Patent Application 17487807 - TRANSFER OF PACKET DATA IN SYSTEM COMPRISING

Title: TRANSFER OF PACKET DATA IN SYSTEM COMPRISING MOBILE TERMINAL, WIRELESS LOCAL NETWORK AND MOBILE NETWORK

Application Information

Invention Title: TRANSFER OF PACKET DATA IN SYSTEM COMPRISING MOBILE TERMINAL, WIRELESS LOCAL NETWORK AND MOBILE NETWORK
Application Number: 17487807
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2021-09-28T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2021-09-28T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 370
National Sub-Class: 338000
Examiner Employee Number: 76802
Art Unit: 3992
Tech Center: 3900

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

FINAL OFFICE ACTION
I. Introduction
A) Patent Undergoing Reissue
This office action addresses reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,923,256 (256 Patent). The 256 Patent issued on Dec. 30, 2014 and was titled, “TRANSFER OF PACKET DATA IN SYSTEM COMPRISING MOBILE TERMINAL, WIRELESS LOCAL NETWORK AND MOBILE NETWORK .”

B) Priority and Prior Art Date
The 256 Patent is based upon U.S. Application No. 10/538,420 (“420 Application” or “the base application”), filed Oct. 11, 2006, under §371 based upon PCT/FI2004/000386, filed Jun. 24, 2004. Accordingly, based upon the priority the Examiner finds the effective filing date would be Jun. 24 , 2004, and the earliest prior art date for this application would be Jun. 24, 2004.

C) Procedural History
On Sep. 28, 2021 and application for reissue of the 256 Patent was filed as assigned U.S. Application No. 17/487,807 ("807 Application" or "instant reissue application"). Claims 1-18 of the 256 Patent were cancelled. New Claims 19-28 were submitted and are pending.
On, June 21, 2024 the Office issued a Non-Final Office Action (“Jun. 2024 Non-Final Action”). In the Jun. 2024 Non-Final Action: (1) the claims were objected to for a minor informality and for lack of explanation of support for the claim changes; (2) the Declaration was objected to due to improper error statement; (3) the showing of ownership was objected for improper information in the heading; and, (4) the claims were rejected under §251 (improper recapture, defective declaration, new matter), under §112 first paragraph (new matter), under §112 second paragraph (indefinite), and §103 obviousness over prior art.
On September 23, 2024 the Office received an Applicant Response (“Sep. 2024 Response”) including claims (“Sep. 2024 Claims”), two substitute statements in lieu of declaration (collectively “Sep. 2024 Declaration Statements”), PTO an assignee showing of ownership PTO/AIA /96 (“Sep. 2024 Ownership”), and a consent of assignee, PTO/AIA /53 (“Sep. 2024 Consent”).
On, December 20, 2024 the Office issued a second Non-Final Office Action (“Dec. 2024 Non-Final Action”). Claims 19-38 were rejected under §112 and §251 (new matter), claims 26-38 were rejected under §112 second paragraph (indefinite), and claims 19-38 were rejected under §103 obviousness over prior art.

II. Status of Claims
A) Claims Addressed in this Proceeding.
1. Patent Claims: Claims 1-18 were the patent claims in the 256 Patent (“Patent Claims”).
2. New Claims: Claim 19-38 have been added by this instant reissue application (“New Claims”).
3. Cancelled Claims: Claims 1-18 have been cancelled by this instant reissue application (“Cancelled Claims”).
3. Pending Claims: Claims 19-38 are pending ("Pending Claims").
4. Examined Claims: Claims 19-38 are examined in this office action (“Examined Claims”).

B) Claim Status As a Result of This Office Action
1. Claims 19-38: Rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 for new matter.
2. Claims 19-38: Rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 first paragraph for new matter and written description.
3. Claims 26-38: Rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for claim elements that are indefinite.
4. Claims 19-38: Rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in view of prior art.

III. Acknowledgements
1. AIA First to Invent: Because the effective filing date of the Instant Application is before March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions do not apply. Accordingly the instant reissue application will be examiner under the pre AIA First to Invent provisions.
2. Patent Term: Based upon a review of the file record the Examiner finds that the Patent has not expired. Additionally it is noted that the file record indicates that the 3.5 year, and 7.5 year maintenance fees have posted.
3. Related Reissue Application: The Examiner finds that this instant reissue application is a continuing reissue application of U.S. Reissue Application No. 15/394,050, filed Dec. 19, 2016, now Pat. No. RE48758.
4. Broadening: Based upon review of the file record the Examiner finds that this instant reissue application is a broadening reissue application. See the error statement of the Reissue Declaration filed Sep. 28, 2021.
5. Diligence: The diligence requirement for filing of this instant reissue application as a broadening reissue application has been satisfied. As noted above, this instant reissue application is a continuing reissue application of U.S. Reissue Application 15/394,050 (“050 Application”). The 050 Application was filed on Dec. 19, 2016 as a broadening reissue application within two years of issue of the 256 Patent. Accordingly, this instant application satisfies the diligence requirement to be eligible for broadening. See MPEP §1402, MPEP §1403 and §1412.03.
7. Litigation Review: Based upon a review of statements in the Applicants Remarks and an Examiner independent review of the file itself the Examiner finds that the 256 Patent is not involved in litigation.
8. Concurrent Proceeding Review: Based upon the statements in the Applicant’s remarks, review of the file record, and a review of the USPTO PTAB processing system the Examiner cannot locate any concurrent a post issuance proceeding, such as: Inter Partes review, post grant review, transitional program for covered business method patents, derivation, inter partes and Ex Parte reexaminations. post grant proceedings involving the 256 Patent.

IV. Terms Applied
“PHOSITA” - Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
“BRI” - Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard.
“Original Application” – “The prosecution record of the application that issued as the patent for which the reissue application was filed, including the applications in the patent family’s entire prosecution history.” See MPEP §1412.02.
“Original Disclosure” is the substantive disclosure including the abstract, specification, and drawings that were present in the base application on its effective filing date.
“Applicant” (with upper case “A”) refers to the Applicant is this reissue application.
“applicant” (with lower case “a”) refers to applicants generally.
“patent owner” (lower case) refers to patent owners generally and not the Applicant in this reissue application.
“Examiner” (with upper case “E”) refers to the Examiner is this reissue application.
“examiner” (with lower case “e”) refers to examiners generally, e.g. the examiner in during the prosecution of the base application, or other examiners.

V. Statutes Applied In This Action
A) 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.

B) 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

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.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

C) 35 USC § 251
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.

(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. Specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

VI. Objection - Claims
A) Withdrawn Objection: The claim objections set forth in the Dec. 2024 Non-Final Action are withdrawn. Applicant Apr. 2025 Response has underlined claims 19-38, thereby complying with 37 C.F.R. §1.173, MPEP §1453 (V) and therefore overcoming the objections. Accordingly, those objections are withdrawn.

B) New Objection: Claim 26 is objected to as no complying with 37 C.F.R. §1.173, MPEP §1453 (V). Claim 26 line 2, includes bracketing to show claim language that is deleted.
However, as noted in 37 C.F.R. §1.173 (d), any changes shown by markings are relative to the patent being reissued. The 256 Patent never included a claim 26, thus the bracketing in claim 26 line 2, while showing matter that is omitted, is not showing matter that was omitted relative to the patent being reissued. Rather, the Examiner finds that the bracketing appears to show matter omitted relative to the last submitted claims. As such the bracketing does not comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.173 (d).
Accordingly, claim 26 is objected to for not complying with 37 C.F.R. §1.173, MPEP §1453 (V).

VII. Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.

A) Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception, albeit optional, to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard occurs when there is lexicographic definition in the specification.
After a careful review of the original specification, unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any other lexicographic definitions, express or implied, in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes that for terms other than those noted directly above the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.

B) 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Applicant, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how he is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. Base Station (BS): "A wireless term. A base station is the fixed device that a mobile radio transceiver (transmitter/receiver) talks to talk to allow a person or mobile device to get connection to the landline phone network, public or private." Newton’s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998.
2. Bearer Channel: “n See B channel.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
3. B Channel: “Short for bearer channel. One of the 64-Kbps communications channels that carry data on an ISDN circuit. A BRI (Basic Rate Interface) ISDN line has two B channels and one D (data) channel. A PRI (Primary Rate Interface) ISDN line has 23 B channels (in North America) or 30 B channels (in Europe) and one D channel.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
4. Channel: "(1) (A) (electric communication) A single path for transmitting electric signals, usually in distinction from other parallel paths. (B) (electric communication) A band of frequencies. Note: The word “path” is to be interpreted in a broad sense to include separation by frequency division or time division." IEEE Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, Standards Information Network IEEE Press, New York, NY, 2000.
5. Configuration “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
6. Configured: "to set up for operation esp. in a particular way." Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
7. Gateway: “a device that connects networks using different communications protocols so that information can be passed from one to another. A gateway both transfers information and converts it to a form compatible with the protocols used by the receiving network” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
8. Instruction: “An action statement in any computer language, most often in machine or assembly language.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
9. Mobile Station (MS):
a) Source 1: A mobile communication terminal, also called a user equipment (UE), with radio interface for communicating with a base station or wireless LAN access point. See the 256 Patent at C3:L30 - 35, and C4:L1316, describing a mobile terminal (MS) Figure 1, as a wireless device communicating with a WLAN or Public Land Mobile Access points.
b) Source 2: “A type of station that uses network communications while in motion.” IEEE Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, Standards Information Network IEEE Press, New York, NY, 2000.
10. Packet: “A unit of information transmitted as a whole from one device to another on a network.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
11. Processor: "The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit." Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.2
12. Processing: "Manipulation of data within a computer system. Processing is the vital step between receiving data (input) and producing results (output) – the task for which computers are designed" Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
13. Program: “A sequence of instructions that can be executed by a computer.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
14. Radio Bearer Channel: A compound word meaning ‘a radio communication channel.’ The Examiner finds that this meaning is supported by the meanings of the three items, i.e. “Bearer Channel,” “B Channel,” and “Channel,” recited above in this section.
15. Receiver: "one that receives as :a device for converting signals (as electromagnetic waves) into audio or visual form: as (1): a device in a telephone for converting electric impulses or varying current into sound (2): a radio receiver with a tuner and amplifier on one chassis." Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
16. Receiving, by a mobile station (MS), a request for authorization from a mobile network on a basis of a resource authorization identifier of a policy decision function: Transmitting a resource authorization identifier to the mobile station, such as a token, indicating to the mobile that the token must be sent for authorization. (See 256 Patent at C1:L34-41, C6:L25-28, and C7:L2-46).
17. Time-Division Multiplexing: "Sharing of a communication channel among several users by allowing each to use the channel for a given period of time in defined, repeated sequence." IEEE Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, Standards Information Network IEEE Press, New York, NY, 2000.
18. Time Slot: "In time division multiplexing, when time is divided into slots to route data from input to output." IEEE Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, Standards Information Network IEEE Press, New York, NY, 2000.
19. Transceiver: "The combination of radio transmitting and receiving equipment in a common housing, usually for portable or mobile use, and employing common circuit components for both transmitting and receiving." IEEE Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, Standards Information Network IEEE Press, New York, NY, 2000.
20. Transmitter: "one that transmits: as a: an apparatus for transmitting radio or television signals a device for converting signals." Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
21. Tunnel: “To encapsulate or wrap a packet or a message from one protocol in the packet for another. The wrapped packet is then transmitted over a network via the protocol of the wrapper. This method of packet transmission is used to avoid protocol restrictions.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
22. Tunneling: “A method of transmission over internetworks based on differing protocols. In tunneling, a packet based on one protocol is wrapped, or encapsulated, in a second packet based on whatever differing protocol is needed in order for it to travel over an intermediary network. In effect, the second wrapper “insulates” the original packet and creates the illusion of a tunnel through which the wrapped packet travels across the intermediary network. In real-life terms, tunneling is comparable to “encapsulating” a present (the original packet) in a box (the secondary wrapper) for delivery through the postal system.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
23. User Equipment (UE): A mobile communication terminal, also called a mobile station (MS), with radio interface for communicating with a base station or wireless LAN access point. See the 256 Patent at C3:L30 - 35, and C4:L1316, describing a mobile terminal (MS) Figure 1, as a wireless device communicating with a WLAN or Public Land Mobile Access points.

C) Support for Inherencies
1. Receiving Wireless Transmission of Two Protocols From Two different Transmitters: Inherently requires two receiver sections or two transceivers sections. See Shippee Pub. No. US 2004/0142723, at Par [0012] discussing two receives to receive two transmission of two different protocols; See Takagi Pub. No. US 2002/0049075 Figure 1, items 551, 551 showing two receive chains to receive GSM and UMTS; and See Pau, US Pat. No. 6,754,508, Figure 5, showing three receiver chains 24, 26, and 28 used to receive Bluetooth Protocol, PCS protocol, and DAMPS protocol.

D) 35 U.S.C. §112 6th Paragraph
A second exception is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph (“§ 112 ¶ 6”). See MPEP § 2181 et seq. To invoke § 112 ¶ 6, a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis (“3 Prong Analysis”) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I).
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 6:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The Examiner has evaluated the claims and finds the following:
I) The following phrases, from independent claims 19, and claim 29 will be first identified and then analyzed using the MPEP’s 3 Prong Analysis to determine if the claimed phrases invoke § 112 ¶ 6. If a phrase invokes § 112 ¶ 6, the corresponding structure will also be determined.
See MPEP §2181 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In the following analysis of the Functional Phrases the Examiner notes:
“In assessing whether the claim limitation is in means-plus-function format, we do not merely consider the introductory phrase (e.g., ‘mechanical control assembly’) in isolation, but look to the entire passage including functions performed by the introductory phrase. [Emphasis added.]”
- MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“[a] claim limitation that does not use the term “means” or “step” will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1310,75 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d1359, 1369, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1664 (Fed. Cir.2002); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC,161 F.3d 696, 703-04, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1886–87(Fed. Cir. 1998). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, The presumption is overcome when "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.'" 1339,1348 (sic), 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000) …. [Emphasis added.]”
- MPEP § 2181 I.

Functional Phrase #1 (FP#1): “A mobile station (MS) configured to . . .
receive a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology," as in claim 26, lines 6-11.

Functional Phrase #2 (FP#2): "mobile station (MS) configured to . . . receive data from a node of a mobile network using the at least one of the bearer setup for the first radio access technology," as in claim 26 lines 12-13.

Functional Phrase #3 (FP#3): " mobile station (MS) configured to . . . receive data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology,” as recited in claim 26 lines 14-15.

Functional Phrase #4 (FP#4): “program instructions for causing a mobile station (MS) to perform a method of: receiving, by the MS, bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setup is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology," as in claim 31 lines, 2-3, and 8-13.

Functional Phrase #5 (FP#5):"program instructions for causing a mobile station (MS) to perform a method of . . . receiving, by the MS, data from a node of the mobile network using the at least one bearer setup for the first radio access technology," as in claim 31, lines 2-3, and 14-15.

Functional Phrase #6 (FP#6):"program instructions for causing a mobile station (MS) to perform a method of . . . receiving, by the MS, data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology,” as recited in claim 31, lines 2-3, and 16-17.

Functional Phrase #7 (FP#7): “means for processing and receiving a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology,” as recited in claim 35 lines 6-11.

Functional Phrase #8 (FP#8): “means for receiving data from a node of the mobile network using the at least one bearer setup for the first radio access technology,” as recited in claim 35 lines 7-12.

Functional Phrase #9 (FP#9): “means for receiving data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology,” as recited in claim 35 lines 16-17.

Function Phrase #10 (FP#10): “a packet data gateway (PDG), wherein the PDG is configured to arrange a bearer on the basis of the authorization from the policy decision function,” as in claim 19, lines 4-5, claim 26 lines 4-5, and claim 31 lines 6-7, and claim 35 lines 6-7.

a) 3-Prong Analysis Prong (A):
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (A) requires:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (A).
First, the Examiner finds that FP#7, FP#8, and FP#9, use the phrase “means for.”
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the phrase "means for," in each of FP#7, FP#8, and FP#9 is followed by the functions of FP#7, FP#8, and FP#9, outlined further below in this section. Because FP#7, FP#8, and FP#9 apply the phrase "means for" followed by a function, the Examiner concludes that FP#7, FP#8, and FP#9 meet invocation Prong (A).
Second, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrases #1 to #6, and #10, do not use the phrase “means for.” The issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the claimed "mobile station (MS)," as in FP#1 to FP#3, "program instructions," as in FP#4 to FP#6, and “packet data gateway,” as in FP#10, are generic placeholders for the phrase ‘means for,’ i.e., being applied as a generic means for performing the function. See MPEP 2181 I. A.
The Examiner has reviewed the specification and the prior art, including general and technology specific dictionaries and finds insufficient evidence that a PHOSITA could conclude that the terms "mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” as claimed (alone) denotes sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. For example, the specification while mentioning the terms does not lexicographically define the terms to have the meaning of structures that perform the claimed functions. See for example, the section below, evaluating corresponding structure, showing that at best the specification states that " mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” represent devices needing special programming to perform the functions. (See the 256 Patent at C10:L17 - 30).
Accordingly, from the specification the Examiner finds that a PHOSITA understands that the terms " mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” as claimed (by themselves), do not have the meaning of structures that would perform the entire claim function. Other structural elements are needed.
As another example, see the section above entitled 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation,' showing that the prior art dictionaries at most show that in the art the terms: (1) ‘mobile station (MS)’ at most is a generic structure that has the function of operating on data and producing general results; (2) the term "program instructions," is a compound word at most represents a general sequence of statements to operate a computer; and (3) the term “packet data gateway,” at most has the function of converting and transferring units of information to different protocols. However the Examiner finds that based upon this evidence (e.g., the prior art dictionaries) that a PHOSITA would understand the terms "mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” (alone) can’t perform the claimed functions. Rather other structures, such as a particular algorithm or logic is needed.
Finally, the Examiner has reviewed the prior art, and finds insufficient evidence that the prior art describes the terms "mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” any differently than the prior art dictionaries discussed directly above. For example, Satt et al. (Pub. No.: 2004/0248583) at Par [0091] [0117], and claim 25, simply describes the function of a mobile station as sending and receiving data, the function of a packet gateway (GGSN) as in interface to the IP packet network, and simply recites program instructions as something executable by a machine. Accordingly, based upon the prior art a PHOSITA understands that the terms "mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” as claimed (alone) are not known as structures that perform the entire claimed function. Other structural elements are needed.
Accordingly the Examiner concludes that the terms "mobile station (MS)" "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” as set forth in FP#1 to FP#6, and FP#10 above, are being used as a generic terms for a structure performing the function, and therefore a place holder for the phrase "means for" performing the recited function.
Because the terms " mobile station (MS)," "program instructions," and “packet data gateway,” as in FP#1 to FP#6, and FP#10 are merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, and because FP#7 to FP#9 use the phrase "means for" the Examiner concludes that FP#1 to FP#10 meet invocation Prong (A).

b) 3-Prong Analysis Prong (B):
In accordance with the MPEP prong (B) requires:
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” ....

MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (B).
Based upon a review of the claim, the Examiner finds that the functions associated with FP#1-FP#10 are as follows:
Function of Functional Phrase #1 (FP#1): “to . . . receive a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology."

Function of Functional Phrase #2 (FP#2): "mobile station (MS) configured to . . . receive data from a node of a mobile network using the at least one of the bearer setup for the first radio access technology."

Function of Functional Phrase #3 (FP#3): "to . . . receive data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology.”

Function of Functional Phrase #4 (FP#4): “for causing a mobile station (MS) to perform a method of: receiving, by the MS, bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setup is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology."

Function of Functional Phrase #5 (FP#5): "to perform a method of . . . receiving, by the MS, data from a node of the mobile network using the at least one bearer setup for the first radio access technology."

Function of Functional Phrase #6 (FP#6): "to perform a method of . . . receiving, by the MS, data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology.”

Function of Functional Phrase #7 (FP#7): “for processing and receiving a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology.”

Function of Functional Phrase #8 (FP#8): “for receiving data from a node of the mobile network using the at least one bearer setup for the first radio access technology.”

Function of Functional Phrase #9 (FP#9): “for receiving data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology.”

Function of Function Phrase #10 (FP#10): “to arrange a bearer on the basis of the authorization from the policy decision function.”
Because FP#1 to FP #10 include the functions expressly noted above, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 to FP #10 meet invocation Prong (B). Additionally, the Examiner notes that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing the functions, the functions within the functional phrases will have their ordinary and accustomed meaning.

c) 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (C) requires:
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
- MPEP § 2181 (I) — Prong (C)
Based upon a review of the entire FP#1 to FP #10, the Examiner finds that FP#1 to FP #10, do not contain sufficient structure and/or logic for performing the entire claimed function that is set forth in those functional phrases. In fact, the Examiner finds that FP#1 to FP #10, while possibly reciting some logic, the phrases recite very little structure (if any) and/or logic capable of performing the claimed function.
Because FP#1 to FP #10 do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 to FP#10 meet invocation Prong (C).
Because FP#1 to FP #10 meet the 3 Prong Analysis as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that the phrases invokes § 112 ¶ 6.
d) Corresponding Structure
1. For Functional Phrase #1, #4, and #7: Based upon a review of the original disclosure, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the specification of the 256 Patent clearly links and associates a corresponding structure to FP#1, FP#4, and FP#7. The Best the Examiner can find is that the 256 Patent does describe a mobile terminal MS, Figure 1 that has the capability to simultaneously communicate over a WLAN network and the UTRAN or GSM network (256 Patent C4:L53-55). And the 256 Patent does describe the mobile receive authorization information and tunnel identifiers (256 Patent at C7:L2-30). However, as noted above, a “tunnel,” does not mean a “radio bearer,” and the functions of FP#1, FP#4, and FP#7 require the mobile station (MS) to receive from a first network element of a first technology, radio bearer configuration information for two radio bearers of the first technology and the second technology including QOS for those bearers. The Examiner finds that the description in the 256 Patent at C4:L53-56 and C7:L2-30, mention above, while implying some structure, e.g. two transceivers would not inherently have the meaning of any particular structure that would realize the Functions of FP#1, FP#4, and FP#7. Accordingly the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the 256 Patent specification clearly links and associates a corresponding structure for FP#1, FP#4, and FP#7.
2. For Functional Phrases #2, #3, #5, #6, #8, and #9 : Based upon a review of the original disclosure, the Examiner finds the corresponding structure for FP#2, FP#3, FP#5, FP#6, FP#8, and FP#9 is a mobile terminal, with processor and inherently including a first transceiver of a first radio access technology and a second transceiver of a second radio access technology. (See section XI C above, showing two transceiver are inherently required, and see 256 Patent at C4:L53-56 and C10:L17-30, discussing a mobile phone that receives two radio bearer transmissions from two network elements.).
3. For Functional Phrase #10: Based upon a review of the original disclosure, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the 256 Paten clearly links and associated a corresponding structure to FP#10. The Best the Examiner can find is the 256 Patent at C7:L48-67, describing a packet data gateway (PDG) that arranges a tunnel for the mobile. However, the Function of FP#10 requires arranging bearers on the basis of a authorization. As noted above, a tunnel is different than a bearer, thus the Examiner finds the 256 Patent description of a packet data gateway (PDG) that arranges a tunnel insufficient to realize the function. Accordingly the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the 256 Patent specification clearly links and associates a corresponding structure for FP#10.

II) Dependent claims 27-30, 32-34, and 36-38.
The Examiner has reviewed dependent claims 27-30, 32-34, and 36-38, and finds that these claims make minor modifications to the functions and/or data of the functional phrases above, without removing the functional phrases from governance of 35 U.S.C. §112 sixth paragraph.
Accordingly the Examiner finds that analysis of dependent claims 27-30, 32-34, and 36-38 is the same as that for the functional phrases above.

D) Computer Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, a general purpose computer is only sufficient as the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function. When there is a specific function to be performed, it is required that an algorithm for performing the function be disclosed, and the corresponding structure becomes a general purpose computer transformed into a special purpose computer by programming the computer to perform the disclosed algorithm. The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. See MPEP § 2181(II) (B).
As noted in the MPEP:
An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. [Citations and select quotations omitted.]

E) Conclusion Claim Interpretation
Accordingly, because of the Examiners’ findings above that except for the term “non control information,” the Applicant is not his own lexicographer and for functional phrases that invoke §112 sixth paragraph those phrases will be interpreted based upon the interpretation for the corresponding structures, outline above.
In addition any claim terms and phrases that do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01(I).
It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01(II).

VIII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(a) and §251
Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 251 as failing to comply with the written description requirement for including new matter added to the patent/claims for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
1) Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 is a new claim added in this instant reissue application and includes the following claim element:
For claim 19: "receiving, by a mobile station (MS), bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology," as in claim 19 lines 6-11.
The Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the above claim element is described by the specification of the 256 Patent. Because claim 19 is a newly added, and includes the claim elements described above, that are not described in the disclosure of the 256 Patent, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §251 as including new matter.
2) Regarding claims 26, 31, and 35: Claims 26, 31, and 35 invoke §112 ¶6 and include Functional Phrases #1, #4, #7, and #10 outlined above. Claims 26, 31, and 35 are a new claims added in this instant reissue application, and the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that Functional Phrases #1, #4, #7, #10, are described by the specification of the 256 Patent. Because claim 26, 31, and 35 are newly added, and include Functional phrases #1, #4, #7, #10, not described in the disclosure of the 256 Patent, claim 26, 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 (pre-AIA ), as including new matter.
3) Regarding dependent claims 20-25, 27-30, 32-34, and 36-38: These claims depend from claims 19, 26, 31, and 35 above and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §251 based upon their dependency from claims 19, 26, 31, and 35.

IX. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Second Paragraph
Claims 26-38 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.
Regarding claims 26, 31 and 35: Claims 26, 31, and 35 are product claims. For product claims the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures. See MPEP § 2103 I. C. As noted above, claims 26, 31, and 35, included Functional Phrases # 1, #4, #7, and #10 that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and the specification fails to clearly link and associate a corresponding structure to Functional Phrases # 1, #4, #7, and #10.
Because the specification fails to clearly link and associated a corresponding structure to Functional Phrases # 1, #4, #7, and #10, a PHOSITA cannot reasonably determine what discrete physical structures Functional Phrases # 1, #4, #7, and #10 are meant to refer or define.
Because claim 26, 31, and 35 includes Functional Phrases #1, #4, #7, and #10 and a PHOSITA cannot reasonably determine what structures Functional Phrases # 1, #4, #7, and #10 define, claim 26, 31, and 35 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 27-30, 32-34, and 36-38: These claims are indefinite based upon the dependency on claim intendent claims 26, 31, and 35 respectively.

X. Claims Construed As Best Possible - Compact Prosecution
The Examiners find that because claims 26-38 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(¶ 2) as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”).
However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claim are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible in the following art rejections.

XI. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
A) Claims 19-20, 22-24, 27, 29-32, 34-36, and 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shich (Pub. No. US 2002/0184510), in view of Widegren et al (Pub. No. US 2002/0120749) and Shippee (Pub. No. 2004/0142723) with support from Burke et al. (Pub. No. 2005/0113151) as evidence for motivation.
1) Regarding claim 19 and 31: Shich discloses a method and computer readable medium comprising: receiving, by a mobile station (MS), a request for authorization from a mobile network on a basis of a resource authorization identifier of a policy decision function (Policy Control Function 353, Figure 3) received from a packet data gateway (PDG) (Claim Interpretation: See section above entitled “Sources for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.” The 256 Patent does not expressly describe this step. Based upon the specification one reasonable interpretation is sending of an authorization token to the mobile. . Reading upon Shich, at Par [0012] [0013] [0029] [0036] [0037] [0070] [0074] [0075]. At Par [0012] [0013] Shich discusses that the User device initially registers with the system and is untrusted. At Par [0029] [0036] [0037] [0038] [0070] [0074], Shich discusses that the policy control function PCF via the gateway, sends a token to the user device UE, and at Par [0038] the UE uses token to make access. The token is basically a unique code used to verify the user device and can be seen as a request for authorization that gets sent to the mobile and subsequently gets send back to the network.), wherein the PDG is configured to arrange a bearer on the basis of the authorization from the policy decision function (See Shich at Par [0035] [0070] [0075] [0079] discussing that the UE then sends the token in a PDP context activation request which then gets match by the policy decision function to allow bearers to be allocated based upon the token and the policy for that UE.).
Shich disclose that the process is for assigning radio bearers (Par [0028] [0066] [0067] [0068] [0070] [0075] [0079]) however does not specifically disclose receiving, by a mobile station (MS), bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups.
In related art, Widegren teaches receiving, by a mobile station (MS), bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups (See Widegren at Abstract, Par [0027] [0053] [0054] [0120] discussing QOS bearers are assigned with QOS information by the industry standard. And See Par [0063] [0126] [0067] [0068] [0126], expressly teaching the bearer assignment with QOS information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich, and add receiving the bearer configuration information with QOS parameters for a plurality of bearers, as taught by Widegren, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Widegren shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Widegren suggests a need to make the modification, in order to maintain the data transfer characteristics for the required quality, as discussed by Widegren (Par [0040]), and (3) Widegren shows that a PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because sending such information was standardized, as discussed by Widegren (Par [0045]).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale D. See MPEP §2143 I. D. " Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results." For example Shich shows a base device/system upon which the invention can be seen as an improvement (Shich Par [0070] BS1 checking policy information for QOS in the system of Figure 3). And Widegren shows the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (Widegren, Id. at Par [0027] [0053] [0054].), and a PHOSITA would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system (Widegren at Par [0045] showing sending such information was standardized by PHOSITA's).
Shich and Widegren teach a plurality of radio access bearers, however to no expressly discloses wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology;
In related art, Shippee teaches wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology (See Shippee abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich and Widegren and have the first and second radio bearers be of different technology, as taught by Shippee, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Shippee shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Shippee suggests a need to make the modification, in order to allow the mobile to operate in system that support both protocols or have base stations of both protocols nearby, as discussed by Shippee (Par [0010] [0011] [0013]), and (3) the Examiner finds the evidence shows that PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because persons in the art where experienced with mobile phones including two transceivers for receiving different protocols or technologies, as shown by Burke (Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers. ).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale D. See MPEP §2143 I. D. " Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results." For example Shich and Widegren shows a base device/system receiving a plurality of radio bearers upon which the invention can be seen as an improvement (Widegren abstract, Par [0027]). And Shippee shows the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038].), and a PHOSITA would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system, because persons in the art were experienced with systems and phones having two transceivers of different protocols, as shown by Burke (See Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers.).
Shich, Widegren, and Shippee teach receiving, by the MS, data from a node of the mobile network using the at least one of the bearer setup for the first radio access technology; and receiving, by the MS, data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology (See Shippee at abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
2) Regarding claims 26: Shich discloses a mobile station (MS) configured to:
receive a request for authorization from a mobile network on a basis of a resource authorization identifier of a policy decision function (Policy Control Function 353, Figure 3) from a packet data gateway (PDG) (Claim Interpretation: See section above entitled “Sources for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.” The 256 Patent does not expressly describe this step. Based upon the specification one reasonable interpretation is sending of an authorization token to the mobile. Reading upon Shich at Par [0012] [0013] [0029] [0036] [0037] [0070] [0074] [0075]. At Par [0012] [0013] Shich discusses that the User device initially registers with the system and is untrusted. At Par [0029] [0036] [0037] [0038] [0070] [0074], Shich discusses that the policy control function PCF via the gateway, sends a token to the user device used to authorize the device when the user device makes its resource reservation request. The token is basically a unique code used to verify the user device and can be seen as a request for authorization that gets sent to the mobile and subsequently gets send back to the network.), wherein the PDG is configured to arrange a bearer on the basis of the authorization from the policy decision function (See Shich at Par [0035] [0070] [0075] [0079] discussing that the UE then sends the token in a PDP context activation request which then gets match by the policy decision function to allow bearers to be allocated based upon the token and the policy for that UE.).
Shich disclose that the process is for assigning radio bearers (Par [0028] [0066] [0067] [0068] [0070] [0075] [0079]) however does not specifically disclose receive a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology,
wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups.
In related art, Widegren teaches receive a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups.
(See Widegren at Abstract, Par [0027] [0053] [0054] [0120] discussing QOS bearers are assigned with QOS information by the industry standard. And See Par [0063] [0126] [0067] [0068] [0126], expressly teaching the bearer assignment with QOS information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich, and adding the processor and receiving to receive the bearer configuration information with QOS parameters for a plurality of bearers, as taught by Widegren, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Widegren shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Widegren suggests a need to make the modification, in order to maintain the data transfer characteristics for the required quality, as discussed by Widegren (Par [0040]), and (3) Widegren shows that a PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because sending such information was standardized, as discussed by Widegren (Par [0045]).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale D. See MPEP §2143 I. D. " Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results." For example Shich shows a base device/system upon which the invention can be seen as an improvement (Shich Par [0070] BS1 checking policy information for QOS in the system of Figure 3). And Widegren shows the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (Widegren, Id. at Par [0027] [0053] [0054].), and a PHOSITA would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system (Widegren at Par [0045] showing sending such information was standardized by PHOSITA's).
Shich and Widegren teach a plurality of radio access bearers, however to no expressly discloses wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology;
In related art, Shippee teaches wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology (See Shippee abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich and Widegren and have the first and second radio bearers be of different technology, as taught by Shippee, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Shippee shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Shippee suggests a need to make the modification, in order to allow the mobile to operate in system that support both protocols or have base stations of both protocols nearby, as discussed by Shippee (Par [0010] [0011] [0013]), and (3) the Examiner finds the evidence shows that PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because persons in the art where experienced with mobile phones including two transceivers for receiving different protocols or technologies, as shown by Burke (Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers. ).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale D. See MPEP §2143 I. D. " Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results." For example Shich and Widegren shows a base device/system receiving a plurality of radio bearers upon which the invention can be seen as an improvement (Widegren abstract, Par [0027]). And Shippee shows the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038].), and a PHOSITA would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system, because persons in the art were experienced with systems and phones having two transceivers of different protocols, as shown by Burke (See Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers.).
Shich, Widegren, and Shippee teach receive data from a node of a mobile network using the at least one of the bearer setup for the first radio access technology; and
receive data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology (See Shippee at abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
3) Regarding claim 35: Shich discloses a mobile station (MS) comprising: means for processing and receiving a request for authorization from a mobile network on a basis of a resource authorization identifier of a policy decision function (Policy Control Function 353, Figure 3) received from a packet data gateway (PDG) (Claim Interpretation: See section above entitled “Sources for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.” The 256 Patent does not expressly describe this step. Based upon the specification one reasonable interpretation is sending of an authorization token to the mobile. Reading upon Shich, at Par [0012] [0013] [0029] [0036] [0037] [0070] [0074] [0075]. At Par [0012] [0013] Shich discusses that the User device initially registers with the system and is untrusted. At Par [0029] [0036] [0037] [0038] [0070] [0074], Shich discusses that the policy control function PCF via the gateway, sends a token to the user device used to authorize the device when the user device makes its resource reservation request. The token is basically a unique code used to verify the user device and can be seen as a request for authorization that gets sent to the mobile and subsequently gets send back to the network.), wherein the PDG is configured to arrange a bearer on the basis of the authorization from the policy decision function (See Shich at Par [0035] [0070] [0075] [0079] discussing that the UE then sends the token in a PDP context activation request which then gets match by the policy decision function to allow bearers to be allocated based upon the token and the policy for that UE.).
Shich disclose that the process is for assigning radio bearers (Par [0028] [0066] [0067] [0068] [0070] [0075] [0079]) however does not specifically disclose means for processing and receiving a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups.
In related art, Widegren teaches means for processing and receiving a bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups (See Widegren at Abstract, Par [0027] [0053] [0054] [0120] discussing QOS bearers are assigned with QOS information by the industry standard. And See Par [0063] [0126] [0067] [0068] [0126], expressly teaching the bearer assignment with QOS information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich, and adding the processor and receiving to receive the bearer configuration information with QOS parameters for a plurality of bearers, as taught by Widegren, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Widegren shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Widegren suggests a need to make the modification, in order to maintain the data transfer characteristics for the required quality, as discussed by Widegren (Par [0040]), and (3) Widegren shows that a PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because sending such information was standardized, as discussed by Widegren (Par [0045]).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale D. See MPEP §2143 I. D. " Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results." For example Shich shows a base device/system upon which the invention can be seen as an improvement (Shich Par [0070] BS1 checking policy information for QOS in the system of Figure 3). And Widegren shows the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (Widegren, Id. at Par [0027] [0053] [0054].), and a PHOSITA would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system (Widegren at Par [0045] showing sending such information was standardized by PHOSITA's).
Shich and Widegren teach a plurality of radio access bearers, however to no expressly discloses wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology;
In related art, Shippee teaches wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology (See Shippee abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich and Widegren and have the first and second radio bearers be of different technology, as taught by Shippee, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Shippee shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Shippee suggests a need to make the modification, in order to allow the mobile to operate in system that support both protocols or have base stations of both protocols nearby, as discussed by Shippee (Par [0010] [0011] [0013]), and (3) the Examiner finds the evidence shows that PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because persons in the art where experienced with mobile phones including two transceivers for receiving different protocols or technologies, as shown by Burke (Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers. ).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale D. See MPEP §2143 I. D. " Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results." For example Shich and Widegren shows a base device/system receiving a plurality of radio bearers upon which the invention can be seen as an improvement (Widegren abstract, Par [0027]). And Shippee shows the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038].), and a PHOSITA would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system, because persons in the art were experienced with systems and phones having two transceivers of different protocols, as shown by Burke (See Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers.).
Shich, Widegren, and Shippee teach means for receiving data from a node of the mobile network using the at least one bearer setup for the first radio access technology; and means for receiving data from a network node of the second radio access technology using the at least one bearer setup of the second radio access technology (See Shippee at abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
4) Regarding claims 20, 27, 32, and 36: Shich, Widegren, and Shippee disclose the method of claim 19, MS of claim 26, medium of claim 31, and MS of claim 35, wherein the data received from the node of the second radio access technology is transferred using a user plane tunneling protocol (See Shich Par [0009] [0010] [0024], Widegren at Par [0022] [0051] discussing user data on a user plane tunnelling. And Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA. ).
5) Regarding claim 22, 29, 34, and 38: Shich, Widegren, and Shippee disclose the method of claim 19, MS of claim 26, medium of claim 31, and MS of claim 35, wherein the mobile station is transmitting Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) data to another node (See Shich at Par [0051] [0022] and Widegren at Par [0063].).
6) Regarding claim 23 and 30, Shich, Widegren, and Shippee disclose the method of claim 19, MS of claim 26, medium of claim 31, and MS of claim 35, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology (See Shippee at abstract, Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA signals simultaneously with voice and data traffic on those signals.).
7) Regarding claim 24: Shich, Widegren, and Shippee disclose the method of claim 19, MS of claim 26, medium of claim 31, and MS of claim 35,wherein the first radio access technology is 3GPP (See Shich at Par [0007] [0011] discussing 3GPP networks.).

B) Claims 21, 25, 28, 33, and 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shich (Pub. No. US 2002/0184510), in view of Widegren et al (Pub. No. US 2002/0120749) and Shippee (Pub. No. 2004/0142723) with support from Burke et al. (Pub. No. 2005/0113151) as evidence for motivation, and further in view of Balogh et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0243870).
1) Regarding claim 21, 25, 28, 33, and 37: Shich, Widegren, and Shippee disclose the method of claim 19, MS of claim 26, medium of claim 31, and MS of claim 35, as discussed above. However, Shich, Widegren, and Shippee do not expressly discloses the second radio access technology is a wireless local area network (WLAN) radio access technology.
In related art Balogh teaches the second radio access technology is a wireless local area network (WLAN) radio access technology (See Balogh Par [0074] [0075], discussing WLAN technology.).
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shich, Widegren, and Shippee, and have the second technology be WLAN technology, as taught by Balogh, because:
Teaching Suggestion: (1) Balogh shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Shich, Widegren, and Shippee show two different technologies (See Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA); (3) Balogh suggests a need to make the modification, because networks may include several different technologies and there is a need for seamless operation, as discussed by Balogh (Par [0005] [0011]), and (3) the Examiner finds the evidence shows that PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because Shich, Widegren, and Shippee are already showing two technologies (Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA) and persons in the art where experienced using different technology protocols and could make the substitution to perform the same function of wireless access using GSM or WCDMA technology to perform wireless access in the combination using WLAN technology, as shown by Balogh (Balogh Par [0074] shows base stations of at least three different technologies, i.e. HRPD, 3G1X-EVDV, UMTS, WLAN where known for performing wireless access).
KRS Rationale: The Examiner finds that alternatively the modification is supported by KSR Rationale B. See MPEP § 2143 I. B. “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.” For example, Shich, Widegren and Shippee shows the prior included a device/system which differed from the claimed device or system by substitution of WLAN technology (Shippee Par [0012] [0022] [0038] discussing receiving GSM protocol signals and WCDMA). And Balogh shows that the substituted technology and their functions were known in the art (Balogh discussion above.), and the Examiner finds that the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, because the same function of wireless access in the combination is done by the WLAN technology as was already being done before by the GSM and or WCDMA technology, as shown by Balogh (Balogh Par [0074] shows base stations of at least three different technologies, i.e. HRPD, 3G1X-EVDV, UMTS, WLAN, performing wireless access.).

XII. Response to Arguments
A) Argument Re: §251/§112 ¶1 New Matter Rejections
Applicant argument: On pp. 24-28 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks the Applicant essentially argues:
Claims 19, 26 and 31 have been amended to making the 35 U.S.C. §251 (pre-AIA ) as including new matter rejection moot. Support for the amendments may be found throughout the ‘256 patent, in particular, column 8, lines 20-52 and column 9, lines 9-21.
Based on the arguments presented above, withdrawal of the §251 rejection of claims 19-38 is respectfully requested.

- Apr. 2025 Remarks, p. 24.
Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ),
first paragraph, as allegedly failing to comply with the written description
requirement for including new matter added to the patent/claims for which reissue is sought.

Claims 19, 26 and 31 have been amended to making the 35 U.S.C. §251 (pre-AIA ) as including new matter rejection moot. Support for the amendments may be found throughout the ‘256 patent, in particular, column 8, lines 20-52 and column 9, lines 9-21.

- Apr. 2025 Remarks, pp. 24-25.
Based on the arguments presented above, withdrawal of the §112 rejections of claims 19-38 is respectfully requested.

- Apr. 2025 Remarks, p. 28.
To support the above argument the Applicant points to the specification at, C1:L31-44, C2:L33-46, C5:L58-C6:L1, C6:L22-31, C6:L46-50, C7:L53-63, C8:L20-30, C8:L20-52, C8:L38-52, C9:L9-21, and C10:L17-30 (See pp. 25-28 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks.).
Summary of Applicant Argument: The Examiner finds that the Applicant is arguing that the claims that the claim elements identified in the last action as being new matter have been amended and are now supported by the specification. As such the Applicant asserts the new matter rejections are moot and should be withdrawn. To support this argument the Applicant points to the specification at, C1:L31-44, C2:L33-46, C5:L58-C6:L1, C6:L22-31, C6:L46-50, C7:L53-63, C8:L20-30, C8:L20-52, C8:L38-52, C9:L9-21, and C10:L17-30 (See pp. 25-28 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks.).
Examiner Response: The Examiner finds this argument not persuasive. In summary, while the claims have been amended, they are still directed to a mobile station that receives radio bearer setup in formation for two radio access technologies, then receives data on both those technologies. The Examiner finds that the description of the invention in the specification does not describe such an invention, rather the description is directed to, at most, a mobile receiving information to setup two tunnels. The Examiner finds the evidence of record shows a Tunnel is different than a bearer. As such, the Examiner maintains the rejection.
In more detail, the Examiner notes the following.
After review of the claims, the Examiner acknowledges the claim elements identified as new matter in the last action have been amended. For example, “radio bearer configuration information,” has been changed to bearer setup information. However, the Examiner finds that such as change does not remedy the situation. As noted above, and here again, claims 19, 26, 31, and 35 are new to the 256 Patent, and still require the feature of “receiving, by a mobile station (MS), bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology.” (“Two Bearer Setup Feature”). The Examiner has reviewed the sections of the specification referenced by the Applicant and finds insufficient evidence that those section expressly or inherently recite Two Bearer Setup Feature. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the Two Bearer Setup Feature was not in any original claim. Further, the Examiner finds that the Applicant has not shown that the Two Bearer Setup Feature is expressly called out in the specification, is inherently required by the particular section cited by the Applicant, was in any original claim, or is a term of art called out in the specification that means the claimed feature. The best the Examiner can finds is C8:L20-30, that states that “a new WLAN-3GPP bearer is set up or modified 311 for the mobile terminal.” See 256 Patent at C8:L20-30. However, the Examiner finds that while this statement implies that that bearer set up information for two radio access technologies could be received by the mobile station, the Examiner find insufficient evidence the statement in C8:L20-30 inherently requires the Two Bearer Setup Feature. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the entire 256 Patent specification is directed to a mobile phone setting up a tunnel while connected to the WLAN network by attaching the WLAN access point (AP), Figure 1, while in the area of the WLAN (See 256 Patent C2:L47-61, and C5:L33-56.). However, as noted in the section above entitled “Sources for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation,” a tunnel is a logical connection and not a radio bearer connection. For that reason the Examiner finds the specification does not support the Two Bearer Setup Feature. The Examiner notes that if Applicant could show evidence that what is described in the specification is a term of art requiring the Two Bearer Setup Feature the Examiner would re-evaluate the new matter rejections.
Because, the claim requires the mobile station to receive from a node of a first radio access technology bearer setups information with QOS parameters for both of a first radio access technology and a second radio access technology, and the specification does not expressly or inherently recite that feature, and because the Applicant has not shown why the specification would inherently require that feature, the Examiner finds the Applicant argument not persuasive.

B) Argument Re: §112 ¶2
Applicant argument: On pp. 25-28 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks the Applicant essentially argues:
Claims 26-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as allegedly 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.

Claim 26 has been amended to follow a similar format as claim 8 of the ‘256 patent. Claim 31 has a similar construction to claim 16 of the ‘256 patent and the following specification passages provide support.

- Apr. 2025 Remarks, p. 25.

Claim 35 is a means plus function claim that is supported by the above cited passages of the ‘256 patent.

- Apr. 2025 Remarks, p. 28.
To support the above argument the Applicant points to the specification at, C1:L31-44, C2:L33-46, C5:L58-C6:L1, C6:L22-31, C6:L46-50, C7:L53-63, C8:L20-30, C8:L20-52, C8:L38-52, C9:L9-21, and C10:L17-30 (See pp. 25-28 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks.).
Summary of Applicant Argument: The Examiner finds that the Applicant appears to be arguing that the specification shows support for the claims elements identified in the functional phrases identified in the §112 ¶ 2 rejection and therefore the rejection is overcome.
Examiner Response: The Examiner finds this argument not persuasive. The Examiner takes this position as follows.
First, as noted in the Dec. 2024 Non-Final Rejection, at pp. 33-34 the Examiner found the claims indefinite because the specification fails to clearly link and associated a corresponding structure to FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10 in claims 26, 31, and 35. Accordingly, a PHOSITA cannot reasonably determine what structures those functions are meant to refer or define.
Second, the Examiner has reviewed the Applicants Apr. 2025 Remarks, and finds that while applicant points to sections of the 256 Patent specification for support, Applicant has not identified what structures in the 256 Patent specification correspond to FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10.
Third, the Examiner has reviewed the sections of the 256 Patent specification referenced by the Applicant for support, and finds insufficient evidence that those sections clearly link and associated a corresponding structure to FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10. As noted above, even though claims 26, 31, and 35 are amended, the Functions of FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 still require “receiving, by a mobile station (MS), bearer setup information from a node of the mobile network having a first radio access technology, wherein the bearer setup information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of bearer setups, wherein at least one of the bearer setups is for the first radio access technology and at least one of the bearer setups is for a second radio access technology, wherein the first radio access technology is different than the second radio access technology.” Additionally, the Function of FP#10 requires “PDG is configured to arrange a bearer on the basis of the authorization from the policy decision function.” Accordingly, the above feature requires some discrete structure, device programmed with an algorithm, and a to realize the Functions of FP#1, FP#4, FP#7, and FP#10. As noted above, those functions essentially require a corresponding structure that would realize the function of a mobile station receiving from a node of a first radio access technology bearer setups information with QOS parameters for both of a first radio access technology and a second radio access technology, and a PDG that arranges the bearer setup on the basis of the authorization function. The Examiner has reviewed the sections of the specification referenced by the Applicant and finds insufficient evidence that those section describe a discrete structure, or mobile station programmed with an algorithm that would realize those function. The best the Examiner can find is C8:L20-30, that states that “a new WLAN-3GPP bearer is set up or modified 311 for the mobile terminal.” (See 256 Patent at C8:L20-30.) However, the Examiner finds that while this statement implies that something did occur to set up a bearer, and may imply that setup information was received for two bearers, however, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence of a structure or algorithm that would realize the function.
Because, the claims are rejected as indefinite because the specification fails to clearly link and associated a corresponding structure to FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10 and therefore a PHOSITA cannot reasonably determine what structure FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10 are meant to refer or define. And because the Applicant while pointing to sections of the specification for support has not shown that those section clearly link and associated a corresponding structure to FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10. And because based upon and independent review of the specification the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the specification clearly links and associated a corresponding structure to FP#1, FP#4, FP#7 and FP#10, the Examine finds the Applicants argument not persuasive.

C) Argument Re: §103
On pp. 28-31, the Applicant makes arguments concerning the rejection of claims 19-20, 22-24, 26, 27, 29-32, 34-36, and 38 under §103 as obvious over Shich Pub. No.: US 2002/0184510 in view of Widegren Pub. No.: US 2002/0120749, and Shippee Pub. No.: US 2004/0142723, with support for motivation from Burke Pub. No.:US2005/0113151. The Arguments are as follows:
1) Arg. Re: “Widegren does not teach QOS Information.”
Applicant Argument: On p. 29 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks, the Applicant essentially argues:
NFOA, which states, “Shich disclose that the process is for assigning radio bearers (Par [0028] [0066] [0067] [0068] [0070] [0075] [0079]) however does not specifically disclose receiving, by a mobile station (MS), radio bearer configuration information from a cellular network node having a first radio access technology, wherein the radio bearer configuration information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of radio bearers.”
- Apr. 2024 Remarks, p. 28.
Widegren states in paragraphs [0052] and[0053], “The SGSN sends a RANAP message, ... [t]his request to establish a radio access bearer (RAB) service carries the (perhaps modified) RAB QoS attributes. ...From the RAB QoS attributes, the RNC determines the radio-related parameters corresponding to the QoS profile, e.g., transport format set, 01 transport format combination set, etc.” The cited paragraphs are just generic statements with respect to setting up a multimedia session for a mobile station. There was no QoS reference in the Widegren claim set demonstrating this concept was an afterthought.

- Apr. 2024 Remarks, p. 29.
Summary of Applicant Argument: Based upon review of the Applicant remarks, the Examiner finds that the Applicant appears to be arguing that the secondary reference, Widegren, does not teach “receiving, by a mobile station (MS), radio bearer configuration information from a cellular network node having a first radio access technology, wherein the radio bearer configuration information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of radio bearers,” (Argued Feature) of claims 19, 26, 31, and 35, as asserted by the Dec. 2024 Non-Final Action. The Applicant takes this position because Applicant asserts that while the references does teach “receiving, by a mobile station (MS), radio bearer configuration information from a cellular network node having a first radio access technology,” the reference does not expressly or inherently disclose “wherein the radio bearer configuration information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of radio bearers.” To support this position Applicant asserts that Widegren simply mentions QOS. However the reference overall is not about quality of service parameters, as evidenced by the claims not including the QOS feature.
Examiner Response: The Examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
First, The Examiner acknowledges that the particular paragraphs pointed to by the Examiner in the office action do not expressly show the bearer assignment with the QOS information. However the Paragraphs cited by the Examiner, e.g. Par [0053] that QOS information sent to the mobile is an industry standard. Par [0053] is an extension of Par [0051] and [0052] that state that QOS is sent by the bearer service control function of the UMTS and Par [0053] states that the attributes are part of the industry standard. Accordingly, based upon the cited sections of the Office action, Widegren inherently teaches “wherein the radio bearer configuration information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of radio bearers.”
Second, and additionally, looking at the remainder of Widegren, the Examiner finds that while the claims of the reference are not directed to the QOS, the overall reference is expressly teaching assigning the QOS attributes in bearers being assigned to the mobile stations. The Examiner has for clarity now cited the express teachings in the art rejection above. For example Par [0063] [0126] are discussing that the UMTS is controlling QOS for service contexts requested by the mobile station. And in Par [0067] [0068] Widegren does expressly state that the bearer configuration for the mobile is sent to the mobile including QOS attributes. Accordingly, the Widegren reference does expressly disclose “wherein the radio bearer configuration information includes quality of service (QOS) information for a plurality of radio bearers,” as required by the claim.

2) Arg. Re: “No Evidence of Obviousness at time of Invention.”
Applicant Argument: On p. 29 of the Apr. 2025 Remarks, the Applicant essentially argues:
The Applicant disagrees with the Examiner, on page 37 of the NFOA, which states, “[teaching Suggestion: (1) Shippee shows that the feature was known in the art, (2) Shippee suggests a need to make the modification, in order to allow the mobile to operate in system that support both protocols or have base stations of both protocols nearby, as discussed by Shippee (Par [0010] [0011] [0013]), and (8) the Examiner finds the evidence shows that PHOSITA could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success, because persons in the art where experienced with mobile phones including two transceivers for receiving different protocols or technologies, as shown by Burke (Burke Figure 1, Par [0025], discussing mobile phone with CDMA and UWB transceivers).”
The Office Action also asserted that a PHOSITA would be sophisticated enough
to apply of Widegren, Shippee, and Burke to allegedly arrive at the features of the
claimed invention. The Applicant believes the inclusion of Widegren, Shippee, and Burke is speculative at best.
- Apr. 2025 Remarks p. 30.

The Office Action also asserted that a PHOSITA would be sophisticated enough to apply of Widegren, Shippee, and Burke to allegedly arrive at the features of the claimed invention. The Applicant believes the inclusion of Widegren, Shippee, and Burke is speculative at best. The issue of obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical “person having ordinary skill in the art” PHOSITA. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent prior art. The Widegren, Shippee, and Burke references are presented as prior art aspects since they meet the presumed context of the current claims. Stating that PHOSITA would have obviously combined the references is purely speculative and since they focus on different aspects of a wireless communication, the Applicant respectfully disagrees on this premise.
- Apr. 2025 Remarks, pp. 30-31.

Summary of Applicant Argument: Based upon review of the Applicant remarks, the Examiner finds that the Applicant appears to be arguing that a PHOSITA would not have found it obvious to modify Shich with Widegren and Shippee. Applicant takes this position because Applicant asserts that the evidence relied upon by the Examiner does not support the conclusion of obviousness. To support this position Applicant asserts that the Shich, Widegren and Shippee teachings are not analogous, comparable, or similar. Rather, Applicant asserts that the references are focusing on different aspects of wireless communications thus the a PHOSITA would not have made the combination with reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner Response: The Examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
First, the Office Action does more than just state that a PHOSITA would have found it obvious and could make the modification with reasonable expectation of success and/or predictable results. The Examiner provides evidence from the references. See for example, the Dec. 2024 Non-Final Action, p. 36. For example, as noted in the Dec. 2024 Non-Final Action, e.g. at pp. 25-36 and p. 38, the Examiner shows that Shich and Widegren are both directed to quality of service for mobile devices accessing wireless communication systems (Shich Par [0029] [0070], Widegren Par [0053]). Additionally, the Examiner has shown, e.g., Dec. 2024 Non-Final Action, e.g. at p. 35 and p. 37 that both of Shich and Shippee are directed mobile phones wirelessly receiving communications over radio bearers (Shich Par [0028], Shippee Par [0013] [0022]). Accordingly, the Examiner has provided evidence that Shich, Widegren and Shippee are analogous, comparable, or similar systems or devices, and why a PHOSITA knew about the features in those devices and/or systems to allow them to make the modification with reasonable expectation of success and/or predictable results.
Second, the Examiner has reviewed the Applicants Apr. 2025 Remarks in their entirety. Th Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the Applicant has rebutted the Examiner’s stances and evidence.
Third, the Examiner has reviewed the Applicants Apr. 2025 Remarks in their entirety. Th Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the Applicant has referenced any particular sections of those references that show that they are not Analogous, comparable, or similar teachings.
Because, the Examiner has provided conclusions supported by evidence that a PHOSITA would combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention and the Applicant has not rebutted those conclusions with any particular remarks supported by evidence the Examiner finds the Applicants argument not persuasive.

XIII. Conclusion
Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251, § 112, and § 103.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the patent.
Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.

XIV. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Nick Corsaro whose telephone number is 571-272-7876. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 7am to 4pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published reissue 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.

/NICK CORSARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992

Conferees:

/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992

1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the Patent, or in the prior art.

2 Based upon a review of the original disclosure, the art of record, and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in this art as determined by the factors discussed in MPEP §2141.03 (where practical), the Examiner finds that the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary is an appropriate technical dictionary known to be used by one of ordinary skill in this art. See e.g. Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1373, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1872 (Fed. Cir. 2003) where the Federal Circuit used the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3d ed.) as “a technical dictionary” to define the term “flag.” See also In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 170 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1971) (noting that it’s appropriate to use technical dictionaries in order to ascertain the meaning of a term of art) and MPEP §2173.05(a) titled “New Terminology.”