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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 12-16 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of Remarks with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billhartz et al. (US 2003/0204616 A1), hereinafter referred to as Billhartz, in view of Yamada et al. (US 2006/0209891 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamada.
Re. Claim 1, Billhartz teaches:
A terminal apparatus (Fig. 1, source node 1)
to be connected to a specific network from among a plurality of networks in which quality of a communication service is controlled, (¶0034 The destination node 4, upon receiving the QoS route request RREQQ, generates a reply RREPQ to the source node 1 including the flow identifier and updated QoS link metric for each discovered route (block 110). In other words, the destination node 4 may have received the forwarded route request RREQQ from any of various possible routes including, for example, 1-2-4 or 1-3-5-4 [i.e. an example combination of nodes that make up a network out of a plurality of possible networks] … & ¶0050 a route selection unit 58 selects a route to the destination node based upon the QoS route metrics and to transmit route confirmations to nodes on a selected route [i.e. a network, which can be any combination of the nodes that make up the route, meaning that there are multiple or a plurality of possible networks that can be connected to or created depending on which or how many nodes are present].)
each of the plurality of networks including a first node and a second node, (¶0033 Intermediate nodes 2 and 5 [i.e. second node(s)] also must determine whether they can support the requested QoS parameter of the QoS route request RREQQ forwarded from node 3. If so, the route request RREQQ with the updated QoS link metric is then forwarded to the destination node 4 [i.e. a first node].)
the terminal apparatus comprising: terminal-apparatus-processing circuitry (¶0049 Each mobile node [i.e. source node 1 as the terminal] includes a router 40 (FIG. 6) that has a communications device 42 to wirelessly and uni-directionally or bi-directionally communicate with other nodes via the wireless communication links 32, and a controller 44 to route communications via the communications device 42 [i.e. terminal apparatus processing circuitry]. Also, a memory 46 may be included as part of the controller 44 or in connection with the controller.) configured to implement:
and a requester (Fig. 7 Route Disc Unit – 50, of a source node 1) configured to request the quality control apparatus to start the quality control, (¶0038 source node 1 of a traffic flow will send the QoS Route Request RREQQ for each required flow (the last Q in the notation indicates a QoS request). The RREQQ message performs the function of discovering a route that can support the required QoS [i.e. quality control on a given network is initiated and controlled once a proper route is established by way of the route request message]. & ¶0050 the controller 44 includes a route discovery unit 50 [i.e. a requester] to transmit the quality-of-service (QoS) route requests)
Yet, Billhartz does not explicitly teach: configured to implement: an identifier configured to identify, based on network information for identifying the specific network, one or both of the first node and the second node of the specific network to which the terminal apparatus is to be connected, wherein the first node is a quality control apparatus with quality-control-apparatus-processing circuitry configured to receive a request regarding quality control that is control of quality of a communication service in the specific network and wherein the second node is a notification apparatus with notification-apparatus-processing circuitry configured to receive, from the terminal apparatus, a request to acquire first information indicative of the quality control apparatus; wherein, in a case in which the identifier identifies the notification apparatus of the specific network and is unable to identify the quality control apparatus of the specific network, the requester is configured to request the identified notification apparatus to acquire the first information including the information indicative of the quality control apparatus, and request the quality control apparatus to start the quality control based on the first information acquired by the notification apparatus
However, in the analogous art, Yamada teaches such limitations:
configured to implement: an identifier configured to identify, based on network information for identifying the specific network, (Fig. 8 shown below & ¶0048 In the network QoS control system shown in FIG. 3, if the communication device 10 [i.e. a communication device (terminal) would contain a processor for implementing an identifier to identify network devices] currently wants Qos-assured communication, a QoS request packet is issued to the QoS control function in the network, that is, the QoS control server 20 [i.e. in order to send a request packet to the QoS control server (first node), the communication device (terminal) must identify it, therefore the communication device (processor) is implementing an identifier to do so] via a communication access path of either the access network A (wireless LAN) 200 or access network B (cellular network) 300. [i.e. Fig. 8 shows Access Network A is used to send the Request QoS message, therefore the QoS control server is identified based on network information for identifying a specific network (network information of Access Network A)]) *Examiner notes that due to the presence of alternative limitations only one limitation has been examined in this application. All proceeding limitations dependent upon the identifier identifying the second node (notification apparatus) will also not be examined due to their dependence upon this alternative limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first node is a quality control apparatus with quality-control-apparatus-processing circuitry (Fig. 8 QoS Control Server [i.e. a quality control apparatus] & Fig. 7 Control Server in Network -20 contains QoS Message Control Unit -21 [i.e. quality-control-apparatus-processing circuitry])
configured to receive a request regarding quality control that is control of quality of a communication service in the specific network (Fig. 8 [shows Request QoS message sent from terminal to QoS Control Server] & ¶0048 In the network QoS control system shown in FIG. 3, if the communication device 10 currently wants Qos-assured communication, a QoS request packet is issued to the QoS control function in the network, that is, the QoS control server 20 [i.e. QoS request packet for control of quality assured communication service in a network].)
*The second node (notification apparatus) is part of a previous limitation recited in the alternative that was not relied upon for rejection. Therefore, since the notification apparatus is not given patentable weight, further limitations which are dependent on the apparatus are also not given patentable weight since the apparatus is not present to perform any of the process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Billhartz’s invention of admission control in a mobile ad hoc network to include Yamada’s teaching of a quality control apparatus configured to receive a request regarding control of quality of a communication service in a network, because it would allow control of the system for optimally allocating resources to improve the probability that a terminal user can receive QoS assurance. (see Yamada ¶0016)
Re. Claim 2, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 1.
Billhartz further discloses the following limitation:
*The first information is part of a previous limitation recited in the alternative that was not relied upon for rejection. Therefore, since the first information is not given patentable weight, further limitations which are dependent on them are also not given patentable weight since the apparatus is not present to perform any of the process.
Re. Claim 4, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 1.
Billhartz further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising *The first information and the second node (notification apparatus) are part of a previous limitation recited in the alternative that was not relied upon for rejection. Therefore, since the first information and notification apparatus are not given patentable weight, further limitations which are dependent on them are also not given patentable weight since the apparatus and information is not present to perform any of the process.
*The correspondence information is part of a previous limitation recited in the alternative that was not relied upon for rejection. Therefore, since the correspondence information is not given patentable weight, further limitations which are dependent on it are also not given patentable weight.
Re. Claim 5, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 4.
Billhartz further discloses the following limitations:
*The correspondence information is part of a previous limitation recited in the alternative that was not relied upon for rejection. Thus, another correspondence information is also not given patentable weight since it would be dependent on there being a previous correspondence, and further limitations which are dependent on it are also not given patentable weight.
Re. Claim 6, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 5.
Billhartz further discloses the following limitations:
*The correspondence information and another correspondence information are part of a previous limitation recited in the alternative that was not relied upon for rejection. Therefore, this limitation is also not being given patentable weight and is not being examined in this application, as well as further depending limitations.
Re. Claim 9, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 1.
Billhartz further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the identifier is configured to identify (¶0030 It will be understood that blocks of the illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the illustrations, can be implemented by computer program instructions [i.e. application program information]. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor [i.e. the identifier] of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, implement the functions specified in the block or blocks. && ¶0071 each node 30 may generate traffic destination information [i.e. network information] … and store (block 410) the traffic destination information in a destination quantity database. Thus, each node 30 may also discover and select traffic routes based upon the stored traffic destination information. [i.e. based on network information] && ¶0073 The route discovery unit 50 [i.e. the identifier, which is the processor mentioned previously] discovers routing to a destination node based upon the stored traffic information, and the route selection unit 58 selects traffic routes to the destination node based upon the stored traffic information. [i.e. identifies second nodes in a network as part of selecting a path, which is based on implemented computer program instructions as well as stored traffic information]) *Examiner notes that due to the presence of alternative limitations only one limitation has been examined in this application.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, the rejections for claim 10 is the same as those of claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billhartz combined with Yamada, and in further view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0052857 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Re. Claim 7, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 1.
Yet, the combined references do not teach: wherein, in a case in which a module is attached to the terminal apparatus, the module being configured to store subscriber identification information identifying a user who subscribes to the communication service in the network, the identifier is configured to refer to at least one of items included in information stored in the module as the network information, in order to identify one or both of the first node and the second node.
However, in the analogous art, Lee teaches “the identifier”, as well as the following limitations:
wherein, in a case in which a module is attached to the terminal apparatus, the module being configured to store subscriber identification information identifying a user who subscribes to the communication service in the specific network, (Fig. 1 (Subscriber Identity Module 196) & ¶0043 The wireless communication module 192 may identify and authenticate the electronic device 101 in a communication network, such as the first network 198 or the second network 199, using subscriber information (e.g., international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI)) stored in the subscriber identification module 196.)
the identifier (¶0043 the communication module 190 may include a wireless communication module 192 [i.e. an identifier]) is configured to refer to at least one of items included in information stored in the module as the network information, in order to identify one or both of the first node (¶0043 The wireless communication module 192 may identify and authenticate the electronic device 101 [i.e. identify first or second node] in a communication network, such as the first network 198 or the second network 199, using subscriber information [i.e. information stored in the module] (e.g., international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI)) stored in the subscriber identification module 196.) *Examiner notes that due to the presence of alternative limitations only one limitation has been examined in this application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Billhartz and Yamada’s invention of admission control in a mobile ad hoc network to include Lee’s teaching of a subscriber identification module because it would allow the use of SIM cards to provide network information in order to connect to the network and identify necessary nodes, which decreases battery consumption due to the minimization of overhead caused by searching for a network using a communication module. (see Lee ¶10-12 & ¶0043)
Re. Claim 8, Billhartz combined with Yamada teaches claim 1.
Yet, the combined references do not teach: wherein the network information includes at least one of subscriber identification information identifying a user who subscribes to the communication service in the network, module identification information identifying a module configured to store the subscriber identification information, and an access point name identifying an access point for connection to the network.
However, in the analogous art, Lee teaches the following limitations:
wherein the network information includes at least one of subscriber identification information identifying a user who subscribes to the communication service in the network, (¶0043 The wireless communication module 192 may identify and authenticate the electronic device 101 in a communication network, such as the first network 198 or the second network 199, using subscriber information [i.e. identifying user with SIM information] (e.g., international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI)) stored in the subscriber identification module 196)
module identification information identifying a module configured to store the subscriber identification information, (¶0054 SIM information may include a unique number allocated to a SIM. For example, an integrated circuit card identifier (ICCID) [i.e. module identification information] corresponding to the fixed number and/or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) which changes for each a subscriber line. For example, the SIM information may further include at least one of information such as an authentication key, a local area identity (LAI), an operator-specific emergency phone number, a short message service center (SMSC) number, a service provider name (SPN), service dialing numbers (SDN), an add-of-charge (VAS) parameter, and a value-added service (VAS) application program.)
and an access point name identifying an access point for connection to the specific network. (Fig. 2B & ¶0058 The first SIM and the second SIM may different networks (e.g., LTE network 1 and LTE network 2) through which the communication service is provided [i.e. access point names]. For example, LTE bearer 1 221 may be formed through LTE network 1, and LTE bearer 2 223 may be formed through LTE network 2.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Billhartz and Yamada’s invention of admission control in a mobile ad hoc network to include Lee’s teaching of subscriber identification information being included in the network information because it would allow the use of SIM cards to provide network information in order to connect to the network and identify necessary nodes, which decreases battery consumption due to the minimization of overhead caused by searching for a network using a communication module. (see Lee ¶10-12 & ¶0043)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY A MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/G.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417