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 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramachandran et al. (Ramachandran), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0064884.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Ramachandran discloses a method, UE and system comprising: determining, by the User Equipment (UE) (having one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions) (see circuitry in figure 2) that at least one service (VoIP) is inaccessible over a first network (LTE network 102 may have limited or no support for voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP)) (0034); receiving, by the UE from a separate computing device, a connection interval value representing a time period for switching from the first network (the UE may maintain a configurable parameter timer (e.g., a threshold timer). The threshold timer, for example, may be adjustable by a user of the UE, configured over-the-air (OTA), set by the manufacturer of the UE, or set by the operator of the network) (0056); using, by the UE, one or more data services (Packet-Switched data services) accessible over the first network during the time period (UE 110 may be able to receive packet-switched (PS) data services from LTE network 102) (0034); disconnecting, by the UE, from the first network once the time period has elapsed; and connecting, by the UE, to a second network different from the first network (At 608, the UE may attempt the call setup procedure on the second RAT if the set period of time exceeds a threshold value. For example, the UE may search for a second Node B of the second RAT for setting up the call using information collected at the UE, and perform network acquisition operations with the second Node B) (0060).
Regarding claim 4, Ramachandran discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one service comprises at least a voice service that is typically accessible over the first network (times when the VOIP is available) (LTE network 102 may have limited or no support for voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP), which may often be the case for early deployments of LTE networks. Due to the limited VoIP support, UE 110 may be transferred to another wireless network of another RAT for voice calls.) (0034).
Regarding claim 6, Ramachandran discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the connection interval value is received via a periodic update (can read on when the value is sent OTA (The threshold timer, for example, may be adjustable by a user of the UE, configured over-the-air (OTA)) (0056).
Regarding claim 10, Ramachandran discloses the UE device of claim 9, wherein the first network comprises a public land mobile network (PLMN) (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ramachandran discloses the UE device of claim 10, wherein the PLMN inherently comprises an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network since the system uses VOIP (see 0034) and inherently a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (inherent to the telecommunication system).
Regarding claim 12, Ramachandran discloses the UE device of claim 9, wherein the first network is operated by a first carrier and the second network is operated by a second carrier that is different from the first carrier (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Ramachandran discloses the UE device of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise continuing to attempt to access the at least one service during the time period (the UE may determine whether to retry the ESR procedure after comparing the period of time determined by the network-configured programmable timer with a threshold value determined by the threshold timer.) (0056).
Regarding claim 17, Ramachandran discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more data services accessible over the first network inherently comprises a data service (VoIP) provided by an application server accessible over the first network (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Ramachandran discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more nodes are inherently implemented on an IMS network since the system uses VOIP (see 0034).
Regarding claim 19, Ramachandran discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the at least one service comprises a service provided by a separate network accessible over the one or more nodes (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Ramachandran discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the separate network comprises a PSTN (inherent to the telecommunication system) accessible over the one or more nodes (see figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 2, Ramachandran discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Ramachandran, however, fails to disclose wherein the UE operates in a packet-switch (PS) only mode during the time period.
The examiner, contends, however, that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramachandran with this feature as such a feature is a design choice and would require only routine skill in the art to implement.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ramachandran discloses the method and UE device of claims 1 and 9, respectively, as described above. Ramachandran, however, further comprising: determining, by the UE, that the at least one service is inaccessible over the second network; receiving, by the UE from the separate computing device, a second connection interval value representing a second time period for switching from the second network, the second time period different from the time period; and disconnecting, by the UE, from the second network once the second time period has elapsed.
However, since Ramachandran teaches that the UE receives a first connection interval value that represents a time period for switching from a first network and disconnecting from the network once the time period has elapsed, the examiner contends that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a second connection interval value to disconnect from a second network. Such implementation would be a design choice and would require only skill in the art to implement.
Regarding claim 5, Ramachandran discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Ramachandran, however, fails to disclose wherein the connection interval value is received after determining that the at least one service is inaccessible.
The examiner contends, however, that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramachandran with such a feature, as such a feature would have been a design choice and would require only routine skill in the art to implement.
Regarding claim 7, Ramachandran discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Ramachandran, however, fails to disclose wherein the at least one service is determined to be inaccessible over the first network upon receiving a response associated with the at least one service that includes an error code.
The network disclosed in Ramachandran does inform the UE that services are temporarily unavailable (If the ESR procedure initiated by the UE fails with the network informing that CS services are temporarily unavailable) (0056), but is silent as to specifically how the UE is informed. The examiner contends, however, that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to send an error code, as such a technique would have been a design choice and would require only routine skill in the art to implement.
Regarding claim 8, Ramachandran discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Ramachandran, however, fails to disclose wherein the at least one service is determined to be inaccessible over the first network upon failing to receive a response associated with the at least one service.
The examiner contends, however, that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a feature, as it would have been a design choice and would require only routine skill in the art to implement.
Regarding claim 14, Ramachandran as modified discloses the UE device of claim 13, wherein the first connection interval and the second connection interval are received as connection interval data (the UE may maintain a configurable parameter timer (e.g., a threshold timer). The threshold timer, for example, may be adjustable by a user of the UE, configured over-the-air (OTA), set by the manufacturer of the UE, or set by the operator of the network) (0056).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deivasigamani et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0353344 discloses an apparatus, systems and methods for switching between radio access technologies.
RYU et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0080007 discloses a service connection apparatus and method in a portable telephone.
Moore et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0155842 discloses a method and system for providing mobile wireless call failover.
Bae et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0305737 discloses a dual standby mobile device and communication method thereof.
Ito, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0122788 discloses a wireless communication system.
Ho et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0030354 discloses a method for selectively connecting a multi-mode mobile phone with a mobile communication network or wireless network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights