DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4 of claim 9, “a memory configurable connected” should be changed to “a memory configurably connected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,297 (herein called “the ’297 Patent”) in view of Gilder (US 9,319,456).
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 of the ’297 Patent discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium carrying instructions, which, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to (see 10:16-18):
determine a change of state of a service associated with a user equipment from a previous state to a current state (see 10:21-22);
identify, at the user equipment, a configurable parameter with an associated target value for the service, wherein the configurable parameter is a timer or a counter for the service (see 10:23-27);
monitor, at the user equipment, a current value of the configurable parameter (see 10:28-29); and
when the current value of the configurable parameter satisfies a condition associated with a threshold value of the associated target value, present (see 10:30-36).
Claim 1 of the ’297 Patent does not explicitly disclose presenting an option at the user equipment enabling a delay for changing the current state of the service associated with the user equipment to another state.
However, Gilder discloses, in a similar problem solving area, the limitation of presenting a user with an option for enabling a delay for changing a current state to an other state. Specifically, see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify claim 1 of the ’297 Patent to present the user with an option to enable a delay for changing the state as indicated by Gilder. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the ser with some autonomy over the timing of the state change within the context of an automated state change mechanism as suggested by Gilder.
Regarding claim 14 of the present application, claim 14 of the ’297 Patent discloses a computer-implemented method for dynamically managing states of one or more services of features associated with a user equipment, the method comprising (see 11:37-39):
determining a change of state of a service associated with a user equipment from a previous state to a current state (see 11:42-44);
identifying, at the user equipment, a configurable parameter with an associated target value for the service (see 11:45-47);
monitoring, at the user equipment, a current value of the configurable parameter (see 11:48-49); and
when the current value of the configurable parameter satisfies a condition associated with the associated target value, presenting (see 11:50-12:3).
Claim 14 of the ’297 Patent does not explicitly disclose presenting an option at the user equipment enabling a delay for changing the current state of the service associated with the user equipment to another state.
However, Gilder discloses, in a similar problem solving area, the limitation of presenting a user with an option for enabling a delay for changing a current state to another state. Specifically, see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify claim 14 of the ’297 Patent to present the user with an option to enable a delay for changing the state as indicated by Gilder. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the ser with some autonomy over the timing of the state change within the context of an automated state change mechanism as suggested by Gilder.
Regarding claim 18 of the present application, claim 18 of the ’297 Patent discloses a method performed by a node of a telecommunications service provider, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment, a current state of a service associated with the user equipment (see 12:24-28);
determining an updated target value associated with at least one parameter for the service of the user equipment (see 12:29-31); and
transmitting, to the user equipment, the updated target value associated with the at least one parameter (see 12:32-33),
wherein, based upon the current value of the at least one parameter satisfying a condition associated with a threshold value of the updated target value, the user equipment presents .
However, Gilder discloses, in a similar problem solving area, the limitation of presenting a user with an option for enabling a delay for changing a current state to another state. Specifically, see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify claim 1 of the ’297 Patent to present the user with an option to enable a delay for changing the state as indicated by Gilder. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the ser with some autonomy over the timing of the state change within the context of an automated state change mechanism as suggested by Gilder.
Regarding claim 2 of the present application, claim 2 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 3 of the present application, claim 3 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 4 of the present application, claim 4 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 5 of the present application, claim 5 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 6 of the present application, claim 6 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 7 of the present application, claim 7 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application, claim 8 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application, claim 9 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application, claim 10 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 11 of the present application, claim 11 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 12 of the present application, claim 12 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 13 of the present application, claim 13 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 15 of the present application, claim 15 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 16 of the present application, claim 16 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 17 of the present application, claim 17 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 19 of the present application, claim 19 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 20 of the present application, claim 20 of the ’297 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,570,674 (herein called “the ’674 Patent”) in view of Gilder (US 9,319,456).
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 of the ’674 Patent discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium carrying instructions, which, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to (see 10:5-7):
determine a change of state of a service associated with a user equipment from a previous state to a current state (see 10:10-12);
identify, at the user equipment, a configurable parameter with an associated target value for the service, wherein the configurable parameter is a timer or a counter for the service (see 10:13-15);
monitor, at the user equipment, a current value of the configurable parameter (see 10:16-17); and
when the current value of the configurable parameter satisfies a condition associated with a threshold value of the associated target value, present (see 10:18-23).
Claim 1 of the ’674 Patent does not explicitly disclose presenting an option at the user equipment enabling a delay for changing the current state of the service associated with the user equipment to another state.
However, Gilder discloses, in a similar problem solving area, the limitation of presenting a user with an option for enabling a delay for changing a current state to another state. Specifically, see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify claim 1 of the ’674 Patent to present the user with an option to enable a delay for changing the state as indicated by Gilder. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the ser with some autonomy over the timing of the state change within the context of an automated state change mechanism as suggested by Gilder.
Regarding claim 14 of the present application, claim 14 of the ’674 Patent discloses a computer-implemented method for dynamically managing states of one or more services of features associated with a user equipment, the method comprising (see 11:17-19):
determining a change of state of a service associated with a user equipment from a previous state to a current state (see 11:22-24);
identifying, at the user equipment, a configurable parameter with an associated target value for the service (see 11:25-17);
monitoring, at the user equipment, a current value of the configurable parameter (see 11:28-29); and
when the current value of the configurable parameter satisfies a condition associated with the associated target value, presenting (see 11:30-36).
Claim 14 of the ’674 Patent does not explicitly disclose presenting an option at the user equipment enabling a delay for changing the current state of the service associated with the user equipment to another state.
However, Gilder discloses, in a similar problem solving area, the limitation of presenting a user with an option for enabling a delay for changing a current state to another state. Specifically, see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify claim 14 of the ’674 Patent to present the user with an option to enable a delay for changing the state as indicated by Gilder. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the ser with some autonomy over the timing of the state change within the context of an automated state change mechanism as suggested by Gilder.
Regarding claim 2 of the present application, claim 2 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 3 of the present application, claim 3 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 4 of the present application, claim 4 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 5 of the present application, claim 5 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 6 of the present application, claim 6 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 7 of the present application, claim 7 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application, claim 8 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application, claim 9 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application, claim 11 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 11 of the present application, claim 1 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 12 of the present application, claim 12 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 13 of the present application, claim 13 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 15 of the present application, claim 15 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Regarding claim 17 of the present application, claim 17 of the ’674 Patent discloses the limitation and the claim is thus similarly rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilder (US 9,319,456).
Regarding claim 1: Gilder discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium carrying instructions, which, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to (disclosed throughout; see system memory 220 of Figure 2, and 12:11-23, for example):
determine a change of state of a service associated with a user equipment from a previous state to a current state (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses a change of state from a previous state (the application not roaming/running on its home device) to a current state (the application roaming on a target device); as indicated in 5:48-50, the target device (user equipment) determines this roaming state as the start of a roaming session, for example);
identify, at the user equipment, a configurable parameter with an associated target value for the service, wherein the configurable parameter is a timer or a counter for the service (disclosed throughout; as indicated in 5:48-50, the target device (user equipment) starts a roaming session timer; thus, the target device/user equipment determines a configurable parameter (see 5:50-52, which indicates that the value of the timer depends on the nature of the application) with an associated target value for the service (the timer length/predetermined value));
monitor, at the user equipment, a current value of the configurable parameter (disclosed throughout; as indicated in 5:50-52, the target device (user equipment) monitors the timer to determine if it has reached the predetermined value); and
when the current value of the configurable parameter satisfies a condition associated with a threshold value of the associated target value, present an option at the user equipment enabling a delay for changing the current state of the service associated with the user equipment to another state (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming)).
Regarding claim 14: Gilder discloses a computer-implemented method for dynamically managing states of one or more services of features associated with a user equipment, the method comprising:
determining a change of state of a service associated with a user equipment from a previous state to a current state (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses a change of state from a previous state (the application not roaming/running on its home device) to a current state (the application roaming on a target device); as indicated in 5:48-50, the target device (user equipment) determines this roaming state as the start of a roaming session, for example);
identifying, at the user equipment, a configurable parameter with an associated target value for the service (disclosed throughout; as indicated in 5:48-50, the target device (user equipment) starts a roaming session timer; thus, the target device/user equipment determines a configurable parameter (see 5:50-52, which indicates that the value of the timer depends on the nature of the application) with an associated target value for the service (the timer length/predetermined value));
monitoring, at the user equipment, a current value of the configurable parameter (disclosed throughout; as indicated in 5:50-52, the target device (user equipment) monitors the timer to determine if it has reached the predetermined value); and
when the current value of the configurable parameter satisfies a condition associated with the associated target value, presenting an option at the user equipment enabling a delay for changing the current state of the service associated with the user equipment to another state (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that when the timer reaches the configurable predetermined value, that presents an option at the target device to “continue Roaming Session”, which delays the change of the current state (from roaming to not roaming)).
Regarding claim 5: Gilder discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the option at the user equipment enables a user of the user equipment to maintain the current state of the service for a particular time period (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that the user is can select “OK” to reset the roaming state timer to continue the current state (roaming) for a particular period of time (the timer length)).
Regarding claims 6 and 15: Gilder discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the option at the user equipment enables a user to maintain the current state of the service for a particular time period (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that the user is can select “OK” to reset the roaming state timer to continue the current state (roaming) for a particular period of time (the timer length)), and wherein the option communicates to the user that the current state of the service will be changed to another state at an end of the particular time period (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which indicates to the user that the state will be changed to not roaming after 60 seconds automatically if no selection is made and further indicates that if the current state (roaming) is continued, it will expire at the end of the timer).
Regarding claim 7: Gilder discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the another state is the previous state (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example, which discloses that the next state returns the application to the home device (not roaming), which is the previous state before the roaming session started).
Regarding claims 8 and 17: Gilder discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the service associated with the user equipment is: voice over 5G, voice over WiFi, using a 5G radio, using Bluetooth, using WiFi, or using a roaming access domain (disclosed throughout; as indicated in 5:44-6:3, the service enables an application to roam to another (target) device, which is interpreted as a roaming access domain for the user (accessing the application on the target device)).
Regarding claim 9: Gilder discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the system is further caused to: store the associated target value of the configurable parameter in a memory configurable connected to the user equipment (disclosed throughout; see 5:50-57, for example, which discloses that if the user selects “OK”, the timer is reset; clearly, the device has stored the “predetermined value” to which the timer is reset).
Regarding claim 10: Gilder discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that monitoring the current value of the configurable parameter comprises changing the timer or counter value by a minimum value (disclosed throughout; as indicated in 5:44-6:3, the length of time the target device remains in the roaming state is monitored by a timer, which decrements by a tick each cycle, which is interpreted as a minimum value).
Regarding claim 11: Gilder discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the state of the service is enabled or disabled (disclosed throughout; see 5:44-6:3, for example; the state of the application roaming service is either that application roaming is enabled or disabled for the particular application).
Regarding claim 12: Gilder discloses the limitations of claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the change of state of the service is triggered when a user of the user equipment modifies the state of the service via a user interface (disclosed throughout; see 5:57-60, for example, which discloses a “go home now” button to trigger the change of state (leaving the roaming state)).
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.
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 2-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilder (US 9,319,456) in view of Payyappilly et al (US 2016/0353356).
Regarding claim 2: Gilder discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 2 of: wherein the target values are received from a node of a telecommunications service provider. However, Payyappilly discloses a system which configures a terminal by sending configuration values from a telecommunications service provider. See [0064], for example, which discloses that the network service operator sends an OMA-DM message to the UE to configure congestion control parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gilder to provide the timer values to the terminal from a telecommunications service provider. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the service provider the option to control the timer values for the user to improve the user’s service without requiring the user to manually configure the terminal.
Regarding claim 3: Gilder discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 3 of: wherein the target values are received from a node of a telecommunications service provider, and wherein the telecommunications service provider manages the target values via Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) device management framework. However, Payyappilly discloses a system which configures a terminal by sending configuration values from a telecommunications service provider. See [0064], for example, which discloses that the network service operator sends an OMA-DM message to the UE to configure congestion control parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gilder to provide the timer value to the terminal from a telecommunications service provider using the OMA framework as suggested by Payyappilly. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the service provider the option to control the timer values for the user to improve the user’s service without requiring the user to manually configure the terminal.
Regarding claim 4: Gilder discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder further discloses the limitations that the configurable parameter is associated with two or more target values (see 5:50-52, which discloses that the specific timer length (predetermined value) may be based on the nature of the application; clearly, there are two or more target values for different applications), and wherein the user equipment presents the option based on the selected target value (see 5:52-57, for example, which discloses that the option is presented based on the particular target value and the timer is reset to that value if the user selects “OK”).
Gilder does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the user equipment receives a selection among the two or more target values of the configurable parameter. However, Payyappilly discloses a system which configures a terminal by sending configuration values from a telecommunications service provider. See [0064], for example, which discloses that the network service operator sends an OMA-DM message to the UE to configure congestion control parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gilder to provide the timer value to the terminal from a telecommunications service provider. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the service provider the option to control the timer values for the user to improve the user’s service without requiring the user to manually configure the terminal.
Regarding claim 13: Gilder discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Gilder does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 13 that the system is further caused to: transmit, at periodic intervals, a message comprising at least one of: a current state of the service associated with the user equipment, the current value of the configurable parameter, or the target value of the configurable parameter. However, Payyappilly discloses a system which configures a terminal by sending configuration values from a telecommunications service provider. See [0064], for example, which discloses that the network service operator sends an OMA-DM message to the UE to configure congestion control parameters. Further, see [0073], for example, which discloses that the parameters may be retrieved periodically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gilder to periodically provide the timer value to the terminal from a telecommunications service provider using the OMA framework as suggested by Payyappilly. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the service provider the option to control the timer values (and to update them regularly if needed) for the user to improve the user’s service without requiring the user to manually configure the terminal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mallikarjunan et al (US 2021/0392557) discloses a method for a high data mode for an enhanced user experience which also configures the 5G state of the user interface as indicated in [0175].
Eatedali et al (US 10,791,372) discloses a method for extending a state (the access to media contents) via a user interface.
Pollak (US 10,694,047) discloses a method for managing wireless services on a wireless device.
Nordback (US 2015/0248378) discloses a method for adjusting the readability of content on a media device. This reference was used in a prior art rejection in a parent application.
Vangala et al (US 2014/0080479) discloses a method for state suspension in hybrid networks.
Steele (US 2007/0275767) discloses a method for temporarily modifying a user profile in an electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights