DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-16, 18-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchal (U.S. Patent Number: 11,229,083) in view of Courtney (U.S. Patent Application Number: 2004/0090935).
Consider claim 1; Panchal discloses a communication control apparatus comprising:
a service request detection unit that detects a request for service from a communication device [e.g. voice call (col. 4, lines 58-60)];
a service quality determination unit that determines whether the service quality required by the service is achieved by a first base station to which the communication device is connected [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)]; and
a service request transmission unit that transmits a request for the service to a second base station (e.g. eNB) that can achieve the service quality (col. 5, lines 11-18), if it is determined that the service quality is not achieved by the first base station [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)].
Panchal discloses the claimed invention except: the first base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station belonging to a home network for the communication device, and the second base station is a terrestrial base station belonging to a roaming network for the communication device, and wherein the service quality is related to a propagation delay between the communication device and the flying non-terrestrial base station as the first base station.
In an analogous art Courtney discloses the first base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station belonging to a home network for the communication device [“The base stations 12 and 14 can be mobile base stations, such as non-terrestrial stations (e.g. satellites or aircrafts) (par. 19, lines 8-10)], and the second base station is a terrestrial base station belonging to a roaming network for the communication device [“…the base stations 12 and 14 can be fixed terrestrial base stations, such as satellite network transceivers distributed about the network 10 (par. 19, lines 10-12). “At least one of the base stations 12 and 14 and/or the terminals 18-20 are movable relative to each other” (par. 24, lines 4-6)], and wherein the service quality is related to a propagation delay between the communication device and the flying non-terrestrial base station as the first base station [“Due to the mobility of communications equipment and satellite stations, in operation, it is often necessary to pass signaling from one base station or platform to a next base station, which event is referred to as a handover.” (par. 4, lines 1-4) “The delays become even more significant when there are increased propagation delays due to such signaling between the terminals being handed over and the network.” (par. 4, lines 20-23)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Panchal by including propagation delay, as taught by Courtney, for the purpose of effectively mitigating network problems in a wireless environment.
Consider claim 2, as applied in claim 1; Panchal discloses the service request detection unit [e.g. voice call (col. 4, lines 58-60)], the service quality determination unit [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)], and the service request transmission unit (col. 5, lines 11-18) are provided in at least one of the first base station (e.g. gNB) and a core network (e.g. AMF) to which the first base station is connected (col. 5, lines 4-11), the service request detection unit detects a request for the service transmitted by the communication device to the first base station (e.g. gNB) [e.g. voice call (col. 4, lines 58-60)], the service quality determination unit determines whether the first base station can achieve the service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)], and the service request transmission unit transfers a request for the service from the first base station (e.g. gNB) to the second base station (e.g. eNB) (col. 5, lines 11-18), if it is determined that the first base station cannot achieve the service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)].
Consider claim 3, as applied in claim 1; Panchal discloses the service request detection unit, the service quality determination unit, and the service request transmission unit are provided in the communication device (col. 14, lines 59-65; col. 15, lines 38-39).
Consider claim 5, as applied in claim 1; Panchal discloses a response reception unit that receives a response from the second base station to a request for the service [e.g. handover is completed (col. 5, lines 18-21)]; and a connection control unit that changes the connection destination of the communication device from the first base station (e.g. gNB) to the second base station (e.g. eNB) based on the response that the second base station can achieve the service quality [e.g. handover is completed (col. 5, lines 18-21)].
Consider claim 7, as applied in claim 1; Panchal discloses the first base station (e.g. gNB) and the second base station (e.g. eNB) belong to different mobile communication networks [e.g. 5G and LTE (col. 4, lines 39-45)].
Consider claim 9, as applied in claim 1; Courtney discloses at least one of the first base station and the second base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station [“The base stations 12 and 14 can be mobile base stations, such as non-terrestrial stations (e.g. satellites or aircrafts) (par. 19, lines 8-10)].
Consider claim 10, as applied in claim 9; Courtney discloses the non-terrestrial base station is a communication satellite flying in outer space [“The base stations 12 and 14 can be mobile base stations, such as non-terrestrial stations (e.g. satellites or aircrafts) (par. 19, lines 8-10)].
Consider claim 11; Panchal discloses a communication control method comprising:
connecting a wireless communication device to a first base station [e.g. gNB (col. 4, line 58)];
detecting, by the first base station (e.g. gNB), a request for service from a wireless communication device [e.g. voice call (col. 4, lines 58-60)], wherein the request includes a requested service quality (col. 4, lines 58-60; col. 5, lines 22-27);
determining, by the first base station (e.g. gNB), whether the first base station is capable of implemented the service at the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)];
providing, by the first base station (e.g. gNB), the service in response to a determination that the first base station is capable of the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)]; and
transmitting, by the first base station (e.g. gNB), in response to a determination that the first base station (e.g. gNB) is incapable of the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)], a request for the service to a second base station (e.g. eNB) that is capable of the requested service quality (col. 5, lines 11-18).
Panchal discloses the claimed invention except: the first base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station belonging to a home network for the communication device, and the second base station is a terrestrial base station belonging to a roaming network for the communication device, and wherein the service quality is related to a propagation delay between the communication device and the flying non-terrestrial base station as the first base station.
In an analogous art Courtney discloses the first base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station belonging to a home network for the communication device [“The base stations 12 and 14 can be mobile base stations, such as non-terrestrial stations (e.g. satellites or aircrafts) (par. 19, lines 8-10)], and the second base station is a terrestrial base station belonging to a roaming network for the communication device [“…the base stations 12 and 14 can be fixed terrestrial base stations, such as satellite network transceivers distributed about the network 10 (par. 19, lines 10-12). “At least one of the base stations 12 and 14 and/or the terminals 18-20 are movable relative to each other” (par. 24, lines 4-6)], and wherein the service quality is related to a propagation delay between the communication device and the flying non-terrestrial base station as the first base station [“Due to the mobility of communications equipment and satellite stations, in operation, it is often necessary to pass signaling from one base station or platform to a next base station, which event is referred to as a handover.” (par. 4, lines 1-4) “The delays become even more significant when there are increased propagation delays due to such signaling between the terminals being handed over and the network.” (par. 4, lines 20-23)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Panchal by including propagation delay, as taught by Courtney, for the purpose of effectively mitigating network problems in a wireless environment.
Consider claim 12; Panchal discloses detecting, by a first base station (e.g. gNB), a request for service from a wireless communication device connected to the first base station (e.g. gNB) [e.g. voice call (col. 4, lines 58-60)], wherein the request includes a requested service quality (col. 4, lines 58-60; col. 5, lines 22-27); determining, by the first base station (e.g. gNB), whether the first base station is capable of implementing the service at the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)]; providing, by the first base station (e.g. gNB), and transmitting (col. 5, lines 11-18), by the first base station (e.g. gNB), in response to a determination that the first base station (e.g. gNB) is incapable of the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)], a request for the service to a second base station (e.g. eNB) that is capable of the requested service quality (col. 5, lines 11-18).
Panchal discloses the claimed invention except: the first base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station belonging to a home network for the communication device, and the second base station is a terrestrial base station belonging to a roaming network for the communication device, and wherein the service quality is related to a propagation delay between the communication device and the flying non-terrestrial base station as the first base station.
In an analogous art Courtney discloses the first base station is a flying non-terrestrial base station belonging to a home network for the communication device [“The base stations 12 and 14 can be mobile base stations, such as non-terrestrial stations (e.g. satellites or aircrafts) (par. 19, lines 8-10)], and the second base station is a terrestrial base station belonging to a roaming network for the communication device [“…the base stations 12 and 14 can be fixed terrestrial base stations, such as satellite network transceivers distributed about the network 10 (par. 19, lines 10-12). “At least one of the base stations 12 and 14 and/or the terminals 18-20 are movable relative to each other” (par. 24, lines 4-6)], and wherein the service quality is related to a propagation delay between the communication device and the flying non-terrestrial base station as the first base station [“Due to the mobility of communications equipment and satellite stations, in operation, it is often necessary to pass signaling from one base station or platform to a next base station, which event is referred to as a handover.” (par. 4, lines 1-4) “The delays become even more significant when there are increased propagation delays due to such signaling between the terminals being handed over and the network.” (par. 4, lines 20-23)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Panchal by including propagation delay, as taught by Courtney, for the purpose of effectively mitigating network problems in a wireless environment.
Consider claim 18, as applied in claim 1; Panchal discloses the service request detection unit detects the request from the communication device comprising a wireless communication device already connected to the first base station (e.g. gNB) [e.g. voice call (col. 4, lines 58-60)], and the service request includes a requested service quality (col. 4, lines 58-60; col. 5, lines 22-27), the service quality determination unit determines whether the first base station (e.g. gNB) is capable of implementing the service at the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)], the first base station implements the service in response to a determination that the first base station is capable of the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)], and the service request transmission unit transmits the request to the second base station (e.g. eNB) (col. 5, lines 11-18) in response to a determination that the first base station (e.g. gNB) is not capable of the requested service quality [e.g. a fallback procedure is required (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 4)].
Claims 4, 6, 8, 13-16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchal (U.S. Patent Number: 11,229,083) in view of Courtney (U.S. Patent Application Number: 2004/0090935) in view of Dravida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Number: 2007/0008925).
Consider claim 4, as applied in claim 1; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the service quality determination unit is provided in the application layer that provides an application to the communication device through the first base station, and determines whether the service quality is achieved by the first base station depending on the status of an application executed in the application layer.
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the service quality determination unit is provided in the application layer that provides an application to the communication device through the first base station (par. 56, lines 1-14), and determines whether the service quality is achieved by the first base station depending on the status of an application executed in the application layer (par. 56, lines 1-14).
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including an application, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 6, as applied in claim 1; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the communication device is in an overlapping area of a first communication cell provided on the ground by the first base station and a second communication cell provided on the ground by the second base station.
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the communication device is in an overlapping area of a first communication cell provided on the ground by the first base station and a second communication cell provided on the ground by the second base station (par. 49, lines 1-6; par. 61, lines 1-9).
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including overlapping areas, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 8, as applied in claim 1; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the first base station and the second base station belong to the same mobile communication network.
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the first base station and the second base station belong to the same mobile communication network (par. 61, lines 1-4).
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including belonging to the same mobile communication network, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 13, as applied in claim 11; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the requested service quality comprises 4K, 8K or ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC).
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the requested service quality comprises 4K, 8K or ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC) [as disclosed in par. 42 of the applicant’s specification, 4K and 8K refer to virtual reality (par. 63, lines 6-15)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including certain types of service, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 14, as applied in claim 11; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the service comprises remote control, intelligent transport system (ITS), real-time gaming, V2X messages, power distribution, process automation, discrete automation, or automated driving of a vehicle.
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the service comprises remote control, intelligent transport system (ITS), real-time gaming, V2X messages, power distribution, process automation, discrete automation, or automated driving of a vehicle [it is known in the field of art that online gaming is also real time gaming (par. 63, lines 6-15)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including certain types of service, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 15, as applied in claim 12; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the requested service quality comprises 4K, 8K or ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC).
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the requested service quality comprises 4K, 8K or ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC) [as disclosed in par. 42 of the applicant’s specification, 4K and 8K refer to virtual reality (par. 63, lines 6-15)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including certain types of service, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 16, as applied in claim 12; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the service comprises remote control, intelligent transport system (ITS), real-time gaming, V2X messages, power distribution, process automation, discrete automation, or automated driving of a vehicle.
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the service comprises remote control, intelligent transport system (ITS), real-time gaming, V2X messages, power distribution, process automation, discrete automation, or automated driving of a vehicle [it is known in the field of art that online gaming is also real time gaming (par. 63, lines 6-15)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including certain types of service, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 19, as applied in claim 18; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the requested service quality comprises 4K, 8K or ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC).
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the requested service quality comprises 4K, 8K or ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC) [as disclosed in par. 42 of the applicant’s specification, 4K and 8K refer to virtual reality (par. 63, lines 6-15)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including certain types of service, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Consider claim 20, as applied in claim 18; Panchal and Courtney disclose the claimed invention except: the service comprises remote control, intelligent transport system (ITS), real-time gaming, V2X messages, power distribution, process automation, discrete automation, or automated driving of a vehicle.
In an analogous art Dravida discloses the service comprises remote control, intelligent transport system (ITS), real-time gaming, V2X messages, power distribution, process automation, discrete automation, or automated driving of a vehicle [it is known in the field of art that online gaming is also real time gaming (par. 63, lines 6-15)].
It is an object of Panchal’s invention to provide a method of redirecting from one base station to another based on the occurrence of an event. It is an object of Courtney’s invention to facilitate handover in a wireless communications network. It is an object of Dravida’s invention to provide a method of seamless interworking of communication between wireless networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Panchal and Courtney by including certain types of service, as taught by Dravida, for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience in a wireless network.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Joel Ajayi whose telephone number is (571) 270-1091. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am to 5:00pm and Friday 7:30am to 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jeanette Parker can be reached on (571) 270-3647. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/JOEL AJAYI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights