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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 9/13/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: on line 9 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 2 “the received RSSI” should be “the RSSI” because the R in RSSI indicates received and there is no antecedent bases for a “received RSSI”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0190916 A1) (hereinafter Celedon) in view of Molisch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0214917 A1) (hereinafter Molisch).
Regarding claim 1, Celedon discloses a cell split controller (Paragraph 0008 discloses a centralized mobile switching center (“MSC”)) comprising:
a control circuit (Paragraph 0008 discloses a centralized mobile switching center (“MSC”)) configured to:
determine that a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of an end device being served by a first gateway has fallen below a threshold (Paragraph 0008 discloses if the received signal strength of the current channel in the serving cell falls below a threshold or is otherwise lower than the signal strength of a measured channel of a neighboring cell, the MSC or RNC may initiate handoff of the mobile handset's call session to a neighboring cell);
order the end device to switch to a new channel set of a neighboring gateway (Paragraphs 0005 and 0008 discloses each BTS broadcasts on a discrete radio channel within a specified coverage area. A multiplicity of BTS sites may produce an array of cells that allows the system to provide radio coverage over a wide geographic area. If the received signal strength of the current channel in the serving cell falls below a threshold or is otherwise lower than the signal strength of a measured channel of a neighboring cell, the MSC or RNC may initiate handoff of the mobile handset's call session to a neighboring cell);
check a new RSSI for the end device through the neighboring gateway (Paragraph 0008 discloses if the received signal strength of the current channel in the serving cell falls below a threshold or is otherwise lower than the signal strength of a measured channel of a neighboring cell, the MSC or RNC may initiate handoff of the mobile handset's call session to a neighboring cell); and
command the end device to switch back to an original channel set of the first gateway if the new RSSI is weaker than the received RSSI (Paragraphs 0005 and 0008 discloses each BTS broadcasts on a discrete radio channel within a specified coverage area. A multiplicity of BTS sites may produce an array of cells that allows the system to provide radio coverage over a wide geographic area. If the received signal strength of the current channel in the serving cell falls below a threshold or is otherwise lower than the signal strength of a measured channel of a neighboring cell, the MSC or RNC may initiate handoff of the mobile handset's call session to a neighboring cell).
Celedon does not explicitly disclose an output configured to be coupled to a network connection; and a control circuit coupled to the output.
In analogous art, Molisch discloses an output configured to be coupled to a network connection (Figure 3 and paragraphs 0025 and 0028 disclose the mobile switching center 210 has an output port 219. Output port 219 can be, for example, coupled to basestations 111 through 171 via wired connections (not shown), which can include connections through network 200. In another embodiment, the output port is coupled to the basestations via wireless connections); and
a control circuit coupled to the output (Figure 3 and paragraph 0025 disclose the mobile switching center 210 has an input port 211, a joint detector 213, a processor 215, a decoder 217, and an output port 219. Input port 211 is coupled to joint detector 213, which is coupled to decoder 215. Decoder 215 is coupled to processor 217, which is coupled to output port 219).
It 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 to incorporate a mobile switching center having an output connected to a network and a processor, as described in Molisch, with a mobile switching center, as described in Celedon, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining a mobile switching center having an output connected to a network and a processor of Molisch with a mobile switching center of Celedon was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Molisch.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Celedon and Molisch to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Celedon, as modified by Molisch, further discloses wherein the control circuit is further configured to compare the new RSSI to the received RSSI (Paragraphs 0005 and 0008 discloses each BTS broadcasts on a discrete radio channel within a specified coverage area. A multiplicity of BTS sites may produce an array of cells that allows the system to provide radio coverage over a wide geographic area. If the received signal strength of the current channel in the serving cell falls below a threshold or is otherwise lower than the signal strength of a measured channel of a neighboring cell, the MSC or RNC may initiate handoff of the mobile handset's call session to a neighboring cell).
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon in view of Molisch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0081100 A1) (hereinafter Du).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Celedon, as modified by Molisch, discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein the first gateway comprises a Long Range (LoRa) gateway.
In analogous art, Du discloses wherein the first gateway comprises a Long Range (LoRa) gateway (Paragraph 0127 discloses the long range BSS includes a long range AP L-AP and a long range STA L-STA that communicate with each other, where normal transmit power used by the long range AP L-AP to send data to the long range STA L-STA is higher than the threshold, and a maximum value of normal transmit power used by the long range STA L-STA to send data to the long range AP L-AP is the normal transmit power of the long range AP L-AP).
It 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 to incorporate a long range AP, as described in Du, with a BTS, as described in Celedon, as modified by Molisch, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining a long range AP of Du with a BTS of Celedon, as modified by Molisch, was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Du.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Celedon, Molisch, and Du to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celedon in view of Molisch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yiu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0058508 A1) (hereinafter Yiu).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Celedon, as modified by Molisch, discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein the output is configured to be coupled to a software defined area network (SDAN).
In analogous art, Yiu discloses wherein the output is configured to be coupled to a software defined area network (SDAN) (Figures 2G and 3A and paragraphs 0074 and 0089 disclose the CIoT network architecture 200G can further include a mobile services switching center (MSC) 286. The SDN architecture 300A can be implemented within any of the systems shown in FIG. 1 or 2A-2J. Some non-limiting examples of SDN applications 303A-303C can include software-defined mobile networking (SDMN), software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN), software-defined local area network (SD-LAN)).
It 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 to incorporate an MSC in a software device wide area network or local area network, as described in Yiu, with an MSC, as described in Celedon, as modified by Molisch, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining an MSC in a software device wide area network or local area network of Yiu with an MSC of Celedon, as modified by Molisch, was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Yiu.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Celedon, Molisch, and Yiu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claim 4, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Celedon and Molisch, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of wherein the control circuit is integrated into a LoRa server in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claim 4.
Considering claim 6, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Celedon and Molisch, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of wherein the control circuit is configured to command LoRa end devices in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0006514 A1) discloses an apparatus and method for performing handoff in a mobile communication system;
Bonta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0055969 A1) discloses a method for autonomous handoff in a wireless communication system;
Hill et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0147267 A1) discloses a wireless communications network;
Rimoni et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0049276 A1) discloses user terminal-initiated hard handoff from a wireless local area network to a cellular network;
Bjorklund et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0064887 A1) discloses a wireless communication system for telephonic calls;
Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0167165 A1) discloses handover methods and apparatus for mobile communication devices;
Emberson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0009291 A1) discloses a mobile station, infrastructure processor, system, and method for use in cellular communications;
Nieminen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0189530 A1) discloses decision making based on remote observation of node capabilities;
Komura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0057673 A1) discloses a radio communication system, radio communication terminal, radio communication apparatus, and communication method;
Vivanco et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,338,591 B1) discloses systems and methods for managing a location based service on a wireless device in a multi-band communication network;
Ngounou (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0303177 A1) discloses methods and systems for load balancing in mesh networks;
Strater et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0176284 A1) discloses steering between content streaming devices using derived link metrics and channel utilization information;
Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0183875 A1) discloses a system and method for fire ground entry control based on internet of things;
Shimoshimano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0007857 A1) discloses a control device, control method, and recording medium for controlling channels;
Shukla (U.S. Patent No. 10,750,433 B1) discloses gateway selection in a mesh network;
Dong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0322039 A1) discloses a virtual wireless network;
Maria (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0022065 A1) discloses SD-WAN orchestrator for 5G cups networks;
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0386185 A1) discloses a gateway handover method and apparatus; and
Mohammad et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,941,472 B1) discloses systems and methods for simultaneous communication to a plurality of personal devices with RFID tags and LEDS with roaming feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642