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 § 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 (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 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 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, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher et al. (US 2023/0209327 A1, referred to herein as “Speicher”) in view of Rager et al. (US 2005/0107083 A1, referred to herein as Rager).
Regarding claim 1, Speicher discloses: A wireless device comprising:
at least one hardware processor (Speicher: paragraph [0008], disclosing user equipment for wireless communication that includes one or more processors); and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions (Speicher: paragraph [0043], disclosing an associated memory that may store instructions for wireless communication) that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the wireless device to:
receive, at an application located at a universal integrated circuit card (UICC) of the wireless device, a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) code of a wireless network to which the wireless device is connected (Speicher: paragraph [0049], disclosing a universal integrated circuit card component for receiving information; paragraphs [0050], [0071] and [0076], disclosing that the UICC may receive a Public Land Mobile Network identifier of a connected wireless network);
in response to receiving the PLMN code from the application, provide the PLMN code to an over-the-air (OTA) platform provided by a mobile network operator to which the wireless device is subscribed (Speicher: paragraph [0049], disclosing providing the PLMN identifier in an over-the-air update procedure to a subscribed operator);
in response to providing the PLMN code to the OTA platform, receive, from the OTA platform, an assigned network… (Speicher: Fig. 7, paragraphs [0076]-[0077, disclosing that an OTA update procedure may provide an assigned network).
Speicher does not explicitly disclose:
an assigned network name of the wireless network and
in response to receiving the assigned network name:
store, at a particular location in a PLMN network name (PNN) list of the wireless device, the assigned network name of the wireless network;
store, in an operator PLMN list (OPL) of the wireless device, the PLMN code and an indication of the particular location in the PNN list; and
display the assigned network name on a display of the wireless device while connected to the wireless network.
However, Rager discloses:
an assigned network name of the wireless network (Rager: paragraph [0019], disclosing use of a network name of the wireless network) and
in response to receiving the assigned network name:
store, at a particular location in a PLMN network name (PNN) list of the wireless device, the assigned network name of the wireless network (Rager: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], disclosing storage of a PLMN network name list and record number);
store, in an operator PLMN list (OPL) of the wireless device, the PLMN code and an indication of the particular location in the PNN list (Rager: Fig. 2, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], disclosing storage of an operator PLMN list and associated PLMN-ID and record number); and
display the assigned network name on a display of the wireless device while connected to the wireless network (Rager: paragraph [0020], disclosing that the assigned network name may be displayed on a display of the wireless device when connected).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the PLMN network name list of Rager with the wireless device of Speicher.
One would have been motivated to modify Speicher in this manner in order to better determine when a mobile cellular telephone should search for a home network when operating in other networks (Rager: paragraphs [0001]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Speicher and Rager disclose: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: in response to receiving the PLMN code, determine that the PLMN code is associated with a roaming wireless network provided by an additional mobile network operator different from the mobile network operator; and receive the assigned network name in response to determining that the PLMN code is associated with the roaming wireless network (Speicher: paragraphs [0071]-[0083], disclosing that PLMN identifiers may be associated with roaming networks).
Regarding claim 5, Speicher and Rager disclose: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the OPL and the PNN list are located on the UICC of the wireless device (Speicher: paragraph [0049], disclosing storage on an integrated UICC component; Rager: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], disclosing storage of the PLMN network name list).
The motivation for combining Speicher and Rager has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Speicher and Rager disclose: The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive the assigned network name of the wireless network through an OTA update directed to the wireless device alone (Speicher: paragraph [0049], disclosing OTA update procedure; Rager: Fig. 3, paragraphs [0019]-[0020], disclosing storage of the PLMN network name list).
The motivation for combining Speicher and Rager has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher in view of Rager as applied to claim 1/14 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2022/0232385 A1, referred to herein as “Seo”).
Regarding claim 6, Speicher and Rager disclose: The wireless device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Speicher and Rager do not explicitly disclose: wherein the UICC of the wireless device comprises an embedded UICC (eUICC).
However, Seo discloses: wherein the UICC of the wireless device comprises an embedded UICC (eUICC) (Rager: paragraphs [0004], [0009] and [0095], disclosing use of an embedded UICC associated with the wireless device).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the embedded UICC of Seo with the wireless device of Speicher and Rager.
One would have been motivated to modify Speicher and Rager in this manner in order to incorporate an UICC into a baseband processor chip to save space on circuit boards within devices (Seo: paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3 and 11, Speicher, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the instructions further cause the wireless device to: store, at the particular location in the PNN list, the assigned network name of the wireless network by replacing an existing assigned network name in the PNN list; and store, in the OPL, the PLMN code and the indication of the particular location in the PNN list by replacing an existing entry stored in the OPL.
Regarding claim 4 and 17, Speicher, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the instructions further cause the wireless device to: retrieve, from the OPL, the indication of the particular location in the PNN list; based on the indication of the particular location in the PNN list, retrieve, from the PNN list, the assigned network name at the particular location in the PNN list; and display the assigned network name on the display of the wireless device while connected to the wireless network in response to retrieving the assigned network name.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Speicher, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose where the instructions further cause the wireless device to: determine that the PLMN code is different from a previous PLMN code of a previous wireless network to which the wireless device was connected before connecting to the wireless network; and provide the PLMN code to the OTA platform in response to determining that the PLMN code is different from the previous PLMN code.
Regarding claim 16, Speicher, either alone or in combination with other prior art of record, does not teach, suggest, or disclose storing, at the particular location in the PNN list, the assigned network name of the wireless network by replacing an existing assigned network name in the PNN list.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571)270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights