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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a transmission unit, a reception unit, and a control unit” in claim 1.
The specification discloses corresponding structure, including that “As shown in FIG. 30, the terminal 20 includes a transmission unit 210, a reception unit 220, a configuration unit 230, and a control unit 240” (paragraph [0170]) and “In the above functional structure diagrams used for describing an embodiment of the present invention (FIG. 29 and FIG. 30), functional unit blocks are shown. The functional blocks (function units) are realized by a freely-selected combination of hardware and/or software” (paragraph [0173]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundqvist et al. (US 20110207461; hereinafter “Lundqvist”) in view of Lee (US 20140179324) further in view of Neves et al. (US 20170346542; in view of “Neves”).
Regarding claims 1,6, Lundqvist discloses:
A communication device comprising:
a transmission unit configured to transmit a connection request to a first communication device; ([0007] establishing a connection of said femto radio base station to a configuration server via the internet, [0008] positioning a mobile terminal within the transmission range of said femto radio base station and contacting said configuration server over an existing macro base station)
a reception unit configured to receive connection permission from the first communication device; ([0007] establishing a connection of said femto radio base station to a configuration server via the internet, [0008] positioning a mobile terminal within the transmission range of said femto radio base station and contacting said configuration server over an existing macro base station)
and a control unit configured to establish a first connection to the first communication device ([0007] establishing a connection of said femto radio base station to a configuration server via the internet, [0008] positioning a mobile terminal within the transmission range of said femto radio base station and contacting said configuration server over an existing macro base station),
Lundqvist does not disclose:
wherein the control unit controls a communication of a second communication device,
However, Lee discloses:
wherein the control unit controls a communication of a second communication device, ([0160] The femtocell may request handover to the UE according to its service policy. The service policy may include the type, use time, etc. of a service assigned to the UE in case of a charging femtocell, and a movement path, area, etc. in case of a mobile femtocell.)
It would be obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings
of Lundqvist with the teachings of Lee to include the control unit controls a communication of a second communication device. The motivation would have been to to improve and further develop a method for configuration of a femto radio base station in such a way that, by employing cost-effective mechanisms that are readily to implement, an efficient and reliable configuration is achieved without requirement of any special technical skills on customer side.. (Lundqvist ¶ [0005])
Lundqvist does not disclose:
and the reception unit receives recommendation information related to installation of the device itself from the first communication device.
However, Neves discloses:
and the reception unit receives recommendation information related to installation of the device itself from the first communication device. ([0218] the system may recommend particular antenna selection and/or configuration (e.g., installing an omnidirectional antenna instead of directional, adjusting the tilt of the antenna or even suggest another location to install the AP, or change the direction, height, etc.))
It would be obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings
of combination of Lundqvist and Lee with the teachings of Neves to include receives recommendation information related to installation of the device itself from the first communication device. The motivation would have been to select a plurality of modalities comprising various fixed nodes, mobile nodes, and/or a combination thereof to achieve any of a variety of system goals and supporting and/or effectively utilizing a network of mobile and/or static nodes. (Neves ¶ [0051])
Regarding claim 2, Neves disclose:
wherein the control unit ([0241] a controller system) determines that enabling of a function of controlling a wireless communication with the second communication device and performing the wireless communication with the second communication device is not permitted by the first communication device in a case where the recommendation information is received. ([0218] selection and configuration of antennas may take into account information obtained from previous deployments… such metrics as traffic information, number of users, range of coverage, network use in particular spots, number of sessions, number of links, mean number of nodes that the AP (at the particular site) may detect in a certain perimeter, etc. may be tracked… the system may recommend particular antenna selection and/or configuration (e.g., installing an omnidirectional antenna instead of directional, adjusting the tilt of the antenna or even suggest another location to install the AP, or change the direction, height, etc.))
It would be obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings
of combination of Lundqvist and Lee with the teachings of Neves to include the control unit determines that enabling of a function of controlling a wireless communication with the second communication device and performing the wireless communication with the second communication device is not permitted by the first communication device in a case where the recommendation information is received. The motivation would have been to select a plurality of modalities comprising various fixed nodes, mobile nodes, and/or a combination thereof to achieve any of a variety of system goals and supporting and/or effectively utilizing a network of mobile and/or static nodes. (Neves ¶ [0051])
Regarding claim 3, Neves disclose:
wherein the reception unit receives the recommendation information together with the connection permission. ([0213] Optimizing antennas use (e.g., placement, selection, configuration, operation, etc.) in networks of moving things may be desirable as it would improve overall quality while reducing costs. In this regard, as described (e.g., above with respect to FIGS. 1-6), the Internet of Moving Things is supported by a infrastructure built through a mesh among fixed and mobile APs, which can establish connections with the Internet, Cloud or private networks... the connectivity between different elements in the network (e.g., the mobile APs and the fixed APs available in the network) may be optimized; [0218] the system may recommend particular antenna selection and/or configuration (e.g., installing an omnidirectional antenna instead of directional, adjusting the tilt of the antenna or even suggest another location to install the AP, or change the direction, height, etc.).
It would be obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings
of combination of Lundqvist and Lee with the teachings of Neves to include the reception unit receives the recommendation information together with the connection permission. The motivation would have been to select a plurality of modalities comprising various fixed nodes, mobile nodes, and/or a combination thereof to achieve any of a variety of system goals and supporting and/or effectively utilizing a network of mobile and/or static nodes. (Neves ¶ [0051])
Regarding claim 5, Lundqvist discloses:
wherein the control unit performs control related to transmission and reception, ([0043] The sending femto radio base station 1 would encode a message using its ability to control the scheduling of transmission times and frequencies in the uplink, i.e. the scheduling of the terminal transmissions.)
However, Lundqvist does not disclose:
based on the recommendation information
Neves disclose:
based on the recommendation information. ([0218] the system may recommend particular antenna selection and/or configuration (e.g., installing an omnidirectional antenna instead of directional, adjusting the tilt of the antenna or even suggest another location to install the AP, or change the direction, height, etc.))
It would be obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings
of combination of Lundqvist and Lee with the teachings of Neves to include based on the recommendation information. The motivation would have been to select a plurality of modalities comprising various fixed nodes, mobile nodes, and/or a combination thereof to achieve any of a variety of system goals and supporting and/or effectively utilizing a network of mobile and/or static nodes. (Neves ¶ [0051])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundqvist et al. (US 20110207461; hereinafter “Lundqvist”) in view of Lee (US 20140179324) in view of Neves et al. (US 20170346542; in view of “Neves”) further in view of Desai et al. (US 20210092616; hereinafter “Desai”).
Regarding claim 4, combination of Lundqvist, Lee, and Neves does not disclose:
wherein the recommendation information includes a propagation characteristic measurement value between the second communication device and the device itself and a propagation characteristic measurement value between the device itself and another communication device.
However, Desai discloses:
wherein the recommendation information includes a propagation characteristic measurement value between the second communication device and the device itself and a propagation characteristic measurement value between the device itself and another communication device. ([0145] APs 542 may each construct a list of receiving neighbors (e.g., neighboring APs that can receive transmissions from a respective AP) and a list of transmitting neighbors (e.g., neighboring APs that can receive transmissions from the respective AP) using received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (e.g., propagation characteristic measurement value) information for transmitting and receiving neighbors.)
It would be obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings
of combination of Lundqvist, Lee, and Neves with the teachings of Neves to include the recommendation information includes a propagation characteristic measurement value between the second communication device and the device itself and a propagation characteristic measurement value between the device itself and another communication device. The motivation would have been to determine current AP locations as well as determine installation sites and calibrations for new Aps since manual installation and validation of APs can require a substantial amount of time and labor to perform and poor AP installations and/or locations can result in incorrect client location calculations as well as wasted debug cycles addressing wireless issues of a course of weeks, months, or even years. (Desai ¶[[0004] & ¶[0018])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU PHAM whose telephone number is (703)756-4511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at (571) 270-3936. 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.
/NHU PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479