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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/10/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections to the claims are corrected by the amendment; therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments but firmly believes that the cited reference reasonably and properly meets the claimed limitation as rejected.
Applicant’s arguments: Under the 2019 Guidance, the first prong of Step 2A involves determining whether the claims fall within three "enumerated groupings of abstract ideas" found in previous guidelines: "mathematical concepts," "certain methods of organizing human activity," and "mental processes." If a claim does not "fall within" one of these categories, then a claim is likely directed to patentable subject matter. The Examiner contends that the claims represent a "mental process." Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The examiner’s response: The limitation of determining, based on the first information, whether to access the second network via the first node and in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (terminal device). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" and one additional element – using a processor and memory to perform determining step. The limitation "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of terminal device, processor and memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining procedure) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (terminal device). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" and by terminal device. The element amounts to obtaining data for a terminal device and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using terminal device, processor and memory to perform determining step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments: Jin fails to teach or suggest the claimed element of "in response to that a terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device," much less "receiving first information from a first node through a first network, wherein the first information comprises at least one of public land mobile network (PLMN) information of a second network supported by the first node, a core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node, a backhaul type of the first node in the second network, or a service type provided by a core network of the second network supported by the first node; and determining, based on the first information, whether to access the second network via the first node, wherein the communication apparatus is a terminal device; and in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device" as presently claimed.
The examiner’s response: Zisimopoulos discloses the claimed invention except in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device. However, Jin discloses system and method for network selection wherein 3GPP includes WiFi network selection using ANDSF. The WLAN selection includes public land mobile network (PLMN) selection which is selecting the service provider of the WLAN, and WiFi network selection which is selecting the actual WiFi network within one service operator ([0003]). At step 310, the UE starts the wireless network (e.g., WLAN or WiFi) network selection. At step 320, the UE checks if ANDSF policy is available. For example, the UE checks whether it can connect to an ANDSF server, e.g., before selecting and connecting to a wireless network. If the policy is not available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 325, where the UE uses an I-WLAN network selection (NS) mechanism and parameters (e.g., WSID list and PLMN ID list) to connect to a network, for example according to TS 24.234. Alternatively, if the ANDSF policy is available, then the method proceeds to step 330, where the UE obtains the ANDSF policy or looks for a stored policy (in the UE). The ANDSF policy includes Access Network Discovery Information (ANDI). At step 340, the UE runs the ANDSF policy and obtains the network information (with priority information) from the policy. Accordingly, the UE forms a candidate list. At step 350, the UE checks if an I-WLAN management object (MO) is available, e.g., stored or preconfigured on the UE. If the I-WLAN information is available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 360. If the I-WLAN information is not available, the method 300 proceeds to step 355, where the UE attempts to connect to wireless networks in the candidate list (according to the I-WLAN information) one by one in the order of the list. The method proceeds after step 355 to step 360. At step 360, the UE uses the candidate WSID list, according to the ANDSF, or adds this list in front of I-WLAN NS WSID list (if available) and performs service provider selection, e.g., PLMN selection, to find a final and best suitable wireless network ([0021]). Therefore, the combined teachings of Zisimopoulos and Jin disclose the claimed “in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”.
Re Claim 16, recites “in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”. The limitation(s) is/are contingent because the step of adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device only happen when the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node. The BRI of the claim requires no adding process to be performed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 16, 18-19 recite the following contingent limitation(s):
Claim 16, recites “in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”. The limitation(s) is/are contingent because the step of adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device only happen when the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node. The BRI of the claim requires no adding process to be performed.
Claim 18, recites “receiving the first information based on the second information when the device type of the first node is that the first node supports access to the second network”. The limitation(s) is/are contingent because the step of receiving only happen when the device type of the first node is that the first node supports access to the second network. The BRI of the claim requires no receiving process to be performed.
Claim 19, recites “determining to access the second network via the first node when a mobile communication network indicated by the PLMN information of the second network supported by the first node is a mobile communication network supported by a terminal device; determining to access the second network via the first node when the core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node is consistent with a core network connection type supported by the terminal device; or determining to access the second network via the first node when the service type provided by the core network of the second network supported by the first node comprises a service type required by the terminal device”. The limitation(s) is/are contingent because the step of determining only happen when a mobile communication network indicated by the PLMN information of the second network supported by the first node is a mobile communication network supported by a terminal device/when the core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node is consistent with a core network connection type supported by the terminal device/when the service type provided by the core network of the second network supported by the first node comprises a service type required by the terminal device. The BRI of the claim requires no determining action to be performed.
Art rejection for the contingent limitation(s) are provided for compact prosecution purpose.
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.
Claims 1-10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining measurement data for at least one terminal device, filtering the measurement data and determining at least one communication parameter.
Re Claims 1, 10, and 20, the claims recite an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The limitation of determining, based on the first information, whether to access the second network via the first node and in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (terminal device). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" and one additional element – using a processor and memory to perform determining step. The limitation "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of terminal device, processor and memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining procedure) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (terminal device). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" and by terminal device. The element amounts to obtaining data for a terminal device and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using terminal device, processor and memory to perform determining step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Re Claims 2-3, 9, claims recite additional receiving steps is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving second information from the first node", “receiving the first information based on the second information” and “receiving the first information and/or second information via broadcast or unicast”. The element amounts to obtaining data for a terminal device and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Re Claims 4-8, claims additional limitation of “determining to access the second network via the first node”, “adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”, “starting or restarting a timer”, “re-obtaining the first information”, “deleting, by the terminal device, the first node from the service list”, “sending a request message to the first node”, are limitations that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the terminal device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor and memory” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually deciding whether to access the second network via first node and “adding”/”deleting” encompasses the user manually adding and removing items in a list. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Re Claim 16, the claim recites a series of step or act. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The limitation of determining, based on the first information, whether to access the second network via the first node, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually deciding whether to access the second network via first node. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites "receiving first information from a first node through a first network". The limitation "receiving first information from a first node through a first network" is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving first information from a first node through a first network ". The element amounts to obtaining data for a terminal device and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Re Claims 17-18, claims recite additional receiving steps is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving second information from the first node", “receiving the first information based on the second information” and “receiving the first information and/or second information via broadcast or unicast”. The element amounts to obtaining data for a terminal device and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Re Claims 19, claims additional limitation of “determining to access the second network via the first node”, are limitations that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually deciding whether to access the second network via first node. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zisimopoulos et al. (US 2016/0286471 A1) (Zisimopoulos herein after) in view of Jin et al. (US 2014/0200000 A1) (Jin herein after).
Re Claim 1, Zisimopoulos discloses a communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (memory and processor [0107]), the operations comprising:
receiving first information from a first node through a first network (ProSe relay candidate 135-b may broadcast at least one ProSe discovery message 220 (e.g., in accordance with PC5-D discovery techniques). The at least one ProSe discovery message 220 may include a relay offer message 225 and/or a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) relay information message 230 [0055]), wherein the first information comprises at least one of public land mobile network (PLMN) information of a second network supported by the first node, a core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node, a backhaul type of the first node in the second network, or a service type provided by a core network of the second network supported by the first node (upper layer condition(s) may include, for example, a PLMN ID, a ProSe Relay UE ID, relay connectivity information, relay status information, an indicator of service continuity support, or a combination thereof. The MBMS relay information message 230 may identify MBMSs offered by the ProSe relay candidate 135-b [0055], Figure 3); and
determining, based on the first information, whether to access the second network via the first node (the UE 115-b may evaluate the received ProSe discovery messages with respect to the relay selection rule received at 210. In some embodiments, the UE 115-b may evaluate the received ProSe discovery messages to identify one or more ProSe discovery messages that comply with the relay selection rule (e.g., the UE 115-b may identify a first ProSe discovery message of a first ProSe relay candidate (e.g., the ProSe relay candidate 135-b), which first ProSe discovery message complies with the relay selection rule) [0056]), wherein the communication apparatus is a terminal device (UE 115-b [0056]).
Zisimopoulos discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1, except in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device. However, Jin discloses system and method for network selection wherein 3GPP includes WiFi network selection using ANDSF. The WLAN selection includes public land mobile network (PLMN) selection which is selecting the service provider of the WLAN, and WiFi network selection which is selecting the actual WiFi network within one service operator ([0003]). At step 310, the UE starts the wireless network (e.g., WLAN or WiFi) network selection. At step 320, the UE checks if ANDSF policy is available. For example, the UE checks whether it can connect to an ANDSF server, e.g., before selecting and connecting to a wireless network. If the policy is not available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 325, where the UE uses an I-WLAN network selection (NS) mechanism and parameters (e.g., WSID list and PLMN ID list) to connect to a network, for example according to TS 24.234. Alternatively, if the ANDSF policy is available, then the method proceeds to step 330, where the UE obtains the ANDSF policy or looks for a stored policy (in the UE). The ANDSF policy includes Access Network Discovery Information (ANDI). At step 340, the UE runs the ANDSF policy and obtains the network information (with priority information) from the policy. Accordingly, the UE forms a candidate list. At step 350, the UE checks if an I-WLAN management object (MO) is available, e.g., stored or preconfigured on the UE. If the I-WLAN information is available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 360. If the I-WLAN information is not available, the method 300 proceeds to step 355, where the UE attempts to connect to wireless networks in the candidate list (according to the I-WLAN information) one by one in the order of the list. The method proceeds after step 355 to step 360. At step 360, the UE uses the candidate WSID list, according to the ANDSF, or adds this list in front of I-WLAN NS WSID list (if available) and performs service provider selection, e.g., PLMN selection, to find a final and best suitable wireless network ([0021]). Therefore, the combined teachings of Zisimopoulos and Jin disclose the claimed “in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify method and system of Zisimopoulos, by making use of the technique taught by Jin, in order to improve the service connection efficiency.
Both references are within the same field of telecommunication, and in particular of wireless communication, the modification does not change a fundamental operating principle of Zisimopoulos, nor does Zisimopoulos teach away from the modification (Zisimopoulos merely discloses a preferred embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of success in that the modifications can be made using conventional and well known engineering and/or programming techniques, the service list technique taught by Jin is not altered and continues to perform the same function as separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly predictable result of in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device.
Re Claim 2, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving second information from the first node, wherein the second information comprises at least one of a device type of the first node, scheduling information of the first information, an update indication of the first information, a broadcast type of the first information, a load level of the first node, a priority of the first node, or a communication domain identifier of the first node (The relay connectivity information 340 may include a parameter identifying connectivity that the ProSe relay candidate provides (e.g., assigned access point name (APN) information). Because APN information can be long (e.g., 2000 bits), the relay connectivity information 340 may include an encoded index to APN information, to reduce its size [0060], Figure 3).
Re Claim 3, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 2, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the device type of the first node indicates that the first node supports access to the second network and that the first node does not support access to the second network; and the operations further comprise: receiving the first information based on the second information when the device type of the first node is that the first node supports access to the second network (in claim 2, wherein the second information comprises at least one of a device type of the first node, scheduling information of the first information, an update indication of the first information, a broadcast type of the first information, a load level of the first node, a priority of the first node, or a communication domain identifier of the first node).
Re Claim 4, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the determining whether to access the second network via the first node comprises one or more of: determining to access the second network via the first node when a mobile communication network indicated by the PLMN information of the second network supported by the first node is a mobile communication network supported by a terminal device (upper layer condition may include at least a public land mobile network identifier (PLMN ID), or a ProSe Relay UE ID, or relay connectivity information, or relay status information, or an indicator of service continuity support, or a combination thereof [0011]); determining to access the second network via the first node when the core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node is consistent with a core network connection type supported by the terminal device; or determining to access the second network via the first node when the service type provided by the core network of the second network supported by the first node comprises a service type required by the terminal device.
Re Claim 5, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1, Jin discloses wherein the operations further comprise: adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device when the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, wherein the service list is used to record a trusted grant node for the terminal device to access the second network (At step 310, the UE starts the wireless network (e.g., WLAN or WiFi) network selection. At step 320, the UE checks if ANDSF policy is available. For example, the UE checks whether it can connect to an ANDSF server, e.g., before selecting and connecting to a wireless network. If the policy is not available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 325, where the UE uses an I-WLAN network selection (NS) mechanism and parameters (e.g., WSID list and PLMN ID list) to connect to a network, for example according to TS 24.234. Alternatively, if the ANDSF policy is available, then the method proceeds to step 330, where the UE obtains the ANDSF policy or looks for a stored policy (in the UE). The ANDSF policy includes Access Network Discovery Information (ANDI). At step 340, the UE runs the ANDSF policy and obtains the network information (with priority information) from the policy. Accordingly, the UE forms a candidate list. At step 350, the UE checks if an I-WLAN management object (MO) is available, e.g., stored or preconfigured on the UE. If the I-WLAN information is available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 360. If the I-WLAN information is not available, the method 300 proceeds to step 355, where the UE attempts to connect to wireless networks in the candidate list (according to the I-WLAN information) one by one in the order of the list [0021]).
Re Claim 6, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 5, Jin discloses wherein the first information further comprises preset duration; and the operations further comprise:
starting or restarting a timer when the terminal device adds the first node to the service list, or when the terminal device receives scheduling information for a service or a traffic of the second network, or when the terminal device receives a service or a traffic of the second network, or when the terminal device sends a service or a traffic to the second network; and re-obtaining the first information and/or the second information after duration of the timer exceeds the preset duration (Upon losing the connection, the UE starts the timer Z at step 420. As step 430, the UE checks whether the UE connects to a wireless network (e.g., a WLAN), after the loss of the last connection. If the UE did not connect yet to a wireless network, the step 430 is repeated, as long as the timer Z is running Within the time interval Z, the UE can obtain the network selection parameters, such as WLAN specific identifiers (WSIDs) using the ANDSF. If the UE establishes a connection to a wireless network, then the timer Z is stopped and cleared at step 440. Alternatively, at step 450, the timer Z expires (is not stopped or cleared at step 440). At step 460, upon the Z timer expiring, the UE uses the I-WLAN NS mechanism and parameters (e.g., WSID list and PLMN ID list) to conduct a more comprehensive wireless (e.g., WLAN) network selection including PLMN [0022]).
Re Claim 8, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the operations further comprise: sending a request message to the first node, wherein the request message is used to request the first information (MBMS relay information message 400 may include a number of ProSe discovery message identifiers (IDs) 405 or MBMS relay information 410. The ProSe discovery message IDs 405 may include types of identifiers that are common to all ProSe discovery messages, and may include, for example, a message type 415 and a discovery type 420. In accordance with 3GPP Specification TS 24.334, and by way of example, the message type 415 may be an announcement (Model A) or a solicitation/response (Model B) [0063]).
Re Claim 9, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving the first information and/or the second information via broadcast or unicast (ProSe relay candidate 135-b may broadcast at least one ProSe discovery message 220 (e.g., in accordance with PC5-D discovery techniques). The at least one ProSe discovery message 220 may include a relay offer message 225 and/or a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) relay information message 230 [0055]).
Re Claim 10, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the first network is a short-range communication network (ProSe relay candidates may relay communications between a base station 105 and UE 115 when the UE 115 is operated outside the coverage area of any base station 105 [0050]), and the second network is a cellular network or a macro coverage network (LTE/LTE-A communications between ProSe relay candidates 135 and base stations 105 may be made over Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS) air interfaces, also known as Uu interfaces [0050]).
Re Claim 11, Zisimopoulos discloses a communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor (memory and processor [0156]), cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
sending first information to a second node through a first network, wherein the first information comprises at least one of public land mobile network (PLMN) information of a second network supported by a first node, a core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node, a backhaul type of the first node in the second network, or a service type provided by a core network of the second network supported by the first node, and the first information is used by the second node to determine whether to access the second network via the first node (ProSe relay candidate 135-b may broadcast at least one ProSe discovery message 220 (e.g., in accordance with PC5-D discovery techniques). The at least one ProSe discovery message 220 may include a relay offer message 225 and/or a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) relay information message 230. The relay offer message 225 may include at least one relay radio layer condition and/or at least one upper layer condition. The relay radio condition(s) may include, for example, a relay-to-network RSRP, a relay-to-network RSRQ, a PRI of the ProSe relay candidate 135-b, or a combination thereof. The upper layer condition(s) may include, for example, a PLMN ID, a ProSe Relay UE ID, relay connectivity information, relay status information, an indicator of service continuity support, or a combination thereof. The MBMS relay information message 230 may identify MBMSs offered by the ProSe relay candidate 135-b. [0055]), wherein the communication apparatus is a terminal device (UE 115-b [0056]).
Zisimopoulos discloses claimed invention, except in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device. However, Jin discloses system and method for network selection wherein 3GPP includes WiFi network selection using ANDSF. The WLAN selection includes public land mobile network (PLMN) selection which is selecting the service provider of the WLAN, and WiFi network selection which is selecting the actual WiFi network within one service operator ([0003]). At step 310, the UE starts the wireless network (e.g., WLAN or WiFi) network selection. At step 320, the UE checks if ANDSF policy is available. For example, the UE checks whether it can connect to an ANDSF server, e.g., before selecting and connecting to a wireless network. If the policy is not available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 325, where the UE uses an I-WLAN network selection (NS) mechanism and parameters (e.g., WSID list and PLMN ID list) to connect to a network, for example according to TS 24.234. Alternatively, if the ANDSF policy is available, then the method proceeds to step 330, where the UE obtains the ANDSF policy or looks for a stored policy (in the UE). The ANDSF policy includes Access Network Discovery Information (ANDI). At step 340, the UE runs the ANDSF policy and obtains the network information (with priority information) from the policy. Accordingly, the UE forms a candidate list. At step 350, the UE checks if an I-WLAN management object (MO) is available, e.g., stored or preconfigured on the UE. If the I-WLAN information is available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 360. If the I-WLAN information is not available, the method 300 proceeds to step 355, where the UE attempts to connect to wireless networks in the candidate list (according to the I-WLAN information) one by one in the order of the list. The method proceeds after step 355 to step 360. At step 360, the UE uses the candidate WSID list, according to the ANDSF, or adds this list in front of I-WLAN NS WSID list (if available) and performs service provider selection, e.g., PLMN selection, to find a final and best suitable wireless network ([0021]). Therefore, the combined teachings of Zisimopoulos and Jin disclose the claimed “in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify method and system of Zisimopoulos, by making use of the technique taught by Jin, in order to improve the service connection efficiency.
Both references are within the same field of telecommunication, and in particular of wireless communication, the modification does not change a fundamental operating principle of Zisimopoulos, nor does Zisimopoulos teach away from the modification (Zisimopoulos merely discloses a preferred embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of success in that the modifications can be made using conventional and well known engineering and/or programming techniques, the service list technique taught by Jin is not altered and continues to perform the same function as separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly predictable result of in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device.
Re Claim 12, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
sending second information to the second node, wherein the second information comprises at least one of a device type of the first node, scheduling information of the first information, an update indication of the first information, a broadcast type of the first information, a load level of the first node, a priority of the first node, or a communication domain identifier of the first node, wherein the second information is used by the second node to determine whether to receive the first information (The relay connectivity information 340 may include a parameter identifying connectivity that the ProSe relay candidate provides (e.g., assigned access point name (APN) information). Because APN information can be long (e.g., 2000 bits), the relay connectivity information 340 may include an encoded index to APN information, to reduce its size [0060], Figure 3).
Re Claim 13, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request message from the second node, wherein the request message is used to request the first information (MBMS relay information message 400 may include a number of ProSe discovery message identifiers (IDs) 405 or MBMS relay information 410. The ProSe discovery message IDs 405 may include types of identifiers that are common to all ProSe discovery messages, and may include, for example, a message type 415 and a discovery type 420. In accordance with 3GPP Specification TS 24.334, and by way of example, the message type 415 may be an announcement (Model A) or a solicitation/response (Model B) [0063]).
Re Claim 14, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the operations further comprise: sending the first information and/or the second information to the second node via broadcast or unicast (ProSe relay candidate 135-b may broadcast at least one ProSe discovery message 220 (e.g., in accordance with PC5-D discovery techniques). The at least one ProSe discovery message 220 may include a relay offer message 225 and/or a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) relay information message 230 [0055]).
Re Claim 15, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 11, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the first network is a short-range communication network (ProSe relay candidates may relay communications between a base station 105 and UE 115 when the UE 115 is operated outside the coverage area of any base station 105 [0050]), and the second network is a cellular network or a macro coverage network (LTE/LTE-A communications between ProSe relay candidates 135 and base stations 105 may be made over Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS) air interfaces, also known as Uu interfaces [0050]).
Re Claim 16, Zisimopoulos discloses a method performed by a terminal device, comprising:
receiving first information from a first node through a first network, wherein the first information comprises at least one of public land mobile network (PLMN) information of a second network supported by the first node, a core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node, a backhaul type of the first node in the second network, or a service type provided by a core network of the second network supported by the first node (ProSe relay candidate 135-b may broadcast at least one ProSe discovery message 220 (e.g., in accordance with PC5-D discovery techniques). The at least one ProSe discovery message 220 may include a relay offer message 225 and/or a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) relay information message 230 [0055]), wherein the first information comprises at least one of public land mobile network (PLMN) information of a second network supported by the first node, a core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node, a backhaul type of the first node in the second network, or a service type provided by a core network of the second network supported by the first node (upper layer condition(s) may include, for example, a PLMN ID, a ProSe Relay UE ID, relay connectivity information, relay status information, an indicator of service continuity support, or a combination thereof. The MBMS relay information message 230 may identify MBMSs offered by the ProSe relay candidate 135-b [0055], Figure 3); and
determining, based on the first information, whether to access the second network via the first node (the UE 115-b may evaluate the received ProSe discovery messages with respect to the relay selection rule received at 210. In some embodiments, the UE 115-b may evaluate the received ProSe discovery messages to identify one or more ProSe discovery messages that comply with the relay selection rule (e.g., the UE 115-b may identify a first ProSe discovery message of a first ProSe relay candidate (e.g., the ProSe relay candidate 135-b), which first ProSe discovery message complies with the relay selection rule) [0056]).
Zisimopoulos discloses claimed invention, except in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device. However, Jin discloses system and method for network selection wherein 3GPP includes WiFi network selection using ANDSF. The WLAN selection includes public land mobile network (PLMN) selection which is selecting the service provider of the WLAN, and WiFi network selection which is selecting the actual WiFi network within one service operator ([0003]). At step 310, the UE starts the wireless network (e.g., WLAN or WiFi) network selection. At step 320, the UE checks if ANDSF policy is available. For example, the UE checks whether it can connect to an ANDSF server, e.g., before selecting and connecting to a wireless network. If the policy is not available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 325, where the UE uses an I-WLAN network selection (NS) mechanism and parameters (e.g., WSID list and PLMN ID list) to connect to a network, for example according to TS 24.234. Alternatively, if the ANDSF policy is available, then the method proceeds to step 330, where the UE obtains the ANDSF policy or looks for a stored policy (in the UE). The ANDSF policy includes Access Network Discovery Information (ANDI). At step 340, the UE runs the ANDSF policy and obtains the network information (with priority information) from the policy. Accordingly, the UE forms a candidate list. At step 350, the UE checks if an I-WLAN management object (MO) is available, e.g., stored or preconfigured on the UE. If the I-WLAN information is available, then the method 300 proceeds to step 360. If the I-WLAN information is not available, the method 300 proceeds to step 355, where the UE attempts to connect to wireless networks in the candidate list (according to the I-WLAN information) one by one in the order of the list. The method proceeds after step 355 to step 360. At step 360, the UE uses the candidate WSID list, according to the ANDSF, or adds this list in front of I-WLAN NS WSID list (if available) and performs service provider selection, e.g., PLMN selection, to find a final and best suitable wireless network ([0021]). Therefore, the combined teachings of Zisimopoulos and Jin disclose the claimed “in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify method and system of Zisimopoulos, by making use of the technique taught by Jin, in order to improve the service connection efficiency.
Both references are within the same field of telecommunication, and in particular of wireless communication, the modification does not change a fundamental operating principle of Zisimopoulos, nor does Zisimopoulos teach away from the modification (Zisimopoulos merely discloses a preferred embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of success in that the modifications can be made using conventional and well known engineering and/or programming techniques, the service list technique taught by Jin is not altered and continues to perform the same function as separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly predictable result of in response to that the terminal device determines to access the second network via the first node, adding the first node to a service list of the terminal device.
Re Claim 17, the combined teachings disclose the method according to claim 16, Zisimopoulos discloses further comprising:
receiving second information from the first node, wherein the second information comprises at least one of a device type of the first node, scheduling information of the first information, an update indication of the first information, a broadcast type of the first information, a load level of the first node, a priority of the first node, or a communication domain identifier of the first node (The relay connectivity information 340 may include a parameter identifying connectivity that the ProSe relay candidate provides (e.g., assigned access point name (APN) information). Because APN information can be long (e.g., 2000 bits), the relay connectivity information 340 may include an encoded index to APN information, to reduce its size [0060], Figure 3).
Re Claim 18, the combined teachings disclose the method according to claim 17, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the device type of the first node indicates that the first node supports access to the second network and that the first node does not support access to the second network; and the method further comprises: receiving the first information based on the second information when the device type of the first node is that the first node supports access to the second network (in claim 2, wherein the second information comprises at least one of a device type of the first node, scheduling information of the first information, an update indication of the first information, a broadcast type of the first information, a load level of the first node, a priority of the first node, or a communication domain identifier of the first node).
Re Claim 19, the combined teachings disclose the method according to claim 16, Zisimopoulos discloses wherein the determining whether to access the second network via the first node comprises one or more of: determining to access the second network via the first node when a mobile communication network indicated by the PLMN information of the second network supported by the first node is a mobile communication network supported by a terminal device (upper layer condition may include at least a public land mobile network identifier (PLMN ID), or a ProSe Relay UE ID, or relay connectivity information, or relay status information, or an indicator of service continuity support, or a combination thereof [0011]); determining to access the second network via the first node when the core network connection type of the second network supported by the first node is consistent with a core network connection type supported by the terminal device; or determining to access the second network via the first node when the service type provided by the core network of the second network supported by the first node comprises a service type required by the terminal device.
Re Claim 20, the combined teachings disclose the method according to claim 16, Jin discloses wherein the service list is used to record a trusted grant node for the terminal device to access the second network (The method proceeds after step 355 to step 360. At step 360, the UE uses the candidate WSID list, according to the ANDSF, or adds this list in front of I-WLAN NS WSID list (if available) and performs service provider selection, e.g., PLMN selection, to find a final and best suitable wireless network. The method 300 may also be implemented using any other suitable wireless network selection function provided by a network, instead of the ANDSF, and any other suitable service provider selection, instead of I-WLAN policy [0021]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zisimopoulos et al. (US 2016/0286471 A1) (Zisimopoulos herein after) and Jin et al. (US 2014/0200000 A1) (Jin herein after), further in view of Vivien (US 2018/0124461 A1).
Re Claim 7, the combined teachings disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 5, except wherein the operations further comprise: deleting, by the terminal device, the first node from the service list when the terminal device is disconnected from the second network or the terminal device does not obtain the service of the second network within the preset duration; and releasing a resource and a quality of service QoS policy associated with the second network.
However, Vivien discloses a communication system wherein managing device deletes the list of local services available for each communication device that the managing device has detected as being disconnected from the communication network ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify method and system of the combined teachings, by making use of the technique taught by Vivien, in order to improve the service connection efficiency.
Both references are within the same field of telecommunication, and in particular of wireless communication, the modification does not change a fundamental operating principle of the combined teachings, nor does the combined teachings teach away from the modification (the combined teachings merely discloses a preferred embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of success in that the modifications can be made using conventional and well known engineering and/or programming techniques, the service list editing process taught by Vivien is not altered and continues to perform the same function as separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly predictable result of wherein the operations further comprise: deleting, by the terminal device, the first node from the service list when the terminal device is disconnected from the second network or the terminal device does not obtain the service of the second network within the preset duration; and releasing a resource and a quality of service QoS policy associated with the second network.
Conclusion
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 KENNETH T LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1862. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/KENNETH T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights