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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 8/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claims 1 recites “configuring, on a client device, a first profile and a second profile; configuring the client device with a set of network profiles associated with a plurality of networks; querying a user of the client device for a profile choice for one of the plurality of networks; and associating with the one of the plurality of networks according to the profile choice provide by the user.” The relationship between the recited “a first profile”, “a second profile”, “a set of network profiles”, and “a profile choice” cannot be definitely determined. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any relationship. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected.
b) Claim 4 recites “wherein the profile choice comprises at least one of the first profile, the second profile, both the first profile and the second profile, and a sequence”. The scope of “a sequence” cannot be definitely determined in the context of a profile. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any profile. Claims 7 and 13 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Luo et al (“Integrating Wireless LAN and Cellular Data for the Enterprise”, submitted by IDS).
As to claim 1, Luo discloses a method comprising:
configuring, on a client device, a first profile and a second profile (page. 26, right column, last two paragraphs to page 27, left column (“… a cellular profile, and several WLAN profiles. Multiple profiles are needed because we assume the user will need to use various networks”, wherein the cellular profile is a first profile, and one of the WLAN profiles is a second profile);
configuring the client device with a set of network profiles associated with a plurality of networks (page. 26, right column, last two paragraphs to page 27, left column (“…a cellular profile, and several WLAN profiles. Multiple profiles are needed because we assume the user will need to use various networks”);
querying a user of the client device for a profile choice for one of the plurality of networks (page 29, left column, “If the IRC detects no WLAN, or if the WLANs detected have SSIDs that don't match a WLAN profile in the user's VSA record, the best available wireless network is the cellular network specified in the VSA record. If the IRC detects a WLAN with an SSID that matches a WLAN profile in the user's VSA record and with an RSSI value that is above the stated threshold for a quality WLAN signal, that WLAN is the best available wireless network.” It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to query a user therefore querying a user’s VSA record reads on querying a user); and
associating with the one of the plurality of networks according to the profile choice provide by the user (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 4, Luo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the profile choice comprises at least one of the first profile, the second profile, both the first profile and the second profile, and a
Sequence (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., page 29, left column, “If the IRC detects no WLAN, or if the WLANs detected have SSIDs that don't match a WLAN profile in the user's VSA record, the best available wireless network is the cellular network specified in the VSA record. If the IRC detects a WLAN with an SSID that matches a WLAN profile in the user's VSA record and with an RSSI value that is above the stated threshold for a quality WLAN signal, that WLAN is the best available wireless network”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 6, Luo discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising distinguishing between the first profile and the second profile based on a Vendor Specific Attribute (VSA) (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., page 29, left column, “If the IRC detects no WLAN, or if the WLANs detected have SSIDs that don't match a WLAN profile in the user's VSA record, the best available wireless network is the cellular network specified in the VSA record. If the IRC detects a WLAN with an SSID that matches a WLAN profile in the user's VSA record and with an RSSI value that is above the stated threshold for a quality WLAN signal, that WLAN is the best available wireless network”).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 11-12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RIVA et al (WO 2016/200842, submitted via IDS).
As to claim 2, Luo discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first profile is a personal profile. RIVA discloses a concept for a profile to be a personal profile ([0018], “allows users to have on the same phone a plurality of application profiles (e.g., a work profile, a personal profile, or another type of profile), isolated and governed by profile-specific policies (i.e., each profile may have its own security and 15 privacy policies; applications and data associated with one profile will not interact within the device itself, with applications and data associated with other profiles”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Luo and RIVA. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to allows users to have on the same phone a plurality of application profiles (RIVA, [0018]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Luo-RIVA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second profile is a work profile (RIVA, [0018]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 5, Luo-RIVA discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising distinguishing between the first profile and the second profile based on a called-Session-ID (RIVA, [0059], “the called application switches profile after the user is prompted with a dialog and approves the switch” indicating that the called application have a separate profile).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 5.
Claims 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinai (US 2006/0003802, submitted by IDS).
As to claim 7, Luo discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose marking a plurality of socket calls as being associated with one of the first profile and the second profile. Sinai discloses marking a plurality of socket calls as being associated with one of the first profile and the second profile ([0023], “When terminal 200 operates in accordance with a first wireless communication profile, socket 211 may operate as an input socket able to receive input signals provided to module 210 for processing, and socket 212 may operate as an output socket able to provide output signals produced by module 210. In accordance with some embodiments of the invention, when terminal 200 operates in accordance with a second wireless communication profile, the functionality of sockets 211 and 212 may be swapped or switched”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Luo and Sinai. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to allocate input and output sockets to different networks (Sinai, [0023]).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Luo discloses the method of claim 7, wherein marking the plurality of socket calls comprises marking the plurality of socket calls based on a container associated with one of the first profile and the second profile.
As to claim 9, Luo discloses the method of claim 7, wherein marking the plurality of socket calls comprises marking the plurality of socket calls based on an application associated with one of the first profile and the second profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458