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 statements (IDS) submitted on February 6, 2024 and April 24, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Indian Application No. 202311051050, filed on July 28, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francisco et al, British Patent Application Publication No. GB 2548894 A (hereinafter Francisco).
Regarding Claim 1, Francisco discloses a method performed by an electronic device in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: detecting, using an evolved Packet Data Gateway (ePDG) interface, a voice communication over a first wireless local area network (WLAN) among a plurality of WLANs associated with a node of a network (e.g., FIG. 1, Page 5, lines 7-10: Since the WLANs 5 are untrusted access networks, any data session between a VoWiFi client (not shown) in the mobile device 7 and the ePDG 23 for VoWiFi must be secured using an encrypted data tunnel 25. In this embodiment the Internet Protocol Security (IPSec) framework relating to data confidentiality, data integrity and data authentication is used to secure the tunnel); determining one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with a plurality of ePDG interface tunnels (e.g., FIG. 6, steps s3, s5, Page 9, lines 1, 28-30: monitor quality of physical layer connection… [based on] set control thresholds and preferences governing handover behaviour [e.g., WLAN quality thresholds (Page 10, line 4), SNR, signal strength, throughput, error rate, dropped packets, etc. (page 10, lines 9-10)]); and establishing, upon detecting a change in the one or more determined ePDG interface tunnel parameters (e.g., FIG. 6, steps s5, s7, Page 10, lines 14-24: In step s5, the handover manager compares the signal strength against a threshold handover value loaded from the handover and user preferences database. If the quality is above the threshold, then no handover action is required and so the processing returns to step s3. If the processing of step s5 determines that the quality of the connection has dropped below the threshold, this is an indication that the mobile device is moving outside of the range of the wireless access point, or that there is interference in the vicinity which is affecting the connection quality. In either case, since the quality to that wireless access point 21 is deteriorating, the handover manager must try to handover the mobile device 7 to a different connection to maintain the voice data link to the MMTel service. In step s7, the handover manager first checks whether a set of conditions have been satisfied, namely: if WiFi handover is preferred for the client device; are alternative WLANs available; and are any of the identified neighbouring wireless access points in the blacklist), the voice communication using a second WLAN among the plurality of WLANs (e.g., Page 7, lines 5-10: since the client device has connected to WLAN 5b of the second access point 21b, the mobile device 7 will try to re-establish the VoWiFi service via the ePDG 23; e.g., Page 8, lines 2-4: ePDG is altered to allow the device 7 to move from one WLAN to another WLAN; e.g., Page 8, lines 1-4: move from one WLAN to another while maintaining existing tunnel; e.g., FIG. 6, steps s9-s11, Page 10, lines 26-30: In step s5, the handover manager compares the signal strength against a threshold handover value loaded from the handover and user preferences database. If the quality is above the threshold, then no handover action is required and so the processing returns to step s3. If the processing of step s5 determines that the quality of the connection has dropped below the threshold, this is an indication that the mobile device is moving outside of the range of the wireless access point, or that there is interference in the vicinity which is affecting the connection quality. In either case, since the quality to that wireless access point 21 is deteriorating, the handover manager must try to handover the mobile device 7 to a different connection to maintain the voice data link to the MMTel service. In step s7, the handover manager first checks whether a set of conditions have been satisfied, namely: if WiFi handover is preferred for the client device; are alternative WLANs available; and are any of the identified neighbouring wireless access points in the blacklist. If it is determined that there is at least one non-blacklisted access point, then in step s9 the handover manager hands over the mobile device 7 to a new candidate WLAN, in the example above the WLAN 5b of the wireless access point 21b. In step s11, the handover manager instructs the IPSec manager to update the tunnel).
Regarding Claim 2, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Francisco discloses wherein establishing, upon detecting the change in the one or more determined ePDG interface tunnel parameters, the voice communication comprises: determining whether a value of the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with a first ePDG interface tunnel of the plurality of ePDG interface tunnels is greater than a threshold; and performing at least one of: establishing the voice communication on the first ePDG interface tunnel in response to determining that the value of the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with the first ePDG interface tunnel is greater than the threshold (e.g., Fig. 5, step s5, Page 10, lines 11-14: In step s5, the handover manager compares the signal strength against a threshold handover value loaded from the handover and user preferences database. If the quality is above the threshold, then no handover action is required and so the processing returns to step s3); or establishing the voice communication on a second ePDG interface tunnel of the plurality of ePDG interface tunnels in response to determining that the value of the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with the first ePDG interface tunnel is less than the threshold (e.g., Fig. 6, step s5, Page 10, lines 14-19: If the processing of step s5 determines that the quality of the connection has dropped below the threshold, this is an indication that the mobile device is moving outside of the range of the wireless access point, or that there is interference in the vicinity which is affecting the connection quality. In either case, since the quality to that wireless access point 21 is deteriorating, the handover manager must try to handover the mobile device 7 to a different connection to maintain the voice data link to the MMTel service).
Regarding Claim 7, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Francisco discloses further comprising: detecting a change in connection from the first WLAN to the second WLAN; and updating an active IP address of the first WLAN to the second WLAN to maintain the ePDG interface over the second WLAN within the network without initiating a new registration mechanism for the second WLAN (e.g., FIG. 7, Page 11, lines 18-29: In step s21, the IPSec manager receives instructions to handover from the handover manager. In this case the client device has already been re-connected to a new wireless access point and now the IPSec tunnel needs to be updated so that the ePDG 23 is aware of the new location for the mobile device 7. In step s23, a new connection is established to the WLAN 5b of the second wireless access point 21b. In step s25, the SA is updated with new local address information, in particular the new IP address of the mobile device connected to the wireless access point 21 (or mobile broadband in accordance with the functioning of the handover manager). Once the mobile device's 7 IPSec tunnel information has been updated, in step s27 the IPSec manager sends an informational message to the ePDG's 23 IPSec manager using the existing Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP) session to notify the updated local IP address and handover manager decision. In this embodiment, this step is carried out using the MOBIKE protocol defined in RFC 4555 herein incorporated by reference).
Regarding Claim 8, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Francisco discloses wherein the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters comprises: a type of Wi-Fi network, a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) packet loss, a Dead Peer Detection (DPD) timer expiry, and/or a motion associated with the electronic device (e.g., Page 10, line 11: signal strength [i.e., RSSI]; Page 10, lines 14-16: connection quality drops below [a] threshold… indication that the mobile device is moving outside the range of the wireless access point [i.e. motion associated with electronic device]).
Regarding Claim 10, Francisco discloses an electronic device in a wireless communication system, the electronic device comprising: a transceiver; and a controller coupled with the transceiver (e.g., FIG. 4: mobile device 7, network interfaces 41, 43, operating system layer 47), and configured to perform operations that are functionally similar to the method of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 10.
The functional limitations of Claim 11 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 16, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 10.
The functional limitations of Claim 16 are similar to claim 7. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 7 shall be applied to claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 10.
The functional limitations of Claim 17 are similar to claim 8. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 8 shall be applied to claim 17.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 6, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francisco in view of Srivastava et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190037465 A1 (hereinafter Srivastava, included in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding Claim 3, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Francisco does not expressly disclose wherein establishing the voice communication comprises: determining a corresponding Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWi-Fi) migration score for a corresponding WLAN based on a correlation of the one or more determined ePDG interface tunnel parameters and one or more Wi-Fi channel parameters associated with the corresponding WLAN; determining a Radio Access Technology (RAT) score of a RAT node associated with the electronic device; and migrating, based on a highest VoWi-Fi migration score among the corresponding VoWi-Fi migration score and the determined RAT score, the voice communication from the first WLAN to the second WLAN of the plurality of WLANs or the RAT node.
Srivastava discloses wherein establishing the voice communication comprises: determining a corresponding Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWi-Fi) migration score for a corresponding WLAN based on a correlation of the one or more determined ePDG interface tunnel parameters and one or more Wi-Fi channel parameters associated with the corresponding WLAN (e.g., ¶ [0191] CLEH score for available Wi-Fi Interface; e.g., ¶ [0154] FIG. 5 is a block diagram of the VoWiFi controller 110 included in the electronic device 100, according to embodiments as disclosed herein. In an embodiment, the VoWiFi controller 110 includes a handover controller 110a, a Socio VoWiFi metric determiner 110b, a CLEH determiner 110c, a bandwidth estimator 110d, an IMS score estimator 110e and a policy maker 110f; e.g., ¶ [0165] VoWiFi controller 110 includes a smart network switch (not shown) to calculates interface score for the switching decisions); determining a Radio Access Technology (RAT) score of a RAT node associated with the electronic device (e.g., ¶ [0191] CLEH score for LTE); and migrating, based on a highest VoWi-Fi migration score among the corresponding VoWi-Fi migration score and the determined RAT score, the voice communication from the first WLAN to the second WLAN of the plurality of WLANs or the RAT node (e.g., ¶ [0108] Performance Score Estimation: The performance score (i.e., CLEH metric) which is derived by analyzing various connection parameters dynamically which helps to take the handover decisions; e.g., ¶ [0122] D. CLEH Final performance score: The electronic device 100 includes a smart network switch (SNS) module for calculating a score of each interface (for the mobile network from a Radio Interface Layer (RIL) [i.e. RAT score] and for the Wi-Fi interface from Wi-Fi state machine calculations) [i.e., WiFi score]; e.g., ¶ [0191] If the CLEH score for available Wi-Fi Interface is less that the CLEH score for LTE then, at 1114, the method includes performing L2W handover. The handover condition is satisfied for epoch timer. If the CLEH score for available Wi-Fi Interface is not less that the CLEH score for LTE then, at 1108, the method includes waiting for the CLEH Timer expiry).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of determining ePDG interface tunnel parameters for handover decisions, as disclosed by Francisco, with the disclosure of the device determining scores for WiFi and cellular interfaces to decide on handover, as disclosed by Srivastava. The motivation to combine would have been to support handling a wireless communication in a VoWiFi system (Srivastava: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 6, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 3.
Francisco does not expressly disclose wherein migrating, based on the highest VoWi-Fi migration score among the corresponding VoWi-Fi migration score and the determined RAT score, the voice communication from the first WLAN to the second WLAN of the plurality of WLANs or the RAT node comprises: determining whether the determined RAT score is greater than the determined VoWi-Fi migration score; and performing at least one of: migrating to the RAT node from the first WLAN in response to determining that the determined RAT score is greater than the determined VoWi-Fi migration score; or migrating to an optimal WLAN among the plurality of WLANs associated with the node of the network in response to determining that the determined RAT score is less than the determined VoWi-Fi migration score, wherein the optimal WLAN comprises one of the first WLAN or the second WLAN that has the highest VoWi-Fi migration score among the corresponding VoWi-Fi migration score.
Srivastava discloses wherein migrating, based on the highest VoWi-Fi migration score among the corresponding VoWi-Fi migration score and the determined RAT score, the voice communication from the first WLAN to the second WLAN of the plurality of WLANs or the RAT node comprises: determining whether the determined RAT score is greater than the determined VoWi-Fi migration score; and performing at least one of: migrating to the RAT node from the first WLAN in response to determining that the determined RAT score is greater than the determined VoWi-Fi migration score; or migrating to an optimal WLAN among the plurality of WLANs associated with the node of the network in response to determining that the determined RAT score is less than the determined VoWi-Fi migration score, wherein the optimal WLAN comprises one of the first WLAN or the second WLAN that has the highest VoWi-Fi migration score among the corresponding VoWi-Fi migration score (e.g., ¶ [0108] Performance Score Estimation: The performance score (i.e., CLEH metric) which is derived by analyzing various connection parameters dynamically which helps to take the handover decisions; e.g., ¶ [0122] D. CLEH Final performance score: The electronic device 100 includes a smart network switch (SNS) module for calculating a score of each interface (for the mobile network from a Radio Interface Layer (RIL) [i.e. RAT score] and for the Wi-Fi interface from Wi-Fi state machine calculations) [i.e., WiFi score]; e.g., ¶ [0191] If the CLEH score for available Wi-Fi Interface is less that the CLEH score for LTE then, at 1114, the method includes performing L2W handover. The handover condition is satisfied for epoch timer. If the CLEH score for available Wi-Fi Interface is not less that the CLEH score for LTE then, at 1108, the method includes waiting for the CLEH Timer expiry).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of determining ePDG interface tunnel parameters for handover decisions, as disclosed by Francisco, with the disclosure of the device determining scores for WiFi and cellular interfaces to decide on handover, as disclosed by Srivastava. The motivation to combine would have been to support handling a wireless communication in a VoWiFi system (Srivastava: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 12, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 10.
The functional limitations of Claim 12 are similar to claim 3. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 3 shall be applied to claim 12.
Regarding Claim 15, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 12.
The functional limitations of Claim 15 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 15.
.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francisco in view of Cuevas Ramirez, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200107255 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Francisco does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more Wi-Fi channel parameters are used to determine an availability of the ePDG interface over each WLAN.
Cuevas Ramirez discloses wherein the one or more Wi-Fi channel parameters are used to determine an availability of the ePDG interface over each WLAN (e.g., ¶ [0012] If a WLAN is available and WLAN has been set as preferred access, the UE will attempt to connect to the VoWiFi service by establishing a secure communication tunnel to the ePDG of the subscriber cellular network. Once established, the mobile device will establish a session with the MMTel voice service in the IMS to implement VoWiFi; e.g., ¶ [0158] In s113, the ePDG 101 uses the collected information to determine quality scores for the VoWiFi and alternative network links in a similar manner to the equivalent VoWiFi admission control function of the hub in the first embodiment. Furthermore the calculated quality scores can be modified/normalized based on other information available to the ePDG. For example, if the UE 9 is within range of an eNodeB of the cellular network, the ePDG 101 will modify any calculated quality score based on a real-time view of the load conditions the observed eNodeB since the ePDG is part of the same cellular network. Furthermore, if the other WLANs are available to the UE [i.e., tunnel parameters for each WLAN], the calculated quality score for those alternative WLANs are lowered if the ePDG is overloaded [i.e., availability of ePDG interface], since its ability to service VoWiFi sessions would be reduced regardless of the WLAN used by the UE.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of determining the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with the plurality of WLANs, as disclosed by Francisco, with the disclosure of determining an availability of the ePDG interface over each WLAN, as disclosed by Cuevas Ramirez. The motivation to combine would have been to manage voice service access (Cuevas Ramirez: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 14, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 12.
The functional limitations of Claim 14 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 5 shall be applied to claim 14.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francisco in view of Jia et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240107359 A1 (hereinafter Jia)
Regarding Claim 9, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1.
Francisco discloses detecting whether the electronic device is in motion, and determining the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with the plurality of WLANs in response to determining that the electronic device is in motion (e.g., Page 10, lines 14-16: connection quality drops below [a] threshold… indication that the mobile device is moving outside the range of the wireless access point [i.e. motion associated with electronic device]), but does not expressly disclose wherein determining the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters comprises: detecting whether the electronic device is in motion by monitoring sensor data of the electronic device.
Jia discloses wherein determining the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters comprises: detecting whether the electronic device is in motion by monitoring sensor data of the electronic device (e.g., ¶ [0060] In one embodiment, switching decisions according to motion information, such as current position, speed, trajectory and so forth, can be performed by the end user device, which may have more accurate data than the network elements, such as GPS data, accelerometer data, and so forth. In one embodiment, motion information can be considered along with sensor data, such as environment imaging by a camera of the end user device, for making the switching decision. In this example, the sensor data can indicate movement into an open area, movement into an indoor area, proximity to potential interfering objects such as a tall building, and so forth, which can be considered for evaluating future performance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of detecting whether the electronic device is in motion, and determining the one or more ePDG interface tunnel parameters associated with the plurality of WLANs in response to determining that the electronic device is in motion, as disclosed by Francisco, with the disclosure of the device determining its own motion based on sensor data, and deciding on handover, as disclosed by Jia. The motivation to combine would have been to support intelligent traffic switching (Jia: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 18, Francisco discloses all the limitations of the electronic device of claim 10.
The functional limitations of Claim 18 are similar to claim 9. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 9 shall be applied to claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, dependent from claim 1 and 10, respectively, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation pause, upon detecting the active communication, one or more Wi-Fi sockets for all ongoing communication associated with one or more applications of the electronic device excluding the VoWi-Fi communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471