, wherein the geo-location database is progressively adapted based on feedback information received from the first UE (abstract figure 15 block 1512 paragraphs [0063]-[0064].) Visuri and Unger are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Visuri the location-based network selection disclosed by Unger. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been connecting a mobile device with one of a plurality of wireless networks (Unger abstract). See also KSR above.
Regarding claim 15, Visuri discloses a processor; a non-transitory memory, wherein the non-transitory memory stores a geo-location database that associates geo-locations to a home network or to a preferred network (abstract, figure 1 paragraphs [0018]-[0094] “In an embodiment, BX platform 110 may periodically download unique identifiers (e.g., BSSIDs MAC addresses, etc.), SSIDs, locations, associated terms and conditions, and/or any other information about participating access points to alternative network 160 that are located in the vicinity of the current location of UE 170); and a quality of experience application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor receives an indication of a location of a user equipment (UE), wherein the first UE is subscribed to receive wireless communication service with the home wireless communication service network and the UE is in a roaming operation mode, searches the geo-location database using the indication of the location of the UE (abstract. figure 1 paragraphs [0018]-[0094] “In an embodiment, BX platform 110 may periodically download unique identifiers (e.g., BSSIDs MAC addresses, etc.), SSIDs, locations, associated terms and conditions, and/or any other information about participating access points to alternative network 160 that are located in the vicinity of the current location of UE 170. This expedites access to the relevant terms and conditions, and makes it possible to have this information available at UE 170, even in situations where UE 170 does not have an open data connection to the Internet or BX platform 110 (e.g., UE 170 is not able to see a cellular access point or is a Wi-Fi™ only device). The current location of the UE 170 can be obtained from a GPS system, if available, or by having the access point transmit identifiers of access points in its range (e.g., regardless of whether or not the access points are registered with BX platform 110) and having BX platform 110 correlate these access point identifiers to a database of access point locations”) Visuri doesn’t specifically disclose based on searching the geo-location database, determines that the home network or a preferred network is located proximate to the indication of the location of the UE, and sends a request to the UE to perform a refresh operation, wherein the UE initiates a scan of cell site frequencies, detects a cell site associated with the home network or the preferred network, and attaches wirelessly to the cell site. Unger discloses based on searching the geo-location database, determines that the home network or a preferred network is located proximate to the indication of the location of the UE (abstract figure 15 block 1512 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]), and sends a request to the UE to perform a refresh operation, wherein the UE initiates a scan of cell site frequencies, detects a cell site associated with the home network or the preferred network, and attaches wirelessly to the cell site (abstract figure 15 block 1514 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]) Visuri and Unger are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Visuri the location-based network selection disclosed by Unger. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been connecting a mobile device with one of a plurality of wireless networks (Unger abstract). See also KSR above.
Regarding claim 2, Visuri and Unger disclose claim 1, Visuri also discloses any of a 5G, a long-term evolution (LTE), a code division multiple access (CDMA), or a global system for mobile communications (GSM) telecommunication protocol (paragraph [0020]). Unger also discloses any of a 5G, a long-term evolution (LTE), a code division multiple access (CDMA), or a global system for mobile communications (GSM) telecommunication protocol (paragraph [0035], [0039] and [0057]).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 17, Visuri and Unger disclose claims 1, 8 and 15, Visuri also discloses sends the SMS message to the SIM applet via a SMS center (abstract paragraph [0026] claim 8).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, Visuri and Unger disclose claims 1, 8 and 15, Visuri also discloses one of a smart phone, a mobile phone, a wearable computer, a headset computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, or a notebook computer (paragraph [0020]). Unger also discloses one of a smart phone, a mobile phone, a wearable computer, a headset computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, or a notebook computer (paragraph [0003], [0020] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, Visuri and Unger disclose claim 1, Unger also discloses the UE to rehome in less than three minutes after the UE re-enters wireless coverage of the home network (abstract figure 15 block 1512 paragraphs [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 18, Visuri and Unger disclose claim 15, Visuri also discloses sends the request to a subscriber identity module (SIM) applet of the UE (paragraph [0025]-[0026], [0126]-[0133]).
Regarding claim 19, Visuri and Unger disclose claim 18, Visuri also discloses SIM applet sends a refresh message to a main processor of the UE (paragraph [0025]-[0026], [0126]-[0133]).
Claims 5-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visuri and Unger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 113052308 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Visuri and Unger disclose claims 1 and 8, Visuri and Unger don’t specifically disclose a cell global identifier (CGI) of a cell site. Wang discloses a cell global identifier (CGI) of a cell site (section 2 “Generating a square array according to the longitude and latitude of each cell corresponding to the base and the pre-configured adjacent grid number; each item of the square array represents a grid; the square grid array centre is the grid of the base station; then taking the base station as centre to obtain the geohash values of all adjacent grids. Loading all MDT data, according to CGI (cell global identifier) and geohash dimension statistic RSRP sample total number and sample total value in each grid, wherein the geohash according to each grid 5 meters; finally, summarizing all MDT sample data according to the CGI and geohash dimensions.”) Visuri, Unger and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Visuri and Unger the location-based network selection disclosed by Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been a cell identification (Wang abstract). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Visuri and Unger disclose claims 1 and 8, Visuri and Unger don’t specifically disclose a latitude and longitude. Wang discloses a latitude and longitude (section 2 “Generating a square array according to the longitude and latitude of each cell corresponding to the base and the pre-configured adjacent grid number; each item of the square array represents a grid; the square grid array centre is the grid of the base station; then taking the base station as centre to obtain the geohash values of all adjacent grids. Loading all MDT data, according to CGI (cell global identifier) and geohash dimension statistic RSRP sample total number and sample total value in each grid, wherein the geohash according to each grid 5 meters; finally, summarizing all MDT sample data according to the CGI and geohash dimensions.”) Visuri, Unger and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Visuri and Unger the location-based network selection disclosed by Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been a cell identification (Wang abstract). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Visuri and Unger disclose claims 1 and 8, Visuri and Unger don’t specifically disclose a geohash value. Wang discloses a geohash value (section 2 “Generating a square array according to the longitude and latitude of each cell corresponding to the base and the pre-configured adjacent grid number; each item of the square array represents a grid; the square grid array centre is the grid of the base station; then taking the base station as centre to obtain the geohash values of all adjacent grids. Loading all MDT data, according to CGI (cell global identifier) and geohash dimension statistic RSRP sample total number and sample total value in each grid, wherein the geohash according to each grid 5 meters; finally, summarizing all MDT sample data according to the CGI and geohash dimensions.”) Visuri, Unger and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Visuri and Unger the location-based network selection disclosed by Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been a cell identification (Wang abstract). See also KSR above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kanchiraju (US 20230396980 A1) discloses dual subscriber identity module (SIM) configuration.
Chong (US 20250024244 A1) discloses data acquisition method and apparatus, and network-side device.
O'Hurley (US 20250063452 A1) discloses dynamic profile switching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634