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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin (US 20220338279 A1) in view of Chun (US 20240114441 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sahin discloses One or more devices [fig. 1 no. 103, par. 0036, 45] comprising:
one or more processors [fig. 7 no. 790, par. 0045, fig. 9 no. 915, par. 0075] to:
receive a data relay request from an application to deliver data to a User Equipment device (UE) [fig. 1 no. 109, par. 0036] (Request is received from a user device (i.e., data relay request from app to deliver data to UE) [par. 0045, fig. 2 no. 201, see also par. 0041, 63]);
select a network path by … choos[ing] between a satellite network and a cellular network (Terrestrial (i.e., cell), mesh, or satellite is selected [fig. 2 no. 203, 207, 211]); and
forward the data to the UE over the selected network path [fig. 2 no. 205, 209, 213].
Although Sahin discloses a device for selecting a network, as discussed above, Sahin does not explicitly disclose by causing a NEF to choose between … that includes the NEF. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chun.
In the same field of endeavor, Chun discloses:
by causing a NEF to choose between … that includes the NEF (The NEF provides network access info for selecting the network (i.e., NEF chooses and the network includes the NEF (if so choosen) [par. 0347]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin with Chun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of enhanced steering of roaming capability for network access [Chun Abstract].
Regarding claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Sahin further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium [fig. 9 no. 925, 930, par. 0075] comprising computer-executable instructions [fig. 2].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Sahin further discloses wherein when the one or more processors select the network path, the one or more processors are configured to:
select the network path based on path notifications from the satellite network (Different satellite technologies (e.g., L-band) and path loss (i.e., path notifications from sat network) [par. 0032, 38-39, fig. 7 no. 735, 740, 745, 750, par. 0067]) and components of the cellular network (Info about connected terrestrial network is maintained, including subscription or similar agmt (i.e., path notifications from cell network) [par. 0045, fig. 7 no. 710, 715, 720, 730, par. 0066, 72]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Sahin further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a subscription request from the application to provide the application with path notifications [fig. 4 no. 403, 406, fig. 10], wherein at least one of the notifications includes:
an indication of whether the UE is reachable over the network path that includes the satellite network (Queries to home operation subscriber DBs via satellite link (i.e., reachable over path that includes sat network), including sat BW pricing agmts [par. 0039, 54, 59, 67, 71, 78]); and
an indication of whether the UE is reachable over the network path that includes the cellular network [par. 0044-45, 53].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Sahin further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
subscribe with the satellite network to receive path notifications from the satellite network (Communication rules are managed, including for sat networks (i.e., path notifications received) and new sat paths [par. 0071, 78]), wherein at least one of the notifications includes:
an indication of whether the UE is reachable via the satellite network [par. 0078].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sahin discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Sahin further discloses:
wherein the UE is wirelessly connected to both the cellular network and the satellite network [fig. 1, 3, 7].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin and Chun as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Fiorese (US 20200288296 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Sahin discloses a device for selecting a network, as discussed above, Sahin and Chun do not explicitly disclose wherein the device includes at least one of: a Network Exposure Function (NEF); or a Service Capability Exposure Function (SCEF). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Fiorese.
In the same field of endeavor, Fiorese discloses wherein the one or more devices include at least one of:
the Network Exposure Function (NEF) (NEF [par. 0066]); or
a Service Capability Exposure Function (SCEF) (SCEF [par. 0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin and Chun with Fiorese. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of determining E2E UE trajectory network automation [Fiorese par. 0061].
Claims 6-7, 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin and Chun as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Ly (US 20220240213 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Sahin discloses subscribe … to receive path notifications …, wherein at least one of the path notifications, as discussed above, Sahin and Chun do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: subscribe with either an Access and Mobility Management function (AMF) or a Mobility Management Entity (MME) to receive path notifications from either the AMF or the MME, wherein at least one of the path notifications includes: a unique identifier of the UE within the cellular network. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Ly.
In the same field of endeavor, Ly discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
subscribe with either an Access and Mobility Management function (AMF) or a Mobility Management Entity (MME) to receive path notifications from either the AMF or the MME (AMF [fig. 10]), wherein at least one of the path notifications includes:
a unique identifier of the UE within the cellular network (UE ID [par. 0348 “Step S1010”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin and Chun with Ly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maintaining network performance [Ly par. 0004].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Sahin, Chun, and Ly disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Sahin further discloses wherein the at least one of the path notifications further includes:
a type of data supported by the network path that includes the cellular network, wherein the type includes at least one of:
Short Messaging Service data;
Internet Protocol (IP) data (Terrestrial (i.e., cell) data is provisioned [par. 0038], where the connectivity is IP based (i.e., IP data) [par. 0048, 44-45]);
Non-Internet Protocol Data Delivery (NIDD) data; or
generic data (Terrestrial (i.e., cell) data is provisioned (i.e., generic data) [par. 0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Sahin discloses wherein when selecting a network path, the one or more processors are configured to: … look up first information and second information, wherein when the first and second information indicates that the UE is reachable via both the network path that includes the cellular network and the network path that includes the satellite network, select the network path that includes the cellular network [fig. 10 no. 1010-1060, par. 0079-80], where one of ordinary skill in the art could set the default to either satellite or cell [see also par. 0003, fig. 2 no. 203 vs. 211], and as discussed above, Sahin and Chun do not explicitly disclose use an identifier for the UE. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Ly.
In the same field of endeavor, Ly discloses:
use an identifier for the UE (UE ID [par. 0348 “Step S1010”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin and Chun with Ly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maintaining network performance [Ly par. 0004].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin and Chun as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Ravishankar (US 20210092640 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Sahin and Chun disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Sahin discloses wherein the data relay request includes: … that the data is to be forwarded to the UE over the network path that includes the satellite network; or … that the data is to be forwarded to the UE over the network path that includes the cellular network, as discussed above, Sahin and Chun do not explicitly disclose indicating … satellite or cellular network. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Ravishankar.
In the same field of endeavor, Ravishankar discloses:
indicating … satellite or cellular network [par. 0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin and Chun with Ravishankar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of choosing the best path/RAT for the data [Ravishankar par. 0058].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang (US 20200389843 A1) discloses the NEF selecting a network slice.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465