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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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
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, 2, 4-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US-2016/0234749 hereinafter, Singh) in view of Kholaif et al. (US-8,881,238 hereinafter, Kholaif).
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a method comprising:
connecting a device (Fig. 7 [106]) to an access point (AP) device (Fig. 7 [104]) associated with a Wi-Fi network (Fig. 7 [Attach with AP] and Page 6 [0096]), the connection enabling the device access to the Wi-Fi network; (Page 6 [0097] “the UE attaches with AP 104”)
executing, over the Wi-Fi network, Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) services for the device; (Pages 7-8 [0114] “(If selecting a WiFi link, in some embodiments, engine 1010 may issue a selection 1006 to cause performance of configuration operations such as 1) establishing an internet key exchange (IKE) session with ePDG 530 to create a tunnel and 2) register with an IMS over the WiFi link via the tunnel.)”)
detecting an error event related to the IMS services being executed over the Wi-Fi network (Page 9 [0121] “In some embodiments, criteria 1030B may also specify that the cellular link be selected over the WiFi link in response to a moving average PER calculated for the WiFi link over a 15-40 second interval satisfying a threshold (e.g., exceeding 10% in some embodiments).” note: this is an exemplary embodiment described, but several different quality metrics are tracked, see Page 8 [0118]), the error event comprising an indication of insufficient network capacity of the Wi-Fi network for handling the IMS services; (Page 8 [0118] “quality metrics 1004 include radio quality indicators such as a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), SNR, a round-trip time (RTT)” note: meeting the definition of an “error event” defined in claim 5)
executing, based on the detection of the error event (Fig. 12A [1210]), a Wi-Fi barring timer (Fig. 12A [1230]), the Wi-Fi barring timer halting the connection of the device with the Wi-Fi network for a defined time period; (Page 11 [0143] “The WiFi network is blacklisted (i.e., assigned to a blacklist) for the session duration. For example, if the communication session is a voice call, the WiFi network may be blacklisted for the remainder of the call”)
establishing a connection for the device with the cellular network; (Fig. 11B [1118, Yes, 1122]) and
switching the IMS services for the device to the cellular connection. (Page 10 [0132] “As discussed above, in some embodiments, 1122 may include engine 1010 initiating a handover from WiFi to cellular and registering with an IMS over the cellular link”)
Singh differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting the defined period of time being defined by a numeric timer value.
In an analogous art, Kholaif teaches a method and system in the event of an authentication process failure when connecting to a Wi-Fi access point (Abstract and Fig. 1 [114]) that includes executing, based on the detection of the error event (Fig. 2 [210 & Yes]), a Wi-Fi barring timer (Fig. 2 [224]), the Wi-Fi barring timer halting the connection of the device with the Wi-Fi network for a defined time period (Fig. 2 [226]), the defined time period being defined by a numeric timer value. (Fig. 3 [304], Col. 10 lines 57-63 and Col. 5 line 59 through Col. 6 line 4 i.e. 1 minute or more note: the length of barring time can be set to a long period of time which aligns with the concept taught within Singh to avoid unnecessary handovers during a communication session)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Singh after modifying it to incorporate the ability to define a Wi-Fi barring timer as a defined numeric timer value of Kholaif since it saves network resources by preventing repeated failed authentication attempts potentially caused by an improper configuration of settings. (Kholaif Col. 5 line 48-58)
Regarding claim 2, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches switching, upon expiration of the defined time period of the Wi-Fi barring timer, IMS services back to the Wi-Fi network. (Singh Page 12 Claim 7 “remainder of the communication session”, Claim 4 “ use the short-range RAT is configured to occur after a delay for a predetermined period” and Claim 2 “the mobile device is configured to register with an internet protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) over the short-range RAT”)
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches wherein the IMS services correspond to multimedia communication services, wherein the multimedia communication services comprise at least one of voice, video, or text messages. (Singh Page 6 [0095] “VoLTE call utilizing IMS”)
Regarding claim 5, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches wherein the error event corresponds to at least one of an expiration of an IMS certificate, failure of the Wi-Fi connection, reduction in bandwidth of the Wi-Fi connection at or below a threshold value, increase in latency of the Wi-Fi connection at or above a threshold value (Singh Page 8 [0118]), reduction of throughput of the Wi-Fi connection at or below a threshold value, failure to establish an IMS connection or an authentication failure.
Regarding claim 6, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches registering with an evolved packet data gateway (ePDG) (Singh Page 6 [0097]), wherein the connection with the Wi-Fi network is based on the registration with the ePDG. (Singh Page 5 [0088-0089])
Regarding claim 7, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches registering with a packet data network (PDN), wherein the connection with the cellular network is based on the registration with the PDN. (Singh Page 6 [0101] “an E-UTRAN bearer (illustrated using the bold solid line) over IMS is used for a call (e.g., a VoLTE call) using serving/packet data network (PDN) GW 510 and mobility management entity (MME) 725” and Page 8 [0116] “the cellular link has just been selected (e.g., a cellular PDN activation and IMS registration have just occurred”)
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches executing additional services over the Wi-Fi network. (Singh Page 1 [0004] “One form of mobile data offloading uses the I-WLAN (Interworking Wireless LAN) or SMOG (S2b Mobility based on GTP) architecture to supply carrier-provided services to the mobile device over WiFi. These carrier-provided services may include VVM (Visual VoiceMail), MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service), SMS (Short Messaging Service) and IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem)”)
Regarding claim 9, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches wherein the additional services are maintained on the Wi-Fi network regardless of the switching of the IMS services. (Singh Page 1 [0004] “These carrier-provided services may include VVM (Visual VoiceMail), MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service), SMS (Short Messaging Service)” and Pages 8-9 [0119] “In other embodiments, link preferences 1020 may be set for particular applications. For example, in some embodiments, a cellular-link preference may be set for voice communications while a WiFi-link preference may be set for hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) traffic.”)
Regarding claim 10, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches switching the additional services to the cellular network with the IMS services. (Singh Page 1 [0004] “These carrier-provided services may include VVM (Visual VoiceMail), MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service), SMS (Short Messaging Service)” and Pages 8-9 [0119] “In some embodiments, link preference 1020 may pertain to all network traffic”)
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches wherein the device is a user device. (Singh Fig. 2 [106])
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. See additional structure “user equipment” Singh Fig. 3 [106] and “processor” Singh Fig. 3 [302].
Regarding claims 13 and 15-19, the limitations of claims 13 and 15-19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2 and 6-10.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. See additionally Singh Page 5 [0080].
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Kholaif as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of McDiarmid et al. (US-2017/0195932 hereinafter, McDiarmid).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Singh in view of Kholaif teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting polling for other AP devices; identifying another AP device based on the polling of the other AP devices; and switching connectivity of the device to the other AP device.
In an analogous art, McDiarmid teaches a handover procedure (Abstract) that includes a mobile device (Fig. 2 [102]) that is connected to an AP device (Fig. 2 [106(3)]) via a Wi-Fi network (Page 5 [0037-0038]), with the mobile device being able to poll for other AP devices; (Page 7 [0054] note: “polling” BRI in Applicant’s specification as “receiving signals”, see [0046])
identifying another AP device based on the polling of the other AP devices; (Page 5 [0036] and Pages 5-6 [0042]) and
switching connectivity of the device to the other AP device. (Page 5 [0036] and Pages 5-6 [0042] “Assuming that there are other nearby APs, the target AP 106(4) may be selected based on having a highest radio signal level among multiple measurements taken from multiple available APs in communication range of the mobile device 102. When the communication session is successfully re-established via the target AP 106(4), the communication session can be terminated via the serving AP 106(3) to complete the transfer of the communication session”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Singh in view of Kholaif after modifying it to incorporate the ability to handover between access points of McDiarmid since it enables offloading of cellular services to a wider area covered by various Wi-Fi access points. (McDiarmid Page 5 [0041])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP-2,309,790A3 to Kholaif et al. which is the EPO version of US-8,881,238 cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646