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 .
DETAILED ACTION
a. Claims 1-20 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
b. This is a first action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 12/13/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. They do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because unless the computer program product or the instructions stored in the medium executed by processor or computer hardware, the steps cannot be performed to the intended processes hence, such recitation lacks process, machine, or composite of matter, and are rejected as a transitory computer program product per se.
The claims are directed toward a transitory computer readable medium per se. It is recommended that claims 1-11 be modified as such : “… non-transitory computer-readable media…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas et al. US Pub 2017/0311198 (hereinafter “Monjas”), and in view of Karampatsis et al. US Pub 2016/0112896 (hereinafter “Karampatsis”).
Regarding claim 1
Monjas discloses one or more computer-readable media (“candidate switchable UE” [0038]) having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed, perform a method of utilizing a non-3GPP (“non-3GPP access networks” [0092]) interoperability network function to support network offloading (“The invention relates to mitigation of congestion in network traffic by offloading to non-3GPP access networks.” [0001]) to 3GPP networks (“Interworking of the ANDSF Server with rest of entities in 3GPP networks is also provided” [0091]), the method comprising:
receiving an indication (“congestion data”), from a fixed wireless access point (“network node for use as a Policy and Charging Rules Function, PCRF” [0038]) that is experiencing congestion, a user equipment (UE) has connected to the fixed wireless access point (“Optionally, the congestion data is received from a further network node for use as a Policy and Charging Rules Function, PCRF, the congestion data identifying one or more candidate switchable UEs that have a capability to switch to an alternative access network and an instruction to switch one or more of the candidate switchable UEs to an alternative access network, and wherein the alternative network determiner is configured to determine the switchable UEs based on a location of a candidate switchable UE and a location of an alternative access network.” [0038]);
detecting collocated cells or neighboring cells that are not experiencing congestion (“FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of a plurality of adjacent cells. FIG. 2 introduces the concept of one or more areas that are served by alternative access networks. In FIG. 2, a set of 3GPP cells A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H (served each of them by a base station) are shown. FIG. 2 also shows three areas 1, 2, 3 served by alternative access networks (e.g., WiFi hotspots). Thus, cell D comprises three different areas 1, 2, 3 also served by an alternative access network. However, although there are alternative access networks in cell D, not the whole cell area is served by alternative access networks. On the other hand, there is no area served by an alternative access network in cell E.” [0094-0095]); and
Monjas does not specifically teach determining congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point are above a threshold; providing instructions for the UE to: disconnect from the fixed wireless access point and connect to an alternate cell of the collocated cells or neighboring cells; or deprioritize Wi-Fi for a given amount of time.
In an analogous art, Karampatsis discloses determining congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point are above a threshold (“In an embodiment, the thresholds that trigger offload may be reconfigured by the ANDSF server for all or subset of WTRUs in the congested cells.” [0513]); providing instructions for the UE to: disconnect from the fixed wireless access point and connect to an alternate cell of the collocated cells or neighboring cells (“The source eNodeB 260 and target eNodeB 260-T may also be aware of the congestion load status of each cell through the X2-AP: A Load Indication message may be used to convey cell interference information. It may be proposed to enhance the conventional Load Indication message by including the congestion load information within X2-AP Load indication message. By conveying congestion load indication via X2, all adjacent eNodeB cells may be aware of the congestion status of each cell and thus be able to dynamically decide whether an adjacent eNodeB cell is less congested and thus initiate an X2-based handover request (or an S1-based handover request) procedure towards an eNodeB that is not congested.” [0449]); or deprioritize Wi-Fi for a given amount of time (“The RCF 268 may receive values of the retransmission threshold of each of the accesses and values of the retransmission metrics as policies. As an example, if the untrusted-3GPP (e.g., a 2 Mbps Wi-Fi) access 204.sub.3 is transmitting packets of 1000 bits, and the retransmission threshold of 250 retransmissions per second is satisfied (i.e., a large number of packets are retransmitted), the RCF 268 may decide to switch the packets to any of the 3GPP access 204.sub.1 and trusted non-3GPP access 204.sub.2, exhibiting a lower retransmission rate.” [0136] and furthermore “Examples of the policy access characteristics may include (i) “always”, (ii) “when macro-BS connection is the only one available”, and (iii) “when a trusted Wi-Fi AP is available”, (iv) etc.)” [0155]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks to include Karampatsis’ method for user-plane congestion management, in order to take the congestion status into account in deciding which traffic flows should be offloaded (Karampatsis [0511]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Karampatsis’ method for user-plane congestion management into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Karampatsis further discloses further comprising verifying congestion metrics (i.e. “congestion load status”) of the alternate cell are less than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point (“The source eNodeB 260 and target eNodeB 260-T may also be aware of the congestion load status of each cell through the X2-AP: A Load Indication message may be used to convey cell interference information. It may be proposed to enhance the conventional Load Indication message by including the congestion load information within X2-AP Load indication message. By conveying congestion load indication via X2, all adjacent eNodeB cells may be aware of the congestion status of each cell and thus be able to dynamically decide whether an adjacent eNodeB cell is less congested and thus initiate an X2-based handover request (or an S1-based handover request) procedure towards an eNodeB that is not congested.” [0449]).
Regarding claim 9
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas further discloses further comprising utilizing location of the user device to identify the collocated cells or neighboring cells (“wherein the alternative network determiner is configured to determine the switchable UEs based on a location of a candidate switchable UE and a location of an alternative access network.” [0038] and furthermore “An important point is that an entire cell may not be served by alternative access networks. In such cases, a UE in a congested cell may not be able to benefit from switching to an alternative access network, even if it is possible for other UEs in the same cell. This is shown in FIG. 2, in which UEs a, b, c, e, f, h, i are in locations in cell D that are served by alternative access networks, and could, if so desired, switch access network. UEs d, g, and j are in locations in cell D that are not served by alternative access networks and therefore cannot switch to an alternative access network even if desired.” [0095]).
Regarding claim 12
A method of utilizing a non-3GPP interoperability network function to support network offloading to 3GPP networks, the method comprising:
receiving an indication, from a fixed wireless access point that is experiencing congestion, a user equipment (UE) has connected to the fixed wireless access point;
determining congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point are above a threshold;
detecting collocated cells or neighboring cells that are not experiencing congestion;
verifying congestion metrics for an alternate cell of the collocated cells or neighboring cells are less than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless
access point; and
providing instructions for the UE to: disconnect from the fixed wireless access point and connect to the alternate cell of the collocated cells or neighboring cells; or deprioritize Wi-Fi for a given amount of time.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 12 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 18
Monjas discloses a system (“there is provided a network node in a telecommunications network. The network node comprises a receiving means, which may be a receiver, configured to receive congestion data identifying a congested area and one or more user equipments, UE, affected by the congested area.” [0027]) that utilizes a non-3GPP interoperability network function to support network offloading to 3GPP networks , the system comprising:
a user equipment (UE) (“candidate switchable UE” [0038]); and
an offloading engine (“The network node comprises an alternative network determining means, which may be an alternative network determiner, configured to determine one or more switchable UEs, amongst the identified UEs, that may be offloaded to an alternative access network.” [0027]) that:
receives an indication, from a fixed wireless access point that experiencing congestion, a user equipment (UE) has connected to the fixed wireless access point;
determines congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point are above a threshold;
detects collocated cells or neighboring cells that are not experiencing congestion; and
provides instructions for the UE to: disconnect from the fixed wireless access point and connect to an alternate cell of the collocated cells or neighboring cells; or deprioritize Wi-Fi for a given amount of time.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 18 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 19
The system of claim 18, further comprising verifying congestion metrics for the alternate cell of the collocated cells or neighboring cells are less than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 19 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 2. Therefore apparatus claim 19 corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Claims 3-4, 10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas, in view of Karampatsis, and further in view of Strasman US Pub 2022/0264371 (hereinafter “Strasman”).
Regarding claim 3
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas and Karampatsis do not specifically teach wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a cell level based on physical resource blocks utilization and buffer length of currently connected user devices.
In an analogous art, Strasman discloses wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a cell level based on physical resource blocks utilization (“The Scheduler of the eNB that manages that cell, then determines which pending cellular traffic to deliver to the UEs, and which pending cellular traffic to buffer locally at the eNB (e.g., until one or more PRBs become available, or until the cellular traffic congestion in that particular cell is alleviated).” [0016]) and buffer length of currently connected user devices (“The Applicants have also realized that in a cellular network that is non-congested, or in a cellular network path that does not have a congested cell, a UE or a communication flow or a communication connection typically has a Buffer Delay (BD) value that is within a particular range, or that is lower than a maximum threshold value; and the BD value increases or rises once cellular traffic congestion begins or exists. Accordingly, a Baseline BD Value Determination Unit 142 may measure BD values in general, to calculate (e.g., using an average) a baseline BD value for a cellular network that is known to be non-congested, or that is not known to be congested, or that is known to have no more than N concurrent (or recent) complaints or reports of congestion.” [0043]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks, as modified by Karampatsis, to include Strasman’s method of cellular congestion management without cell awareness, in order to benefit from remote and selective enforcement of the reduced bitrate limit (Strasman [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Strasman’s method of cellular congestion management without cell awareness into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas and Karampatsis do not specifically teach wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a quality of service class level based on physical resource blocks utilization and buffer length of currently connected user devices.
In an analogous art, Strasman discloses wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a quality of service (i.e. “QoE or QoS”) class level based on physical resource blocks utilization and buffer length of currently connected user devices (“when the system detects or determines that a particular UE is experiencing cellular traffic congestion, the system does not necessarily perform operations to directly assist that particular UE to directly mitigate its congestion; but rather, the system causes a modification of operational behavior of NIAs, running on that particular UE and running on other UEs in that may or may not be on the same cell; thereby causing IAs that run on that particular UE, and IAs that run on other UEs in that same cell, to consume such freed-up bandwidth or PRBs and increase or improve (or at least maintain, and not degrade) their own QoE or QoS.” [0070]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks, as modified by Karampatsis, to include Strasman’s method of cellular congestion management without cell awareness, in order to benefit from remote and selective enforcement of the reduced bitrate limit (Strasman [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Strasman’s method of cellular congestion management without cell awareness into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas and Karampatsis do not specifically teach further comprising retrieving congestion metrics of the collocated cells or neighboring cells from a gNodeB.
In an analogous art, Strasman discloses further comprising retrieving congestion metrics of the collocated cells or neighboring cells from a gNodeB (“gNB unit” [0022]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks, as modified by Karampatsis, to include Strasman’s method of cellular congestion management without cell awareness, in order to benefit from remote and selective enforcement of the reduced bitrate limit (Strasman [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Strasman’s method of cellular congestion management without cell awareness into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13
The method of claim 12, wherein the congestion metrics are based on physical resource blocks utilization and buffer length of currently connected user devices.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 13 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 4. Therefore method claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 4 rejection above.
Regarding claim 14
The method of claim 13, wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a cell level, a quality of service class level, or a network slice level.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 14 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 3 and 5. Therefore method claim 14 corresponds to apparatus claims 3 and 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claims 3 and 5 rejections above.
Regarding claim 16
The method of claim 12, further comprising retrieving congestion metrics of the collocated cells or neighboring cells from a gNodeB.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 10. Therefore method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas, in view of Karampatsis, and further in view of Yang et al. US Pub 2022/0417842 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 5
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas and Karampatsis do not specifically teach wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a network slice level based on physical resource blocks utilization and buffer length of currently connected user devices.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the congestion metrics are determined at a network slice level based on physical resource blocks utilization and buffer length of currently connected user devices (“For example, the DU processes a buffer of the resource or a resource block of the network slice (for example, allocates more storage resources to the network slice), selects a radio bearer for performing data packet scheduling (for example, selects a radio bearer with a higher priority to transmit a data packet in the network slice), adjusts a transmit power level or a receive power level required for sending the data packet in the network slice, and manages a resource block used in the network slice (for example, allocates the resource block to the data packet in the network slice, so that the resource block is used to transmit the data packet in the network slice).” [0139]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks, as modified by Karampatsis, to include Yang’s method of application layer measurement report, in order to meet a QoE condition of the user (Yang [0002]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Yang’s method of application layer measurement report into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas, in view of Karampatsis, and further in view of Masuda et al. US Patent 6201810 (hereinafter “Masuda”).
Regarding claim 6
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas and Karampatsis do not specifically teach wherein detecting the collocated cells or neighboring cells is based on a congestion metrics tracking component.
In an analogous art, Masuda discloses wherein detecting the collocated cells or neighboring cells (e.g. “congestion status of adjacent nodes D,E, J” in Fig. 10) is based on a congestion metrics tracking component (“A node G constituting a grid type network as shown in FIG. 10 is considered. First, the node G transmits a congestion status monitor cell (i.e. equivalent to a congestion metrics tracking component) to a node I at the self timing. The congestion status monitor cell transmitted from the node G to the node I contains the current congestion status of the node G at the head thereof while added with the congestion status of adjacent nodes D,E, J which are currently obtained by the node G.” col. 9, lines 6-19).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks, as modified by Karampatsis, to include Masuda’s high-speed routing control system, in order to determine a path candidate containing no congestion-occurring link specified as the optimum path from the plural path candidates (Masuda [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Masuda’s high-speed routing control system into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis and Masuda, previously discloses the media of claim 6,
Masuda further discloses wherein the congestion metrics tracking component (i.e. “a congestion status monitor cell”) tracks buffer lengths and ages (“The monitor cell which is collected by each connectionless communication device is provided with information indicating a buffer congestion status every output unit of the adjacent connectionless communication device, and a field indicating the Hop number of the connectionless communication devices through which the communication is passed until the communication arrives at the destination node. The field information is used for the aging judgment to suppress the advertisement to the outside of the adjacent areas by discarding the information when the Hop number of connectionless communication devices via which the communication passes reaches a predetermined number. In the aging judgment unit 52, the age field value is compared with the restriction value (a) of the Hop number being managed to make a judgment as to whether it should obtain and distribute to the other adjacent nodes, and selects one of holding and discarding.” Col. 6, lines 10-27) for the collocated cells or neighboring cells (“As shown in FIG. 6, the congestion status thereof is described at the head, and subsequently the information after the aging judgment in the adjacent area information collecting unit is inserted. The monitor cell is generated by the format thus formed. This is characterized in that the congestion information is described in accordance with the distance (Hop number) from the connectionless communication device.” Col. 6, lines 31-38; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis and Masuda, previously discloses the media of claim 7,
Masuda further discloses wherein the buffer lengths are determined by age of payload or size of payload (“The monitor cell which is collected by each connectionless communication device is provided with information indicating a buffer congestion status every output unit of the adjacent connectionless communication device, and a field indicating the Hop number of the connectionless communication devices through which the communication is passed until the communication arrives at the destination node. The field information is used for the aging judgment to suppress the advertisement to the outside of the adjacent areas by discarding the information when the Hop number of connectionless communication devices via which the communication passes reaches a predetermined number. In the aging judgment unit 52, the age field value is compared with the restriction value (a) of the Hop number being managed to make a judgment as to whether it should obtain and distribute to the other adjacent nodes, and selects one of holding and discarding.” Col. 6, lines 10-27).
Regarding claim 15
The method of claim 12, further comprising utilizing location of the user device to identify the collocated cells or neighboring cells.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 15 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 6. Therefore method claim 15 corresponds to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Claims 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas, in view of Karampatsis, and further in view of Garcia US Pub 2024/0373312 (hereinafter “Garcia”).
Regarding claim 11
Monjas, as modified by Karampatsis, previously discloses the media of claim 1,
Monjas further discloses providing instructions for the UE to reconnect to the fixed access wireless point (“the PCRF 302 determines S1518, for each congested location, the set of UEs that might switch access network in order to avoid the congestion and those UEs that cannot switch. For a UE that cannot switch access network, the PCRF 302 determines regular congestion mitigation policies and sends S1519 these congestion mitigation policies to the PDN GW 310.” [0205])
However, Monjas and Karampatsis do not specifically teach providing instructions for the UE to reconnect to the fixed access wireless point when the congestion metrics of the alternate cell are more than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point.
In an analogous art, Garcia discloses providing instructions for the UE to reconnect to the fixed access wireless point when the congestion metrics of the alternate cell are more than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point (“the execution condition might include the mobility pattern (position, speed, acceleration, schedule, route etc.) of the mobile base station and/or external factors/data affecting the position of the VMR (e.g., traffic lights status, congestion); (3) while executing the CHO, the UE might have to keep monitoring the source cell, in particular for the case in which the UE (e.g., a UE outside of the mobile base station) has to perform a subsequent handover back to the original source cell (i.e. reconnect to the fixed access wireless point); in general, a UE might need to keep monitoring a list of cells (i.e. to determine when the congestion metrics of the alternate cell are more than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point) that are expected to provide connectivity to the UE based on the mobility pattern of the cells.” [0136-0137]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks, as modified by Karampatsis, to include Garcia’s method for optimizing scheduling/transfer of data between terminal device and mobile access device, in order to improve download capability for terminal devices (Garcia [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Garcia’s method for optimizing scheduling/transfer of data between terminal device and mobile access device into Monjas’ method for congestion mitigation in telecommunications networks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17
The method of claim 12, providing instructions for the UE to reconnect to the fixed access wireless point when the congestion metrics of the alternate cell are more than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 17 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 11. Therefore method claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Regarding claim 20
The system of claim 18, further comprising providing instructions for the UE to reconnect to the fixed access wireless point when the congestion metrics of the alternate cell are more than the congestion metrics of the fixed wireless access point.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 20 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 11. Therefore apparatus claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411