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 action is in response to the application filed on September 11, 2024
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodali et al. (US: 2013/0331057 A1) in view of Muhlestein et al. (USP : 7,194,519 A1).
As per Claim 1 Kodali teaches a system for managing faulty devices, the system comprising:
one or more processors (Paragraph 0050 one or more processors of the mobile wireless device); and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: identify a missing connection message for a user device attempting to access a network (Paragraph 0004, 0037 the LTE wireless network 300 can conclude that the communication link to the mobile wireless device 102 is broken and after a period of inactivity in which data messages and/or signaling messages are not acknowledged);
identify that the user device has met a failure threshold (Paragraph 0045, 0046the mobile wireless device 102 can extend beyond pre-determined thresholds for timers for the connection between the mobile wireless device 102. The mobile wireless device 102 can detect the misalignment of RRC connected states by examining one or more properties of the paging message received from the first wireless access network.);
identify an identifier associated with the user device associated with the missing connection message (Paragraph 0010, 0029 The paging message contains a second information element that uniquely identifies the mobile wireless device. A first information element indicating that the paging message originates from a packet switched (PS) domain, (3) the paging message includes a second information element that uniquely identifies the mobile wireless device. );
determine that the identifier exists within the network (Paragraph 0029, 0049 A representative second IE is a user equipment (UE) identification (ID) IE containing an SAE temporary mobile subscriber identity (S-TMSI) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI). Determines that the paging message includes a second information element that uniquely identifies the mobile wireless device 102. In a representative embodiment, the second information element includes a unique identifier for the mobile wireless device 102 and/or a user thereof, e.g., an IMSI, an S-TMSI, an IMEI, or an equivalent unique identifier ); and
communicate a disablement command, wherein the disablement command prevents the user device from attaching to a disabled layer identified in the disablement command (Paragraph 0027, the LTE wireless network can be accommodated without the LTE wireless connection being dropped, e.g., when the interruption is less than any timer expiration limits that would precipitate dropping the connection with the mobile wireless device. ).
Kodali does not explicitly disclose a disablement command, wherein the disablement command prevents the user device from attaching to a disabled layer identified in the disablement command
However, Muhlestein from an analogous art similarly teaches a disablement command, wherein the disablement command prevents the user device from attaching to a disabled layer identified in the disablement command (Col. 17 line 28-37 disable commands is that the stop command terminates incoming requests at the network interface level of the vfiler, whereas the disable command terminates incoming requests at the granularity of the protocol layer. This command allows an administrator to enable or disable certain protocols for execution on the vfiler. For example, assume a CIFS request is received at vfiler xyz and the CIFS protocol has been explicitly disabled on that vfiler..);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodali to include the teaching of Muhlestein so disable commands is that the stop command terminates incoming requests at the network interface level. (See Col 17 line 28-37).
As per Claim 2 Kodali - Muhlestein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the missing connection message is a radio resource control setup complete message (Paragraph 0047, The mobile wireless device 102 subsequently receives an RRC connection setup message form the wireless access network, and responds by sending an RRC connection setup complete message to the wireless access network. Receive an RRC connection setup message from the first wireless access network; and send an RRC connection setup complete message to the first wireless access network. ).
As per Claim 3 Kodali - Muhlestein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the identifier is a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) (Paragraph 0029, 0049 A representative second IE is a user equipment (UE) identification (ID) IE containing an SAE temporary mobile subscriber identity (S-TMSI) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI). (3) The paging message is not a public warning system (PWS) message.).
As per Claim 4 Kodali - Muhlestein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the identifier is an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) (Paragraph 0029, 0049 the second information element includes a unique identifier for the mobile wireless device 102 and/or a user thereof, e.g., an IMSI, an S-TMSI, an IMEI, or an equivalent unique identifier. In step 1108, the mobile wireless device 102 determines that the paging message is not a public warning system (PWS) message.).
As per Claim 5 Kodali - Muhlestein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the failure threshold indicates a predetermined number of times a user device can attempt to access the network and fail to send the missing connection message within a predetermined period of time (Paragraph 0011, 0023, 0027 FIG. 11 illustrates representative steps for determining a connection state synchronization failure for an RRC connection between a mobile wireless device and a wireless access network. The LTE wireless network can be accommodated without the LTE wireless connection being dropped, e.g., when the interruption is less than any timer expiration limits that would precipitate dropping the connection with the mobile wireless device. The paging message indicate a connection state synchronization failure for a first radio resource control (RRC) connection between the mobile wireless device and the wireless access network.).
As per Claim 6 Kodali - Muhlestein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disablement command is associated with a timer (Paragraph 0027, 0046 The first wireless access network can attempt retransmissions of the "lost" data packets until one or more timers expire. When the interruption is less than any timer expiration limits that would precipitate dropping the connection with the mobile wireless device. The first wireless access network can attempt retransmissions of the "lost" data packets until one or more timers expire.).
Kodali does not explicitly disclose a disablement command, wherein the disablement command prevents the user device from attaching to a disabled layer identified in the disablement command
However, Muhlestein from an analogous art similarly teaches a disablement command, wherein the disablement command prevents the user device from attaching to a disabled layer identified in the disablement command (Col. 17 line 28-37 disable commands is that the stop command terminates incoming requests at the network interface level of the vfiler, whereas the disable command terminates incoming requests at the granularity of the protocol layer. This command allows an administrator to enable or disable certain protocols for execution on the vfiler. For example, assume a CIFS request is received at vfiler xyz and the CIFS protocol has been explicitly disabled on that vfiler..);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodali to include the teaching of Muhlestein so disable commands is that the stop command terminates incoming requests at the network interface level. (See Col 17 line 28-37).
As per Claim 7 Kodali - Muhlestein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user device is able to access non-disabled layers of the network (Paragraph 0046 For a sufficiently long time period, the first wireless access network can drop the lower layer connection to the mobile wireless device 102 (while keeping the higher application layer connection active) and subsequently seek to establish a new lower layer connection to the mobile wireless device 102 in order to continue the high layer application connection. The first wireless access network can send a paging message including a packet switched domain origination (e.g., for the internet application or another higher layer application connection that uses a packet switched data connection)).
Claims 8-20 are a methods claims corresponding to system claims 1 – 7 that have been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1 – 7. Claims 8-20 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-7.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner is open for discussion if the applicant’s representative need further clarifications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See form 892).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-3681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/SYED ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights