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 .
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 41, 45, 48, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not originally support and/or inadequately describes the now claimed the prioritized band class data comprises prioritized 3GPP band class(es) data in an information element (IE) of an enhanced user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSPe) rule, and wherein the prioritized band class data is used when an access type preference of the URSPe rule indicates 3GPP or multi-access; determination of which of the portions of the rule data are applicable comprises an evaluation of the rule data against traffic descriptor data associated with application data or protocol data units to identify one or more rules applicable to the traffic descriptor data; and identify one or more conditions requiring performance of an additional prioritization evaluation prior to generation of the prioritization, wherein the one or more conditions comprise at least one of: (i) a need to establish or update a protocol data unit (PDU) session, or (ii) a need for the computerized user device to move to a new tracking area, and wherein generating the prioritization is based at least in part on results of the additional prioritization evaluation.
The Examiner cannot find support in the specification where Applicant’s attorney pointed out for these claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 41 states that the rule indicates 3GPP, 3GPP of what? System? Device? Commination protocol? Standard? The Examiner has no idea what Applicant is claiming.
Claim 42 states determining “prioritized band or spectrum allocations” and because of the “or” conjunction, there can be only a prioritized band or prioritized spectrum allocations and there are antecedent basis problems. For example, for determining prioritized band, there cannot be any implementing the prioritized spectrum allocations, and vice versa.
Claim 42 states determining “prioritized selection or re-selection” and because of the “or” conjunction, there can be only a prioritized selection or re-selection and there are antecedent basis problems. For example, for determining prioritized selection, there cannot be any basis the prioritized re-selection, and vice versa.
Claims 44, 46, 47, claim 44 states a “plurality of frequency bands or spectrum types” and because of the “or” conjunction, there can be only frequency bands or spectrum types and there are antecedent basis problems. For example, for frequency bands, there cannot be for controlling use of at least one of the spectrum types and vice versa. Claims 46 and 47 have similar antecedent problems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 44 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0306925 (Iskander, et al).
Iskander, et al disclose a computerized user device (figure 7, #700) for use within a wireless network (figure 1), comprising digital processing apparatus (#704E). At least one wireless network interface (#704 A-C) in data communication with the digital processing apparatus (#704E) and a storage device (#704G) in data communication with the digital processing apparatus (#704E). The storage device (#704G) comprising a storage medium having at least one computer program (claim 44). The at least one computer program configured to, when executed on the digital processing apparatus (#704E), cause the computerized user device (#700) to obtain rule data from a network entity (figure 6, #630, ¶67).
Iskander, et al reveal determines, based on a selection criterion, which portions of the rule data are applicable to a current context of the computerized user device (#700, 640, ¶67). Based on the applicable portions, generate a prioritization among a plurality of frequency bands or spectrum types (#40, 43-45, 49, etc.) and control use of at least one of the frequency bands or spectrum types according to the prioritization (¶54, 59).
Iskander, et al divulge the control of the use of the at least one of the frequency bands or spectrum types according to the prioritization comprises a performance, while the computerized user device (#700) is in an idle mode, of prioritized selection or re-selection of at least one of (i) a frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands or (ii) a spectrum type of the plurality of spectrum types based on the prioritization (figure 3, ¶45-49, 90).
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-27, 39, 40 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter and Applicant’s remarks can be found in previous Office actions and previous Applicant’s responses.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights