DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 10/22/2024. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1, 14, and 19 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 and 03/05/2026 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “a respective IoT device” (line 16 of claim 1), which is vague and indefinite, because the claim earlier recites “the respective IoT device” (line 10 of claim 1), which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the prospective IoT device --.
Claim also recites the limitation “the infrastructure integrity data” (line 17 of claim 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the network infrastructure integrity data-- (see line 13 of claim 1).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 19 , claims recite the limitation “IoT devices” (line 7 of claim 1, line 6 of claim 14, line 3 of claim 19), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “IoT devices” (line 2 of claim 1, line 2 of claim 14, line 1 of claim 19). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the IoT devices --.
Regarding claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1, 14, and 20, correspondingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Agrawal et al. (see IDS) disclose: receive monitoring data from IoT devices in an IoT network while the IoT devices are communicating with the server device via a terrestrial network (claim 1: “receiving, by the core network, the packets from the UE using the first subset of the attach context”); identify a group of IoT devices to be switched from the terrestrial network to the satellite network (¶[0036]: “the UE 110 … enable data communication either through the terrestrial network (terrestrial base station 220)”; ¶[0063]: “If the UE is reachable via the terrestrial network, the satellite core network rejects the data transmission request and forwards the message to the terrestrial network for transmission.”), wherein the group of IoT devices includes at least a portion of the IoT devices in communication with the server device; and cause the group of IoT devices to switch communication from the terrestrial network to the satellite network (¶[0065]: “embodiment, when the UE loses the connection to the terrestrial network, and moves back to the satellite network, the UE can use the saved second set of attach context to start data communication with the satellite network.”).
Tikhomirov et al. (see IDS) disclose: wherein each of the IoT devices includes a dual network interface controller (NIC) configured to facilitate connection of the respective IoT device to the terrestrial network and a satellite network, wherein the IoT devices include sensors for capturing the monitoring data that includes network infrastructure integrity data and environmental data, and wherein the environmental data describes environmental conditions surrounding a respective IoT device of the IoT devices (Fig. 1; ¶[0509]: "the existence of available communication channels on the device 110 (whether it has access by wireless data transfer interfaces, such as Wi-Fi, whether data transfer over mobile networks is enabled on the device and how many mobile networks, or whether wireless data transfer is enabled)"; ¶[0687]: "In one aspect, the collection of data on the IoT device operations further comprises collecting operating conditions from one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of: sensors of the IoT device and external sensors that are mounted alongside the IoT device"; ¶[0664]: "Information on environmental conditions can be collected from both the sensors of the IoT devices and from external sensors that are mounted nearby").
Furthermore, Agrawal et al. disclose switching from the terrestrial network to the satellite network based on UE availability state (¶[0062]: “the UE operational data sets include a UE availability state, wherein packets are routed based on the UE availability state.”; ¶[0021]: "Examples of available UE radio access technology protocols include satellite RAT, terrestrial NB-IOT (narrow band internet of things), terrestrial LTE CAT-M (Long term evolution, category machine)")
However, the prior arts made of record, including Agrawal et al. and Tikhomirov et al. fail to teach or suggest or make obvious in combination, the abovementioned limitations with the arrangement that “determine, using the infrastructure integrity data in the monitoring data, a metric indication of an interruption in the terrestrial network; identify, using the metric indication of the terrestrial network experiencing an interruption and the received environmental data, a group of IoT devices to be switched from the terrestrial network to the satellite network, wherein the group of IoT devices includes at least a portion of the IoT devices in communication with the server device; and cause the group of IoT devices to switch communication from the terrestrial network to the satellite network”, as recited in claim 1, and some variation of wording as recited in claims 14 and 19. The respective dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 are allowable for the same reason, correspondingly.
Conclusion
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that the application may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application, the applicant is respectfully requested to clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Määttänen et al. (US 12610309 B2) disclose a wireless device operable to perform non-terrestrial network (NTN) connection control, the wireless device comprising processing circuitry operable to: receive a message comprising one or more parameters from which the wireless device is informed that the wireless device is to disconnect from a terrestrial network (TN) and connect to one of one or more NTNs or disconnect from a NTN and connect to one of one or more TNs (line 65 of col. 34 to line 6 of col. 35).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights