DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 6/12/2026.
Claims 16,17,19-27, and 29-35 are pending.
Claims 16,17,19-27, and 29-35 are rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16,17,19,20,23,25-27,29,30,33, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577
16. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
determining that an application on a device is using a cellular network interface of the device,
determining that an application on a device is using a cellular network interface of the device;
wherein the application is capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to a wireless interface of the device; and
determining that the application is capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to a wireless interface of the device; and
switching from using the cellular network interface to using the wireless interface of the device based on an available wireless network,
switching from using of the cellular network interface to using the wireless interface of the device based on the application being capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to the wireless interface,
wherein the wireless interface is switched from a low power state to a higher power state based on the available wireless network.
wherein the wireless interface is switched from a low power state to a higher power state based on an available wireless network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 to be based upon an available network rather than the capability of switching from one interface to another as an obvious variation. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of switching from one interface to another based upon availability of a respective network.
Regarding claims 17,19,20,23, and 25 of the current application, claims 2-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 substantially limits the same claimed invention, and although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they are of an obvious variation as noted above with regards to the rejection of claim 16 of the current application.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577
26. A device comprising: a cellular network interface for connection to a cellular network; a wireless interface for connection to a wireless local area network; and a processor configured to:
7. A device comprising: a cellular network interface for connection to a cellular network; a wireless interface for connection to a wireless local area network; and a processor configured to:
determine that an application on a device is using a cellular network interface of the device,
determine that an application on the device is using a cellular network interface of the device;
wherein the application is capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to a wireless interface of the device; and
determine that the application is capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to a wireless interface of the device; and
switch from using the cellular network interface to using the wireless interface of the device based on an available wireless network,
switch from using of the cellular network interface to using the wireless interface of the device based on the application being capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to the wireless interface,
wherein the wireless interface is switched from a low power state to a higher power state based on the available wireless network.
wherein the wireless interface is switched from a low power state to a higher power state based on an available wireless network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 to be based upon an available network rather than the capability of switching from one interface to another as an obvious variation. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of switching from one interface to another based upon availability of a respective network.
Regarding claims 27,29,30,33, and 35 of the current application, claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 substantially limits the same claimed invention, and although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they are of an obvious variation as noted above with regards to the rejection of claim 16 of the current application.
Claims 21,22,31, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 in view of Garg et al. (US Pub. 2008/0086528)(G1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 21 and 31 of the current application, claims 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 fails to limit the wireless interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state further based on the activity being detected on the keyboard of the device.
G1 discloses that electronic devices utilize display technologies and mouse-and-keyboard type interface for controlling a device [paragraph 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations of claims 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 for limiting the changing of a power state according to a component of a device to explicitly limit the use of a keyboard as taught by G1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known component for a device within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 22 and 32 of the current application, claims 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 fails to limit he wireless interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state further based on the activity being detected on the mouse of the device.
G1 discloses that electronic devices utilize display technologies and mouse-and-keyboard type interface for controlling a device [paragraph 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations of claims 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 for limiting the changing of a power state according to a component of a device to explicitly limit the use of a mouse as taught by G1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known component for a device within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 in view of Nicoara et al. (US Pub. 2012/0140651)(N1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 24 and 34 of the current application, claims 4 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 fails to limit the wireless interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state further based on a difference between the monitored location and a previous monitored location corresponding to an absence of wireless network being above a threshold.
N1, in the same field of endeavor, discloses switching to a cellular network when WiFi becomes unavailable or its signal strength is below a predetermined threshold [paragraph 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations of claims 4 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,577 for the changing of a power state according a location of a device to explicitly limit the use of a threshold for switching from one interface to another when there is a lower than normal signal strength for a particular network (i.e. absence of network) as taught by N1. One would be motivated to do so to reduce demand on a particular network [refer N1; paragraph 0075].
Claims 16,17,19-27, and 29-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271
16. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
determining that an application on a device is using a cellular network interface of the device,
monitoring activity of a first wireless network interface of a device for connection to a wireless wide area network; and
wherein the application is capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to a wireless interface of the device; and
wherein the second wireless network interface remains at a same power level in a case where the application causing activity is not capable to switch from the first wireless network interface to the second wireless network interface without disruption.
switching from using the cellular network interface to using the wireless interface of the device based on an available wireless network,
switching a power state of a second wireless network interface of the device from a low power state to a higher power state based on the monitored activity for connection to a wireless local area network;
wherein the wireless interface is switched from a low power state to a higher power state based on the available wireless network.
wherein the power state of the second wireless network interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state in a case where an application causing activity on the first wireless network interface is capable to switch from the first wireless network interface to the second wireless network interface without disruption;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 to be based upon an available network rather than the capability of switching from one interface to another as an obvious variation. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of switching from one interface to another based upon availability of a respective network.
Regarding claims 17,19,20,23, and 25 of the current application, claims 2-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 substantially limits the same claimed invention, and although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they are of an obvious variation as noted above with regards to the rejection of claim 16 of the current application.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271
26. A device comprising: a cellular network interface for connection to a cellular network; a wireless interface for connection to a wireless local area network; and a processor configured to:
5. A device comprising: a first wireless network interface for connection to a wireless wide area network; a second wireless network interface for connection to a wireless local area network; and a processor configured to:
determine that an application on a device is using a cellular network interface of the device,
monitor activity of the first wireless network interface; and
wherein the application is capable of switching without disruption from the cellular network interface to a wireless interface of the device; and
wherein the second wireless network interface remains at a same power level in a case where the application causing activity is not capable to switch from the first wireless network interface to the second wireless network interface without disruption.
switch from using the cellular network interface to using the wireless interface of the device based on an available wireless network,
switch a power state of the second wireless network interface from a low power state to a higher power state based on the monitored activity;
wherein the wireless interface is switched from a low power state to a higher power state based on the available wireless network.
wherein the power state of the second wireless network interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state in a case where an application causing activity on the first wireless network interface is capable to switch from the first wireless network interface to the second wireless network interface without disruption;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 to be based upon an available network rather than the capability of switching from one interface to another as an obvious variation. One would be motivated to do so to provide an obvious variation of switching from one interface to another based upon availability of a respective network.
Regarding claims 27,29,30,33, and 35 of the current application, claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 substantially limits the same claimed invention, and although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they are of an obvious variation as noted above with regards to the rejection of claim 16 of the current application.
Claims 21,22,31, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 in view of Garg et al. (US Pub. 2008/0086528)(G1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 21 and 31 of the current application, claims 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 fails to limit the wireless interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state further based on the activity being detected on the keyboard of the device.
G1 discloses that electronic devices utilize display technologies and mouse-and-keyboard type interface for controlling a device [paragraph 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations of claims 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 for limiting the changing of a power state according to a component of a device to explicitly limit the use of a keyboard as taught by G1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known component for a device within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 22 and 32 of the current application, claims 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 fails to limit he wireless interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state further based on the activity being detected on the mouse of the device.
G1 discloses that electronic devices utilize display technologies and mouse-and-keyboard type interface for controlling a device [paragraph 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations of claims 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 for limiting the changing of a power state according to a component of a device to explicitly limit the use of a mouse as taught by G1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known component for a device within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 in view of Nicoara et al. (US Pub. 2012/0140651)(N1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 24 and 34 of the current application, claims 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 fails to limit the wireless interface is switched from the low power state to the higher power state further based on a difference between the monitored location and a previous monitored location corresponding to an absence of wireless network being above a threshold.
N1, in the same field of endeavor, discloses switching to a cellular network when WiFi becomes unavailable or its signal strength is below a predetermined threshold [paragraph 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations of claims 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,678,271 for the changing of a power state according a location of a device to explicitly limit the use of a threshold for switching from one interface to another when there is a lower than normal signal strength for a particular network (i.e. absence of network) as taught by N1. One would be motivated to do so to reduce demand on a particular network [refer N1; paragraph 0075].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mathias et al. (US Pub. 2013/0210415) discloses a mobile device connected to a WLAN interface for data operations but remain camped on a voice capable network for voice data [paragraph 0033], such a voice capable network connection being cellular [paragraph 0040].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights