CTFR 18/489,987 CTFR 100625 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 There was no amendment to Claims. Originally filed Claims 1-30 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 03/11/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered as follows. Applicant agrees that Claims 17-24 are to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Regarding the rejection of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), Applicant first argues that the present disclosure contains sufficient “ structural components [that] correspond directly to the means limitations of claim 17 and its dependent claims ” – See Resp., 11:¶1. Applicant maps each “ means for ” to the “ circuitry for ” illustrated in Fig. 9 – See id .. stating that “ the specification describes a wireless node including a processing system having processor(s), memory, and various circuitry modules configured to perform the claimed functions . . . code modules stored in memory and executed by the processor(s) to implement the operations recited in the claims ” as shown in Fig. 9 which illustrates “ the processing system includes circuitry for camping, circuitry for detecting, circuitry for searching, circuitry for limiting, circuitry for enabling, and circuitry for obtaining ” – See Resp., 10:¶6. As explained in MPEP § 2171, “[t] wo separate requirements are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . that : (A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention ,” i.e. , “ a subjective one because it is dependent on what the inventor or a joint inventor for a patent regards as his or her invention ” and “ (B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant, ” i.e. , “ an objective one because it is not dependent on the views of the inventor or any particular individual, but is evaluated in the context of whether the claim is definite — i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. ” Regarding the first requirement, Applicant’s argument sets forth a combination of “ circuitry for ” as the subject matter of Claim 17. Under Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp ., each “[c] ircuitry . . . provides structure that necessarily limits the scope of a claim without the aid of special programming ” and “ extend [ing] the algorithm requirement to circuitry . . . would jeopardize a plethora of patents in the electrical arts that rely on circuitry as the corresponding structure for their means-plus-function claim limitations. ” 6 F.4th 1256, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software , 462 F.3d 1344,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the Court concluding that “ the term ‘aesthetic correction circuitry’ is clearly limited to hardware” citing to McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 299 (2d ed. 1978), defining ‘circuitry’ as “[t] he complete combination of circuits used in an electrical or electronic system or piece of equipment ”). However, Applicant makes explicit assertions that to implement the operations recited in the claims “ code modules stored in memory and executed by the processor(s) ” of the wireless node are required – See Resp., 10:¶6, e.g. , one of the circuitry, “ ’means for camping’ corresponds to the disclosed circuitry for camping and associated code modules executed by the processor ” – See Resp., 11:¶1. During patent examination the pending claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification (without importing into a claim those limitations that are not part of the claim), whereby those elements using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof, In re Donaldson , 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MPEP §2111 (stating that “ applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation ” and that “ will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ”). Therefore, here, it is justified to consider the subject matter of Claim 17 comprising both hardware and software based on both the Specification – See, e.g. , [¶0127] and Applicant’s Response to the Non-Final Office action outlined supra , specifically each one processor of the required processors labeled as “ circuitry for ” in Fig. 9 requires an associated “ code module .” Regarding the second requirement of the §112(b) analysis, courts have been clear about whether the scope of a computer-implemented claim is clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art: for computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008), whereby Applicant may “ express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure ” – See Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc. , 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) but the algorithm must be sufficient to perform the entire claimed functions - – See Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302,1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (stating “[w] hen the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of multiple identifiable functions performed by a means-plus-function limitation, the specification is treated as if it disclosed no algorithm ”), specifically, a “ language [that] simply describes the function to be performed, [is] not the algorithm by which it is performed. ” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech. , 521 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, although the second requirement is an objective one, the requirement for the disclosure of an algorithm cannot be avoided by arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing software for the claimed microprocessor– See EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Applicant argues that “ the flow diagrams of Figs. 6-8 describe the sequence of operations performed by the wireless node ” and these “ flow diagrams provide algorithmic descriptions corresponding to the processor-executed functions recited in the claims ” – See Resp.,11:¶2, but there is no specific algorithm disclosed in any form for each of the functional limitations recited in Claim 17 and its dependent claims. Like in Aristocrat where the applicant argued that “ the language of claim 1 referring to ‘the game control means being arranged to pay a prize when a predetermined combination of symbols is displayed in a predetermined arrangement of symbol positions selected by a player’ implicitly discloses an algorithm for the microprocessor, ” i.e. , “ when the winning combination of symbols is displayed, the program should pay a prize ” – See 521 F.3d at 1334, here, the Applicant argues that “ the flow diagrams provide algorithmic descriptions corresponding to the processor-executed functions recited in the claims ” – See Resp.,11:¶2, i.e. , when a UE camps on a cell and loses service, it searches for service on the next cell. Therefore Applicant is stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function – See 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. To be fair to the Applicant and taking the statements at face value, the indefiniteness rejection under §112(b) is withdrawn. Next, Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) of Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 17-24 and 30 is improper because “[t] he present specification clearly describes a wireless node configured to utilize planned route information to determine MCCs associated with geographic regions along the route and to search frequency bands associated with those MCCs when certain conditions occur ” – See Resp., 12:¶4. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) of Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 17-24 and 30 has been withdrawn. Applicant further argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) is improper because Vutukuri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0349714 (hereinafter Vutukuri) “ do [es] not disclose a wireless node selecting frequency bands ‘based on the first MCC and the planned route, ’” as recited in Claim 1. However, Vutukuri clearly discloses that the “ planned route information that may be known to the asset tracking device 104 ” – See [¶0053] and is used by the assistance information “ useable by the asset tracking device 104 to more quickly or more efficiently gain access to the wireless access network as compared to a procedure to gain access to a wireless access network in the absence of the assistance information ” – See [¶0052]. Applicant’s argument against Vukuturi using assistance information – See Resp., 15:¶3 (stating that “ network scanning behavior of the device in Vutukuri is determined by instructions received from the remote service rather than by the device selecting frequency bands ‘based on the first MCC and the planned route,’ as required by claim 1 ”) is inapposite because Claim 1 language does not limit the “ searching . . . for service on the one or more first frequency bands and one or more second frequency bands associated with a second MCC ” further than “ based on the first MCC and the planned route, ” i.e. , does not require that only the device knows the planned route. Because Vukuturi’s assistance information to the tracked device is based on a first (present) MCC and the planned route, and “ may direct the asset tracking device 104 . . . whether or not to continue using the current RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency ( or service provider, such as a PLMN) ” – See [¶0059] and Table 1 showing MCCs on the planned route, Vukuturi explicitly teaches selection of the one or more first frequency bands and one or more second frequency bands associated with a second MCC based on the first MCC and the planned route, making Applicant’s argument unpersuasive 1 . Finally, Applicant argues that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Vukuturi in view of Pasumarthi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0383025 (hereinafter Pasumarthi) and over Vukuturi in view of Tang et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO2019000309 (hereinafter Tang) are improper because Vukuturi fails to anticipate the searching limitation recited by the independent claims. However, as explained supra , Vukuturi explicitly teaches the required limitation because the claim language does not further limit the searching to being without assistance information . Moreover, Pasumarthi specifically teaches “ auto-learning processes to improve the scan process based on the geolocation history of a user equipment (UE) recorded during out-of-service (OOS) and service recovery ” – See [¶0005] i.e. , searching of a frequency band based on a learned itinerary. Because the method in Vukuturi is combinable with Pasumarthi for reasons explained in the prior Office Action at page 21-22, a prima facie case of obviousness was made already there hence the burden of coming forward with evidence or arguments against the obviousness of the combination was shifted to the Applicant. To be sure, no such evidence or arguments were made in response. In sum, each of Applicant’s argument has been fully addressed but remains unpersuasive. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. Claims 17-23 will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as claiming features through functional language. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. To determine whether a word, term, or phrase coupled with a function denotes structure, examiners should check whether: (1) The specification provides a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the term denotes structure; (2) general and subject matter specific dictionaries provide evidence that the term has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure; and (3) the prior art provides evidence that the term has an art recognized structure to perform the claimed function. See MPEP § 2181 (I)(A) (stating that "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for" are examples of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f)). Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Here, each of the Claims 17-24 contains the term “means” followed by the modifier “for” without being followed, in each case, by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The Specification and drawings disclose “ circuitry for camping 915, circuitry for detecting 920, circuitry for searching 925, circuitry for limiting 930, circuitry for enabling 935, and circuitry for obtaining 940 ” and/or “ code for camping 950, code for detecting 955, code for searching 960, code for limiting 965, code for enabling 970, and code for obtaining 975, ” when processed, “ may cause the communications device 900 to perform the method 800 described with respect to FIG. 8 ” – See Spec.:[¶¶0127-28] and Fig. 9, and further disclose that “ the wireless node enables (e.g., tunes a receiver or activates a receive chain) frequency bands ” – See [¶0092] and “[m] eans for . . . obtaining may include transceivers 354 and/or antenna(s) 352 of the UE 104 illustrated in FIG. 3 and/or the transceiver 985 and the antenna 990 of the communications device 900 in FIG. 9 ” – See id .:[¶0129], and “obtaining” may reasonably include “detecting.” However, there is no further disclosure regarding the circuitry and/or code necessary for the camping, searching, and limiting functions, respectively. Furthermore, neither the subject matter specific dictionaries nor the prior art provides evidence that any of these terms, each known in the art, has an art recognized structure, be it circuitry and/or code, coupled together or acting independently, to embody the claimed function. Therefore, each of the Claims 17-24 will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means or step for functional claim, whereby the meaning of each claim term shall be consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, including identifying and construing functional claim limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4-9, 12-17, 20-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vutukuri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0349714 (hereinafter Vutukuri) . Regarding Claim 1 , Vutukuri teaches a method for wireless communications by a wireless node (method “ reducing the time involved in the asset tracking device 104 performing the tasks relating to the initial access (206 in FIG. 2) of a wireless access network ” – See [¶0074]) comprising: camping on a first cellular network on a first frequency band of one or more first frequency bands associated with a first mobile country code (MCC) of a planned route of the wireless node (“ scan to measure a received signal strength in a frequency band of interest ” and “ perform cell and service provider, e.g., public land mobile network (PLMN), selection to identify the best cell belonging to a preferred service provider e.g., PLMN and camps on the cell ” – See [¶0021], whereby “ a PLMN code [includes] a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC) ” – See [¶0042] on “ a planned route of the moveable platform 102 ” – See [¶0047] and Fig. 1); detecting a condition with the first cellular network after the camping on the first cellular network (“ if the expected frequencies are associated with RSSIs below the specified threshold, then it is likely that the radio environment of the asset tracking device has changed or the asset tracking device is not at the expected location ” – See [¶0103] e.g. , the device is out of the service it registered with); and searching, after detecting the condition, for service on the one or more first frequency bands and one or more second frequency bands associated with a second MCC wherein the one or more second frequency bands are selected based on the first MCC and the planned route (based on the “ planned route information that may be known to the asset tracking device 104 or the service 114 ” and other factors such as “ current location of the asset tracking device 104 , ” e.g. , current network coverage, “ a direction of travel of the asset tracking device 104, a time instance when the next asset tracking report is to be triggered (where this time instance can be a scheduled time instance) ” – See [¶0052] and Fig. 1, the device uses a “[p] rioritized, ordered list of RATs/frequency bands/carrier frequencies to scan ” which “ may direct the asset tracking device 104 . . . whether or not to continue using the current RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency ( or service provider, such as a PLMN), ” i.e. , the one or more second frequency bands associated with the first MCC – See [¶0059] and Table 1, showing the ordered list of service providers with their respective frequency bands 2 , and “[i] n the prioritized list of service providers, respective combinations of MCCs and MNCs can identify respective PLMNs ” – See [¶0060] and “ the asset tracking device may also only operate the wireless transceiver for the specific RAT mode that is available as indicated in the SAI ” – See [¶0101]; furthermore, “[i] f the asset tracking device knows the service provider/RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency of each network at the location . . . the asset tracking device may prioritize these in the initial cell search algorithm ” – See [¶0101]; therefore, using Table 1 as example, the device may select the first frequency band, e.g. , band “X” , at Company B, a second MCC, based on the first MCC/Company A having the same RAT technology, and the planned route, because Company B is priority MCC at the next location on the route) (emphasis added to show that the device knows the route and has a preference for frequency bands/carriers therefore makes a decision based on the route and the already used frequency band with or without assistance information ). Therefore, Claim 1 is anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 4 , dependent from Claim 1, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: searching for service on one or more third frequency bands associated with a third MCC after the searching for service on the one or more first frequency bands and the one or more second frequency bands (an “ ordered list of RATs/frequency bands/carrier frequencies is provided in Table 1 ” showing frequency band per PLMN access technology – See [¶0059], containing a “[p] rioritized, ordered list of service providers (e.g., PLMNs) ” for the “ the asset tracking device 104 to select a most preferred service provider in the event that multiple service providers are available on a given RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency ” wherein “ respective combinations of MCCs and MNCs can identify respective PLMNs ” – See [¶0060], therefore there may be three PLMN/MCCs in the list to choose from; furthermore, “[i] f the previous service provider/RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency is not available or if the asset tracking device 104 is operated in a mode where it always searches according to the assistance information provided by the service 114 (regardless of the previous service provider/ RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency used), the asset tracking device 104 searches for a service provider/RAT/ frequency band/carrier frequency in the priority order as indicated by the assistance information sent by the service 114 ” – See [¶0069], “ or by using the prioritized service provider list that is included in each profile on the asset tracking device 104 ” – See [¶0069]). Therefore, Claim 4 is anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 5 , dependent from Claim 4, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: camping, after the searching, on a third cellular network on one of the third frequency band (“ The asset tracking device can then perform cell and service provider, e.g., public land mobile network (PLMN), selection to identify the best cell belonging to a preferred service provider e.g., PLMN and camps on the cell, ” using, e.g. , a third frequency band for GSM access on the third PLMN and MCC – See [¶0021] and “ the asset tracking device can send reports as frequently as every 15 minutes when the moveable platform is in motion ” to a remote service – See [¶0025], and receive “ assistance information can be referred to as Server Assistance Information (SAI) ” – See [¶0052], e.g. , “ the service 114 can look for the available wireless access networks in location 2. According to Table 2, it can be seen that Company A, Company B, and Company C are the only service providers available in location 2, so the prioritized service providers for this location will be restricted to these service providers ” including “ operating carrier frequencies for networks operated by these service providers in location 2 ” – See [¶0093] and Table 3) detecting another condition with the third cellular network after the camping on the third cellular network (“ The service 114 may also provide information about a region (where there is no wireless coverage) that the asset tracking device may reach by the time of the next asset tracking report is to be sent. The asset tracking device can take this into account and avoid performing an initial access in this region ” – See [¶0096] “ depending on which actual location/sector the asset tracking device finds itself within when the asset tracking device is to send an asset tracking report ” – See [¶0094], i.e. , the third MCC may have a no wireless coverage patch at location 2, and the wireless tracking device detects it based on SAI and its own location capability and refrains from trying to access the third MCC in that patch) and searching, after detecting the other condition, for service on the one or more third frequency bands and one or more fourth frequency bands associated with a fourth MCC, based on the third MCC and the planned route (because “[t] he service 114 estimates the next location of the asset tracking device at the next scheduled time instance when the asset tracking device is to send the next asset tracking report ” – See [¶0093], at location 2, there are “multiple SAI records indexed by location. For example, a set of RATs/frequency bands/carrier frequencies may be provided for an area (sector) 15 minutes north of the current location, another set may be provided for an area (sector) 15 minutes east of the current location, another set may be provided for an area (sector) 15 minutes west of the current location, and another set may be provided for an area (sector) 15 minutes south of the current location ” – See [¶0094]; then the “ asset tracking device can retrieve the relevant location tagged SAI (e.g., in the form of a file, a table, or other data structure) in order to determine the parameters for performing initial access of a wireless access network ,” e.g. , on the one or more third frequency bands and one or more fourth frequency bands associated with a fourth MCC – See [¶0095] and Table 3, whereby the search will be based on the third MCC, i.e. , the MCC at current location with no wireless coverage, and the planned route, i.e. , the direction the device is moving to from the current location) Therefore, Claim 5 is anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 6 , dependent from Claim 1, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: enabling, after detecting the condition, the one or more first frequency bands and the one or more second frequency bands in at least one of a transmitter, receiver, or transceiver of the wireless node (“ The asset tracking device can keep its wireless transceiver (e.g., cellular modem or other type of wireless transceiver) off between the predetermined times at which reports are sent ” – See [¶0026] and, when “ the asset tracking device 104 turns on (at 302) its wireless transceiver, and performs (at 304) an initial access of the wireless access network using previously received assistance information ” – See [¶0072], whereby “[d] evice capabilities can include radio or network access capabilities of the asset tracking device 104, such as a capability to access certain RAT(s), frequency bands, carriers, etc., or a capability to perform certain access related functions that may be relevant to an initial access of a wireless access network, such as the ability to perform fast scan over an entire frequency band to look for RF channels with higher RSSI ” – See [¶0044] and Fig. 5, i.e. , the device radio is tuned to a first frequency band of one or more first frequency bands associated with the first cellular network, detects unavailability, then “ searches for a service provider/RAT/ frequency band/carrier frequency in the priority order as indicated by the assistance information sent by the service ” – See [¶0068], i.e. , tunes the radio to the frequency bands of the next network in the priority list). Therefore, Claim 6 is anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 7 , dependent from Claim 1, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps performed by the method of Claim 5, recited with the same language, wherein the third cellular network is the second cellular network, the third frequency bands is the second frequency bands, the fourth frequency bands is the third frequency bands, the fourth MCC is the third MCC and the third MCC is the second MCC, respectively. Because Claim 5 is anticipated by Vutukuri, Claim 7 is also anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 8 , dependent from Claim 1, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining an indication of the planned route before the camping on the first cellular network (an asset tracking report, includes “[r] oute information, which can include any or some combination of the following: a current direction of travel of the moveable platform 102, a past direction of travel of the moveable platform 102, a planned route of the moveable platform 102, a current speed of the moveable platform 102, and a previous speed (including a corresponding time stamp) of a moveable platform ( or multiple previous speeds along with multiple respective time stamps) ” – See [¶0047], wherein the “ planned route information that may be known to the asset tracking device 104 or the service 114, such as from a navigation system, logistics systems, and so forth ” – See [¶0053]). Therefore, Claim 8 is anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 9 , Vutukuri further teaches a wireless node configured for wireless communications, comprising: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (“ The asset tracking device 104 includes a processor 105, which can include any or some combination of the following: a microprocessor, a core of a multi-core microprocessor, a microcontroller, a programmable gate array, a programmable integrated circuit device, or any other hardware processing circuit ” – See [¶0035] and Fig. 1) and cause the wireless node to: perform the steps of Claim 1 3 . Because Claim 1 is anticipated by Vutukuri, Claim 9 is also anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claims 12-16 , dependent from Claim 9, each claim merely recites the same limitations as in Claims 4-8, using the same language, only applied to the device of Claim 9. Because each of the Claims 4-9 are anticipated by Vutukuri, each of the Claims 12-16 is anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claims 17 and 20-24 , Vutukuri teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: means for executing each one of the steps of the method recited in Claims 1 and 4-8, i.e. , means for camping on a cellular network in a frequency band (“ the asset tracking device may be able to gain access to the wireless access network quickly, by using any of the PLMN, RAT, frequency band, and carrier frequency that was last used ” – See [¶0027] and “ the asset tracking device 104 is able to communicate with different wireless access network nodes or with different wireless access networks ” – See [¶0033] and “[d] evice capabilities can include radio or network access capabilities of the asset tracking device 104, such as a capability to access certain RAT(s), frequency bands, carriers, etc. ” – See [¶0049]), means for detecting a condition, e.g. , a location in the network (“ the sensor 106 can derive a position of the asset tracking device 104 based on triangulation of signals received from wireless access network nodes ( e.g., base stations of a cellular access network or access points of a WLAN or other wireless access network nodes) ” – See [¶0030]) or a weak signal (“ the ability to perform fast scan over an entire frequency band to look for RF channels with higher RSSI ” – See [¶0049]), means for searching for service on one or more frequency bands on one or more MCCs (a “[p] rioritized, ordered list of service providers (e.g., PLMNs) ” wherein “ respective combinations of MCCs and MNCs can identify respective PLMNs ” and “ multiple service providers are available on a given RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency ” – See [¶0060] and “[p] rofiles supported by the asset tracking device 104, which impacts which service providers the asset tracking device 104 can access ” – See [¶0055]) and means for obtaining an indication of the planned route (“ planned route information that may be known to the asset tracking device 104 or the service 114, such as from a navigation system, logistics systems, and so forth ” – See [¶0053]), whereby logic drives cell search (“ If the asset tracking device knows the service provider/RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency of each network at the location where an asset tracking report is to be triggered, the asset tracking device may prioritize these in the initial cell search algorithm ” – See [¶0101]) and logic means to perform the steps of Claims 1 and 4-8 are “ machine-readable instructions [that] can be included in the asset tacking device 104 ” – See [¶0112]. Because Claims 1 and 4-8 are anticipated by Vutukuri and Vutukuri teaches the means of the wireless device to perform the method in each of the Claims 1 and 4-8, Claims 17 and 20-24 are anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claim 25 , teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions (“ it is noted that such a storage medium storing machine-readable instructions can be included in the asset tacking device 104 ” – See [¶0112]) that, when executed by a processor of a wireless node, cause the wireless node to perform operations for wireless communications, comprising: the steps of the method described in Claim 1 using the same claim language. Because Claim 1 is anticipated by Vutukuri, Claim 25 is also anticipated by Vutukuri. Regarding Claims 28-30 , dependent from Claim 25, each merely recites the same limitations as recited in Claims 4-7 using the same language, only applied to the device of Claim 25. Because each of Claims 4-7 is anticipated by Vutukuri, Claims 28-30 are also anticipated by Vutukuri. In sum, Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, 20-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Vutukuri . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 10, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vutukuri as applied to Claim s 1, 9, 17, and 25 above, and further in view of Pasumarthi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0383025 (hereinafter Pasumarthi) . Regarding Claim 2 , dependent from Claim 1, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the condition comprises the wireless node identifying a condition of weak signal (“ the expected frequencies are associated with RSSIs below the specified threshold ” – See [¶0102], or that “ the previous service provider/RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency is not available, or if the asset tracking device 104 is operated in a mode where it always searches according to the assistance information provided by the service 114 (regardless of the previous service provider/ RAT/frequency band/carrier frequency used) ” – See [¶0068]). However, Vutukuri does not explicitly teach the device detecting the condition of being out of service (OOS). Pasumarthi teaches “ apparatus, system, and methods for a service recovery scan process in wireless communication using auto-learning processes to improve the scan process based on the geolocation history of a user equipment (UE) recorded during out-of-service (OOS) and service recovery ” – See [¶0005]. Pasumarthi teaches that “ a UE may experience an out-of-service (OOS) scenario when the UE moves into an area with no wireless service or wireless services that are not supported by the UE. When the UE is OOS, it may perform a service acquisition scan or recovery scan to recover service from a network ” using a UE maintained database to “ keep or store information on wireless systems or networks that have been acquired successfully during a prior service acquisition scan. For example, the database may have the public land and mobile network (PLMN) code, frequency band, and RAT of each network ” – See [¶0055], whereby “ the UE may relate the OOS network to the recovery network using auto-learning principles such that the UE scans only the frequency bands of recovery network(s) corresponding to the OOS network based on the UE's geolocation (location) ” – See [¶0059]. Pasumarthi teaches the UE detecting the OOS state (“ the UE loses service from a network when the UE cannot receive, detect, and/or decode a communication signal (e.g., a control channel and/or a data channel) from a serving network in a predetermined period of time ” – See [¶0060]). Thus, Vutukuri and Pasumarthi each discloses a moving wireless device with known location detecting a condition with the current PLMN and frequency band and methods to scan for a new service provider and frequency band. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the UE detecting a OOS condition in Pasumarthi could have been substituted in, or combined with, the UE detecting a condition of lower RSSI in Vutukuri because both methods provide for recovery from the condition using a list or database with information about which PLMNs to scan for based on wireless device location and its history of travels. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution or combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution/combination achieves the predictable result of reducing power consumption on searching PLMNs/frequency bands by using a (recovery) list of preferred providers as taught in both Vutukuri and Pasumarthi. Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Vutukuri in view of Pasumarthi. Regarding Claims 10, 18 and 26 , dependent from Claims 9, 17 and 25, each anticipated by Vutukuri, each of Claims 10, 18 and 26 merely recites the same limitation as Claim 2, only applied to the device described in Claims 9, 17 and 25, respectively. Therefore, each of Claims 10, 18, and 26 is obvious over Vutukuri in view of Pasumarthi. In sum, Claims 2, 10, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vutukuri in view of Pasumarthi . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 11, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vutukuri as applied to Claim s 1, 9, 17 and 25 above, and further in view of Tang et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO2019000309 (hereinafter Tang) . Regarding Claim 3 , dependent from Claim 1, Vutukuri further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising limiting the searching for service to the one or more first and the one or more second frequency bands (“[i] f the asset tracking device knows the service provider . . . frequency band / carrier frequency of each network at the location . . . the asset tracking device may prioritize these in the initial cell search algorithm, ” e.g. , when “ the asset tracking device may also only operate the wireless transceiver for the specific RAT mode that is available as indicated in the SAI ” then “ the asset tracking device can operate its wireless transceiver in GSM only mode to avoid looking for cells of other RATs (which would an incur additional power penalty) ” – See [¶0101]). However, Vutukuri does not teach limiting the search for service in the known bands for a period of time after detecting the condition. Tang teaches method and apparatus for frequency band switching from 4G LTE to 3G or 2G, whereby “ the terminal acquires a priori frequency points ” and “ and each frequency point to be searched corresponding to at least one cell; if the terminal finds a cell that meets the camping conditions within a preset time period, the terminal camps in the cell corresponding to the priori frequency points . . . thereby shortening the search time of the terminal circuit domain fallback process and improving the success rate of the terminal circuit domain fallback ” – See [¶0008]. Tang further teaches that “[w] hen a terminal enters a new cell, it obtains and saves the prior frequency points according to the type of network the terminal is registered with ” – See [¶¶0054-57] ( e.g. , different SIB messages broadcasted in a cell carry a frequencyBandList parameter specific to the access technology 4 ); see also [¶¶0066-67] (“ historical frequency points are those that the terminal has successfully registered before the cell search process. After the terminal successfully registers on the network, it can automatically save the successfully registered frequency points on the terminal so that the frequency points can be used directly the next time the cell search is performed ” and “ to reduce cell search time, if the historical frequency points include frequencies that have already been searched, then when searching for cells that meet the camping conditions based on the historical frequency points, the frequencies that have already been searched will not be searched again ”). Tang teaches limiting the searching for service to the one or more first and the one or more second frequency bands for a period of time after detecting the condition (“ When the terminal falls back to the 3G network, the terminal first searches for cells that meet the camping conditions based on the 3G prior frequency points; if the terminal does not find a cell that meets the camping conditions, the terminal searches for a cell that meets the camping conditions based on the 2G prior frequency points ” – See [¶0060], e.g. , if “ the terminal finds a cell that meets the camping conditions within 2 seconds, it camps on the cell ” – See [¶0063] and “[i] f the terminal does not find a cell that meets the camping conditions within the first preset time period, the terminal will search for a cell that meets the camping conditions based on the historical frequency points stored on the terminal ” – See [¶0065], e.g. , “ the frequency points can be used directly the next time the cell search is performed ” – See [¶0066] and “ the terminal will camp on the cell corresponding to the historical frequency point if it finds a cell that meets the camping conditions within 5 seconds ” whereby 5 seconds is “ second preset time period ” associated with another frequency band retrieved from the historical list – See [¶0069], and “ the terminal can search for them one by one in a preset order ” – See [¶0070]). Thus, Vutukuri and Tang each discloses a wireless device meeting a fallback condition in the current PLMN and frequency band and methods to scan for a new service provider and frequency band. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the UE searching service to the one or more first and the one or more second frequency bands for a period of time after detecting the fallback condition, as taught by Tang could have been substituted in, or combined with, the UE falling back to the initial access procedure, as taught by Vutukuri, because both methods provide for recovery from a network condition using a historical list of PLMNs/frequency bands to scan for based on wireless device location and its history of travels. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution or combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution/combination achieves the predictable result of reducing power consumption on searching PLMNs/frequency bands by using a list of frequency bands already searched as taught in Tang. Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Vutukuri in view of Tang. Regarding Claims 11 and 27 , dependent from Claims 9 and 25, respectively, each anticipated by Vutukuri, the claim language merely repeats the limitations of Claim 3, only applied to the device of Claim 9 or Claim 25. Therefore, each of Claims 11 and 27 is obvious over Vutukuri in view of Tang. Regarding Claim 19 , dependent from Claim 17, anticipated by Vutukuri, Tang further teaches means for searching in different frequency bands (“ first search module 11021 is used to search for cells that meet the camping conditions based on the 3G prior frequency points ” – See [¶0149], and “ second search module 11022 is used to search for cells that meet the camping conditions based on the 2G prior frequency points if the terminal does not find any cells that meet the camping conditions ” – See [¶0150]), means for camping (“ second camping unit 1105 is used to camp on the cell corresponding to the historical frequency point if the terminal finds a cell that meets the camping conditions ” – See [¶0166]), means for determining movement (“ the motion vector prediction device ” – See [¶0171] and means for driving the logic of cell search and selection (“ program stored in storage medium 1408 may include one or more modules (not shown in the figure), and each module may include a series of instructions to be executed in the terminal ” – See [¶0172]). Tang further teaches means for the limitation recited in Claim 3 using the same language (“ the memory is also used to store historical frequency points and all frequency bands supported by the terminal ” – See [¶0176] and “ the processor is also used to obtain the frequency band where the historical frequency point is located ” – See [¶0177]). Therefore, Claim 19 is obvious over Vutukuri in view of Tang. In sum, Claims 3, 11, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vutukuri in view of Tang . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Abedini et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0306838 disclosing configuration for mobility history information associated with a visited cell; and transmit, to a parent node of the wireless node, a mobility history report, containing the mobility history information, based at least in part on the mobility history reporting configuration; Niemi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0119860 disclosing the UE performs a mobility registration type of procedure in the first network to restore at least one parameter which was initially stored in the UE when registered in the first network before switching to the second network; Yu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0159101, discloses network search method applied to a terminal device when the terminal device camps on a visited public land mobile network VPLMN; Sheikh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0113289, discloses adaptive cell searching whereby timing of the series of scheduled search instances is based on a time at which the UE entered OOC status and the cell search pattern is configured to cause performance of a respective minimum search rate of respective frequency sets; Ryu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0305118, discloses connection setup in wireless network; Zhang et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2023201753, discloses terminal capability information as bitmap, where each bit in the first bitmap corresponds to at least one country code and/or one spectrum range; 3GPP TS 23.122 V18.4.0 (2023-09), “Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) functions related to Mobile Station (MS) in idle mode (Release 18)”; 3GPP TS 38.331 V17.6.0 (2023-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)”; 3GPP TS 24.501 V18.4.0 (2023-09), “Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol for 5G System (5GS); Stage 3; (Release 18)” listing in Annex A.1-3, conditions/cause related to PLMN or SNPN specific network failures and congestion/authentication failures, subscription options and UE identification; United States Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0059] Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 (Request for Comments); Williamson v. Citrix Online , LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. , 6 F.4th 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software , 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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. /L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478 /JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 2 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 3 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 4 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 5 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 6 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 7 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 8 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 9 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 10 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 11 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 12 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 13 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 14 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 15 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 16 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 17 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 18 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 19 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 20 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 21 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 22 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/489,987 Page 23 Art Unit: 2478 1 Applicant “traverses this rejection with respect to the claims as amended” – See Resp., 14:¶4. However, no amendment was made to any of the originally filed claims. 2 See, e.g. , § 4.4.3, 3GPP TS 23.122 V18.4.0 (2023-09), “Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) functions related to Mobile Station (MS) in idle mode (Release 18)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 23.122), describing PLMN selection, including “ GSM frequency bands (e.g. 900, 1800, 1900, 400) are all considered GSM access technology, ” i.e. , 4 frequency bands in GSM access. 3 The language “ select one or more second frequency bands associated with a second MCC, based on the first MCC and the planned route; and search, after the wireless node detects the condition, for service on the one or more first frequency bands and the one or more second frequency bands ” is equivalent to “ searching, after detecting the condition, for service on the one or more first frequency bands and one or more second frequency bands associated with a second MCC, wherein the one or more second frequency bands are selected based on the first MCC and the planned route ” because a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that the device must tune into a frequency band before searching/measuring signal on a carrier in that band. 4 See, e.g. , § 5.2.2.4.2, 3GPP TS 38.331 V17.6.0 (2023-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331), describing UE actions upon receiving SIB1; although Tang discloses “frequency points,” a person of ordinary skills in the art could easily substitute the term with “frequency bands.”
Prosecution Insights