DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-11, 20-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 20-28 have been considered but are moot because they are directed to new limitations introduced by amendments and are addressed by a new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-11, 20-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 20, and 21 is/are amended with the following new language:
“the threshold is based on policies comprising:
a first policy based on a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement and
a second policy based on the mobile device identity,
the communication service being provided, and a subscriber agreement”
The claims appear to state the threshold is a value that is determined in a dynamic way unique to each subscriber and is a function the following variables: QoS requirement, Mobile ID, nature of the service being provided, and subscriber agreement.
The Specification provides no support or even suggest such a step of determining the threshold, nor does it show any algorithm to arrive at the threshold using the variables mentioned above.
The Specification repeatedly state the following statements or similar thereof through the disclosure: “determining whether the one or more characteristics satisfy a threshold for accessing a CBRS network; and responsive to the one or more characteristics satisfying the threshold, facilitating access by the mobile device to the CBRS network to continue providing the communication service”, per ¶0076, 0068, 0041.
This merely shows a step of comparing one or more characteristic against the threshold value. It does not equate determining the threshold based on any other variables.
Most importantly, ¶0033 states the following:
“In one or more embodiments, the CBRS network can be pre-configured, such as operating in a particular location based on one or more particular thresholds OR other requirements (e.g., device speed, device identity, user identity, service being provided, subscriber agreement, provider agreements, network conditions, available network resources, and so forth)” – Emphasis added.
The Specification directly refute the claim amendments. Here the Specification specifically states that other parameters such as user identity, service being provided, subscribers agreement, QoS, etc.. are alternative conditions in place of the use of a threshold. The keyword is “alternative”, i.e. (‘or’). This language separate the threshold from said other parameters, thus the threshold cannot be based such parameters, nor there is any support for a threshold that is determined based on said parameters.
Simply put, the amendment is not supported.
The claims are thus rejected under this section, and the dependent claims fall together with the base claims respectively.
In view of the issues, the examiner will provide best attempt at BRI to address the unsupported claims until correction by Applicants.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 20, 21-23, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullberg et al. (US 2022/0322195) in view of Rajesh Pazhyannur (US 2021/0160743) – hereafter Rajesh, and in further view of Thala Nany (US 9445312).
As to claim 1:
Tullberg discloses:
a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Abstract, ¶0090, processor/memory of the network node), the operations comprising:
identifying a mobile device accessing a communication service via a wireless network; determining one or more characteristics associated with the mobile device; (¶0021, 0015, 0053, 0105, network node receives measurements report corresponding the mobile device, i.e. implicitly identifying the mobile device that sends the report, wherein from the report the network node to determine one or more characteristic associated with the mobile device such as radio link qualities, time for handover)
determining whether the one or more characteristics satisfy a threshold for accessing a target network; (¶0063, 0130, the network node determine if there is enough time to perform network migration by comparing the estimated time for handover to a threshold value)
and
responsive to the one or more characteristics satisfying the threshold, facilitating access by the mobile device to the target network to continue providing the communication service. (¶131, 0063, 0015, responsive to having the estimated time for handover to meet the threshold to be determine as being sufficient, facilitating signaling process for handover for continuing coverage service for the mobile device)
Except that Tullberg does not explicitly disclose the target network being a Citizen Band Radio Service (CBRS) network.
Rajesh, in a related field of network roaming for mobile devices, discloses a system/process for handover between different networks, wherein the target RANs can be, among other possibilities, CBRS networks. (See ¶0019-0021, 0041, 0053), wherein Rajesh also further ascertains the step of network node identifying a mobile device accessing a communication service via a wireless network as a well-known routine, where network must be made known of the UE identity of the UE attempting to access coverage service in ¶0042-0043.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the possible target RAN to include CBRS networks in the system of Tullberg. Rajesh in ¶021-022 discusses modern RANs typically include CRBRS networks for the purpose of having the advantage of protecting QoS for various classes of user by restricting interference by the virtue of CBRS.
Neither of the reference suggest a step of determining a threshold wherein the threshold is based on policies comprising: a first policy based on a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement and a second policy based on the mobile device characteristics, the communication service provided, and a subscriber agreement.
Thala Nany in a related field of endeavor discloses in Abstract, Summary section in col. 2, also Claim 1, wherein a network reselection (handover specifically) process with a user-specific handoff profile being to trigger access of a new network that is based on QoS constraint (requirement, a particular application being associated with the QoS in question (i.e. communication service), a network condition parameter values specific to user profile, i.e. user identity for authorization for access, and “ remote access to the home domain”, i.e. user agreement for level of service.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Tullberg to further incorporate a handoff threshold based various variables in the manner disclosed by Thala Nany. This implementation advantageously provides both user and networks unmatched flexibility to customize level of access for each specific users based their service level and network condition.
As to claim 20:
Tullberg discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (¶0022, CRM), the operations comprising:
determining one or more characteristics associated with a mobile device accessing a communication service via a wireless network; (¶0021, 0015, 0053, 0105, network node receives measurements report corresponding the mobile device, i.e. implicitly identifying the mobile device that sends the report, wherein from the report the network node to determine one or more characteristic associated with the mobile device such as radio link qualities, time for handover)
determining whether the one or more characteristics satisfy a threshold for accessing a target network; ; (¶0063, 0130, the network node determine if there is enough time to perform network migration by comparing the estimated time for handover to a threshold value)
responsive to the one or more characteristics satisfying the threshold, facilitating access by the mobile device to the target network to continue providing the communication service. . (¶131, 0063, 0015, responsive to having the estimated time for handover to meet the threshold to be determine as being sufficient, facilitating signaling process for handover for continuing coverage service for the mobile device)
Except that Tullberg does not explicitly disclose the target network being a Citizen Band Radio Service (CBRS) network.
Rajesh, in a related field of network roaming for mobile devices, discloses a system/process for handover between different networks, wherein the target RANs can be, among other possibilities, CBRS networks. (See ¶0019-0021, 0041, 0053), wherein Rajesh also further ascertains the step of network node identifying a mobile device accessing a communication service via a wireless network as a well-known routine, where network must be made known of the UE identity of the UE attempting to access coverage service in ¶0042-0043.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the possible target RAN to include CBRS networks in the system of Tullberg. Rajesh in ¶021-022 discusses modern RANs typically include CRBRS networks for the purpose of having the advantage of protecting QoS for various classes of user by restricting interference by the virtue of CBRS.
Neither of the reference suggest a step of determining a threshold wherein the threshold is based on policies comprising: a first policy based on a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement and a second policy based on the mobile device characteristics, the communication service provided, and a subscriber agreement.
Thala Nany in a related field of endeavor discloses in Abstract, Summary section in col. 2, also Claim 1, wherein a network reselection (handover specifically) process with a user-specific handoff profile being to trigger access of a new network that is based on QoS constraint (requirement, a particular application being associated with the QoS in question (i.e. communication service), a network condition parameter values specific to user profile, i.e. user identity for authorization for access, and “ remote access to the home domain”, i.e. user agreement for level of service.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Tullberg to further incorporate a handoff threshold based various variables in the manner disclosed by Thala Nany. This implementation advantageously provides both user and networks unmatched flexibility to customize level of access for each specific users based their service level and network condition.
As to claim 21:
Tullberg discloses:
A method, comprising:
detecting, by a processing system including a processor, a mobile device accessing a communication service via a wireless network; determining, by the processing system, one or more characteristics associated with the mobile device; (¶0021, 0015, 0053, 0105, network node receives measurements report corresponding the mobile device, i.e. implicitly identifying the mobile device that sends the report, wherein from the report the network node to determine one or more characteristic associated with the mobile device such as radio link qualities, time for handover)
determining, by the processing system, whether the one or more characteristics satisfy a threshold for accessing a targeted network; (¶0063, 0130, the network node determine if there is enough time to perform network migration by comparing the estimated time for handover to a threshold value)
responsive to the one or more characteristics satisfying the threshold, facilitating, by the processing system, access by the mobile device to the targe network to continue providing the communication service. (¶131, 0063, 0015, responsive to having the estimated time for handover to meet the threshold to be determine as being sufficient, facilitating signaling process for handover for continuing coverage service for the mobile device)
Except that Tullberg does not explicitly disclose the target network being a Citizen Band Radio Service (CBRS) network.
Rajesh, in a related field of network roaming for mobile devices, discloses a system/process for handover between different networks, wherein the target RANs can be, among other possibilities, CBRS networks. (See ¶0019-0021, 0041, 0053), wherein Rajesh also further ascertains the step of network node identifying a mobile device accessing a communication service via a wireless network as a well-known routine, where network must be made known of the UE identity of the UE attempting to access coverage service in ¶0042-0043.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the possible target RAN to include CBRS networks in the system of Tullberg. Rajesh in ¶021-022 discusses modern RANs typically include CRBRS networks for the purpose of having the advantage of protecting QoS for various classes of user by restricting interference by the virtue of CBRS.
Neither of the reference suggest a step of determining a threshold wherein the threshold is based on policies comprising: a first policy based on a Quality of Service (QoS) requirement and a second policy based on the mobile device characteristics, the communication service provided, and a subscriber agreement.
Thala Nany in a related field of endeavor discloses in Abstract, Summary section in col. 2, also Claim 1, wherein a network reselection (handover specifically) process with a user-specific handoff profile being to trigger access of a new network that is based on QoS constraint (requirement, a particular application being associated with the QoS in question (i.e. communication service), a network condition parameter values specific to user profile, i.e. user identity for authorization for access, and “ remote access to the home domain”, i.e. user agreement for level of service.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Tullberg to further incorporate a handoff threshold based various variables in the manner disclosed by Thala Nany. This implementation advantageously provides both user and networks unmatched flexibility to customize level of access for each specific users based their service level and network condition.
As to claims 2, 22:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 1/21, wherein the one or more characteristics include a predicted time period that the mobile device will be in a coverage area of the CBRS network. (¶0062, 0063 of Tullberg, predicted time of handover)
As to claims 3, 23:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 2/22, wherein the operations further comprise employing a machine learning model to determine the predicted time period. (¶0062, 0063, 0080 of Tullberg, using trained ML to predicted the handover time)
As to claims 6, 26:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 1/21, wherein the device is operated by a first entity which is distinct from a second entity operating the wireless network. (See Rajesh, ¶0019, 0035, 0051, base station might be operated by an operator among a plurality of multiple different operators who operate the shared RAN(s))
As to claims 7, 27:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 1/21, wherein the wireless network is a cellular network, and wherein the communication service is provided utilizing a licensed cellular spectrum while the mobile device is operating in the cellular network. (Rajesh, ¶0021-0023, 0030-0031, 0055-0057, explicitly defines CBRS and references licensed vs. shared bands, and shows a UE operating with MNO (licensed network))
As to claims 8, 28:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 1/21, wherein the operations further comprise executing an embedded microservice that controls the access by the mobile device to the CBRS network to continue providing the communication service. (Rajesh, ¶057, 0033, network node include software that controls core communication and mobility admission of the mobile device, i.e. handover control which allow for continued communication services in mobile environment)
Claim(s) 4-5, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullberg et al. (US 2022/0322195) in view of Rajesh Pazhyannur (US 2021/0160743) – hereafter Rajesh and Thala Nany (US 94445312) in further view of Tonaru (WO 2014/136434) in further view of Chen (CN 110958606).
As to claims 4, 24:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 3/23, however is silent on the machine learning model analyzes a speed of the mobile device, a direction of movement of the mobile device, a type of the communication service, and historical data associated with the mobile device.
Tonaru, in a related field of endeavor, discloses consideration of handover destination include analysis of movement history of the mobile device, direction, and moving speed etc. (See page 21, first 4 paragraphs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the Handover analysis in Tullberg to include movement history, direction, and moving speed. These parameters are typical, if not necessary variables, to be used for estimation of handover time, since direction and speed are core algorithm parameters to determine distance and arrival time, while movement history advantageously allows for determining confidence of trajectory.
None of the above references discloses consideration of a type of the communication service for handover.
Chen, in a related field of handover prediction, in page 7-8 discloses prediction of handover time/location by collecting various parameters, such as historical movement and service type among other things, to refine handover estimation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the combination of Tullberg in view of Rajesh/Tonaru to include the feature of considering service for their estimation of handover algorithm. In page 7-8 of Peng, the consideration of service type provides the benefits of refining handover time accurately with respect to a given service type, since each service type requires different signaling timing and delay/latency which highly impactful to the handover timing.
As to claims 5, 25:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany, Tonaru and Chen disclose all limitations of claim 4/24, wherein the historical data includes historical device movement, and historical time information associated with the historical device movement. (Peng, page 3, 10-11, historical information include historical switching time, historical movements from known connection points)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullberg et al. (US 2022/0322195) in view of Rajesh Pazhyannur (US 2021/0160743) – hereafter Rajesh and Thala Nany (US 9445312) in further view of Li et al. (US 2017/0367026).
As to claim 9:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany disclose all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on providing an API request to a Policy Controller Function that controls the access by the mobile device to the CBRS network to continue providing the communication service.
Li, in a related of network reselection, discloses in ¶0008, 0091 discloses sending an API request to a PCF for new path selection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the process of Tullberg/Rajesh to providing an API request to a Policy Controller Function that controls the access by the mobile device to the CBRS network to continue providing the communication service. Using API calls allows the handover to be checked against policies in real time. In addition, as 5G architecture defines reference points as APIs between network functions, API calls to a PCF allow for standardized and modernized integration of handover decisions to newer generations of network.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullberg et al. (US 2022/0322195) in view of Rajesh Pazhyannur (US 2021/0160743) – hereafter Rajesh and Thala Nany (US 9445312) in further view of Li et al. (US 2017/0367026) and in further view of Wong et al. (US 2023/0308971).
As to claim 10:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany and Li disclose all limitations of claim 9, however is silent on the Policy Controller Function operates in a cloud network.
Wong, in a related field of supporting switching of traffic between different access paths, discloses a cloud network that hosts a PCF in ¶0061.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the PCF in the system of Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Li to be hosted in a cloud network. Well-known benefit of cloud hosting includes saving cost of having to obtain private hardware, high availability since cloud deployment can run across multiple zones/region/countries with network access such as internet, and ease of updates.
As to claim 11:
Tullberg in view of Rajesh and Thala Nany and Li disclose all limitations of claim 9, wherein the Policy Controller Function is operated by a first entity which is distinct from a second entity operating the CBRS network. (See Rajesh, ¶0019, 0035, 0051, RANs and core networks operated by an operator among a plurality of multiple different operators who share use of network infrastructure. See also ¶0024-0027, 0051)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0364565 - Methods and apparatus for providing quasi-licensed intra-cell spectrum reassignment. In one embodiment, the quasi-licensed spectrum utilizes 3.5 GHz CBRS (Citizens Broadband Radio Service) spectrum, and a “seamless” reassignment of wireless spectrum without disruption or loss of continuity to existing data sessions of the CBSD is provided via a pool of temporary RF carriers which act as substitutes for the currently allocated (granted) carriers. The served user devices (e.g., UEs) are instructed by the CBSD to migrate to a new “final” carrier via the substitutes, either directly or via one or more intermediary hops. In one variant, existing 3GPP signaling mechanisms between the UE and CBSD/eNodeB obviates any changes to extant UEs. Communications between the CBSD and its cognizant SAS/DP include new information objects which direct the CBSD to implement the handover functionality. In a further variant, inter-CBSD sector and frequency handovers are provided for using CBRS-plane and 3GPP signaling.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645