CTNF 18/661,688 CTNF 101547 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application claims priority to Republic of India Patent Application No. IN202321034104 filed May 15, 2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because as analyzed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as analyzed below. Independent Claim Analysis STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories. Claims 1-10 fall within a statutory category of process. Claims 11-20 fall within a statutory category of machine. STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites “ determining , by a processor of an apparatus, whether the apparatus is in a condition of having an ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain emergency services before an association between the apparatus and a core network of a wireless network for the emergency services is established; and determining , by the processor, not to perform a manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services before the association between the apparatus and the core network is established.”. These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 11 recites the same limitations of claim 1 with the addition of transceiver. STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements in claim 1, “ not to perform a manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services ” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim does not recite: A specific improvement to network technology A special configuration that yields a technical benefit Any operational interaction among components beyond their ordinary use Merely placing the abstract idea in a network environment does not amount to a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “determining” and “not to perform a manual selection” without any given implementation thus amount to observation and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claim does not amount to significantly more because: Generic processor does not constitute a “particular machine” No non-conventional technological implementation is disclosed No technical innovation in how emergency services status is detected or how manual selection is prevented The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Dependent Claim Analysis Claims 2 & 12 recites the additional limitation “in a manual network selection mode” These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. They contain a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as claim 2 & 12 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 3 & 13 recites the additional limitation “receiving, by the processor, an indication of a selected public land mobile network (PLMN); and initiating, by the processor, a registration procedure on the selected PLMN.” .” Processor is performing generic computer functions, see para 32 of specification, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as claim 3 & 13 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 4 & 14 recites the additional limitation “wherein the condition indicates that the apparatus is having an ongoing emergency services fallback procedure.” These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as claim 4 & 14 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 5 & 15 recites the additional limitation “wherein the condition indicates that the apparatus is being registered for the emergency services.” These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as claim 5 &15 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 6 & 16 recites the additional limitation “a packet data unit (PDU) session for emergency services; a packet data network (PDN) connection for emergency bearer services; and a packet data protocol (PDP) context for emergency bearer services or circuit-switched (CS) emergency call.” These limitations as drafted, contain a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network to establish emergency services, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as claim 6 & 16 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 7 & 17 recites the additional limitation “wherein the condition indicates that the apparatus is establishing the PDU session for emergency services, the PDN connection for emergency bearer services, or the PDP context for emergency bearer services or CS emergency call.” These limitations as drafted, contain a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network to establish emergency services, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as claim 7 & 17 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 8 & 18 recites the additional limitation “performing, by the processor, the manual network selection in an event that the ongoing emergency services fallback procedure is completed.” Processor is performing generic computer functions, see para 32 of specification, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as claim 8 & 18 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 9 & 19 recites the additional limitation “switching, by the processor, from a first mode to a second mode during the ongoing emergency services fallback procedure, wherein the first mode allows the apparatus to access the core network using an advanced radio access technology (RAT), and the second mode allows the apparatus to access another core network using a legacy RAT.” Processor is performing generic computer functions, see para 32 of specification, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as claim 9 &19 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claims 10 & 20 recites the additional limitation “determining, by the processor, to perform the manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is not in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services before the association between the apparatus and the core network is established.” Processor is performing generic computer functions, see para 32 of specification, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as claim 10 & 20 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-17, and 19 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V enkataraman (US 20230232299 A1 and Venkataraman hereinafter) in view of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #131-e C1-214385 E-meeting, 19-27 August 2021 (and 3GPPCR hereinafter). R egarding Claim 1 Venkataraman teaches a method, comprising: determining, by a processor of an apparatus (“The procedure may be performed between an application processor (AP) 1002 and a baseband processor (BB) 1004 of a UE, and a 5G network 1006, IMS 1008, and 4G network 1010.”[0116] and FIG 3 elements 302) , whether the apparatus is in a condition of having an ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain emergency services (“In 918, the UE 902 may provide a service request for emergency services fallback to the 5GC network.”[0106]) before an association between the apparatus and a core network of a wireless network for the emergency services is established (“In 914, a UE 902 may register for 5GS service with a 5GC network 906 via a next generation radio access network (NG RAN) 904. In 916, an emergency call may be initiated at the UE 902. In 918, the UE 902 may provide a service request for emergency services fallback to the 5GC network. In 920, the UE 902 may perform a RRC establishment procedure, with cause=emergency services fallback, with the NG RAN 904. In 924, the NG RAN 904 may initiate redirection or handover to evolved packet service (EPS) with an E-UTRA network (E-UTRAN) 910. In 926, the UE 902 may establish a packet data network (PDN) connection for emergency services with an evolved packet core (EPC) network 912. In 928, the UE 902 may perform an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) emergency session procedure, e.g., using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) messages, with an IMS server 908, to establish the emergency call.”[0106] and FIGs 9 and 10A) ; and determining, by the processor, not to perform a manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services before the association between the apparatus and the core network is established (“In 914, a UE 902 may register for 5GS service with a 5GC network 906 via a next generation radio access network (NG RAN) 904. In 916, an emergency call may be initiated at the UE 902. In 918, the UE 902 may provide a service request for emergency services fallback to the 5GC network. In 920, the UE 902 may perform a RRC establishment procedure, with cause=emergency services fallback, with the NG RAN 904. In 924, the NG RAN 904 may initiate redirection or handover to evolved packet service (EPS) with an E-UTRA network (E-UTRAN) 910. In 926, the UE 902 may establish a packet data network (PDN) connection for emergency services with an evolved packet core (EPC) network 912. In 928, the UE 902 may perform an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) emergency session procedure, e.g., using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) messages, with an IMS server 908, to establish the emergency call.”[0106] and FIG 9) . Venkataraman doesn’t explicitly teach not to perform a manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services. However, in a similar field of endeavor 3GPPCR teaches not to perform a manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services (“the manual network selection shall not be allowed when there is an PDU session or PDN connection for emergency services” see page 1) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Venkataraman with the method suggested by 3GPPCR . The motivation would be so that the user does not unknowingly select a PLMN (via manual selection) which does not support emergency services, resulting in the user not able to perform an emergency call, see 3GPPCR at page 1. Regarding Claim 11 , Venkataraman-3GPPCR suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in device form rather than method form. Venkataraman also discloses a device (”User Equipment (UE) (or “UE Device”)—any of various types of computer systems or devices that are mobile or portable and that perform wireless communications.” [0027] and FIG 3, element 106). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 11. Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 14, Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively as discussed above. Further Venkataraman teaches wherein the condition indicates that the apparatus is having an ongoing emergency services fallback procedure (“In 916, an emergency call may be initiated at the UE 902. In 918, the UE 902 may provide a service request for emergency services fallback to the 5GC network.”[0106]) . Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 15, Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively as discussed above. Further Venkataraman teaches wherein the condition indicates that the apparatus is being registered for the emergency services (In 920, the UE 902 may perform a RRC establishment procedure, with cause=emergency services fallback, with the NG RAN 904. In 922, the 5GC network 906 may provide an N2 request for emergency fallback (including security context if the UE 902 is authenticated) to the NG RAN 904.”[0106]) . Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 16, Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively as discussed above. Further Venkataraman teaches wherein the association between the apparatus and the core network for the emergency services comprises one of the following : a packet data unit (PDU) session for emergency services (“under any conditions when emergency services fallback is supported while on NR (whether emergency services over NR is supported or emergency services over NR is not supported), the UE may be configured to stay on NR, and as part of a service request for ‘sos’ PDU establishment, to indicate the service type “emergency services fallback””[0124]) ; a packet data network (PDN) connection for emergency bearer services (“In 926, the UE 902 may establish a packet data network (PDN) connection for emergency services with an evolved packet core (EPC) network 912.”[0106]) ; and a packet data protocol (PDP) context for emergency bearer services or circuit-switched (CS) emergency call (“For example, even if such a field indicates that emergency services fallback is supported, the field may not explicitly specify if emergency services are supported via fallback to EPC on same PLMN, via fallback to CS (i.e. circuit-switched) on same PLMN, 3GPPCR both.”[0107]) . Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 17 Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 6 and 16, respectively as discussed above. Further Venkataraman teaches wherein the condition indicates that the apparatus is establishing the PDU session for emergency services (“under any conditions when emergency services fallback is supported while on NR (whether emergency services over NR is supported or emergency services over NR is not supported), the UE may be configured to stay on NR, and as part of a service request for ‘sos’ PDU establishment, to indicate the service type “emergency services fallback””[0124]) , the PDN connection for emergency bearer services (“In 926, the UE 902 may establish a packet data network (PDN) connection for emergency services with an evolved packet core (EPC) network 912.”[0106]) , or the PDP context for emergency bearer services or CS emergency call. Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 19, Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 14, respectively as discussed above. Further Venkataraman teaches switching, by the processor (FIG 3, element 330 and FIG 5, element 570) , from a first mode to a second mode during the ongoing emergency services fallback procedure (“For instance, when a user dials an emergency call and emergency calling is supported via fallback to CS but not via fallback to EPC, a UE could perform fallback to LTE from 5GS service (i.e. first mode), including attempting registration on LTE, only to receive an indication from the network that IMS voice over packet switched (VoPS) service is not supported. The UE might then search for and camp on a RAT that provides CS service (e.g., a 3G or 2G RAT) (i.e. legacy RAT and second mode), and initiate the emergency call via the CS service. Alternatively, the UE might initiate Circuit Switched Fallback Procedure (CSFB) by sending an Extended Service Request (ESR) on LTE. Thus, in such a scenario, the UE may first fallback to LTE, then fallback a second time to CS service before actually establishing the emergency call.”[0107]) , wherein the first mode allows the apparatus to access the core network using an advanced radio access technology (RAT), and the second mode allows the apparatus to access another core network using a legacy RAT (“the 5GS network feature support IE may include an extended EMF procedure supported field (“eEMFSupport”) (e.g., a Boolean field) to indicate whether the extended EMF feature is supported, at least according to some embodiments. If set to TRUE (i.e. first mode), it may be specified that a UE shall ignore the existing EMF field (e.g., and instead recognize the new EMF-EPC and EMF-CS fields). If set to FALSE (i.e. second mode), it may be specified that a UE should ignore the new EMF-EPC and EMF-CS fields (e.g., and instead recognize the legacy EMF field).”[0109]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman (US 20230232299 A1 and Venkataraman hereinafter) in view of 3GPPCR and further in view of Agarwal (US 20220377694 A1 and Agarwal hereinafter) . Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 12 Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively as discussed above. Venkataraman-3GPPCR don’t explicitly teach operating, by the processor, in a manual network selection mode However in a similar field of endeavor Agarwal teaches operating, by the processor, in a manual network selection mode (“FIG. 2 illustrates an example user interface (UI) for performing manual selection of PLMN and registration type according to embodiments as disclosed herein. When the user decides to perform a manual PLMN selection, a list of available PLMNs may be displayed to the user.”[0068]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Venkataraman-3GPPCR with the method suggested by Agarwal . The motivation would be for when the user decides to perform a manual PLMN selection, a list of available PLMNs may be displayed to the user, see Agarwal at [0068]. Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 13 , Venkataraman-3GPPCR in view of Agarwal teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12, respectively as discussed above. Further Agarwal teaches receiving, by the processor, an indication of a selected public land mobile network (PLMN) (“At step 308, the UE may be triggered to the choose the selected at least one PLMN.”[0073]) ; and initiating, by the processor, a registration procedure on the selected PLMN (“At step 310, the UE may be triggered to perform a registration procedure using the at least one registration type supported by the selected at least one PLMN, upon selection of the at least one registration type by the user or the upper layers.”[0074]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Venkataraman-3GPPCR with the method suggested by Agarwal . The motivation would be for when the user decides to perform a manual PLMN selection, a list of available PLMNs may be displayed to the user, see Agarwal at [0068] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8, 10, and 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman (US 20230232299 A1 and Venkataraman hereinafter) in view of 3GPPCR and further in view of 3GPPStandard . Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 18, Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 14 respectively, as discussed above. Venkataraman-3GPPCR don’t explicitly teach performing, by the processor, the manual network selection in an event that the ongoing emergency services fallback procedure is completed However in a similar field of endeavor 3GPPStandard teaches performing, by the processor, the manual network selection in an event that the ongoing emergency services fallback procedure is completed (“the UE is in manual mode of operation…the UE shall attempt to perform the PLMN selection subsequently after the emergency PDU session is released.” see page 81) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Venkataraman-3GPPCR with the method suggested by 3GPPStandard . The motivation would be for performing efficient emergency services fallback in a wireless communication system, see 3GPPStandard at page 81 . Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 20, Venkataraman-3GPPCR teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively, as discussed above. Venkataraman-3GPPCR don’t explicitly teach determining, by the processor, to perform the manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is not in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services before the association between the apparatus and the core network is established However in a similar field of endeavor 3GPPStandard teaches determining, by the processor, to perform the manual network selection in an event that the apparatus is not in the condition of having the ongoing emergency service or attempting to obtain the emergency services before the association between the apparatus and the core network is established (“the UE is in manual mode of operation…the UE shall attempt to perform the PLMN selection subsequently after the emergency PDU session is released.” see page 81) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Venkataraman-3GPPCR with the method suggested by 3GPPStandard . The motivation would be for performing efficient emergency services fallback in a wireless communication system, see 3GPPStandard at page 81 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soliman et al. (US 201903947 A1) which teaches when the UE determines that the user is requesting a certain service which cannot be provided in enhanced coverage conditions. For example, when the user requests a voice call—especially an emergency call—, then the NAS layer triggers a PLMN search for a PLMN providing normal coverage. 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #107 C1-175324 Reno (USA), 27 November - 1 December 2017 which teaches allowing UE to exit manual PLMN selection mode due to emergency call. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm. 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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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. /IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647 /Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 2 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 3 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 4 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 5 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 6 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 7 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 8 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 9 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 10 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 11 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 12 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 14 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 15 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 16 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 17 Art Unit: 2647 Application/Control Number: 18/661,688 Page 18 Art Unit: 2647
Prosecution Insights