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 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US 11,496,598) in view of Hasegawa (EP 3264827) and Zhu (2023/0362921).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 16, Hasegawa discloses an apparatus for controlling upload or download of transmission data (Fig. 1, wireless network with bidirectional communication) in a wireless network, wherein the apparatus is configured to: select a mobile access device (Nodes 135, 140, 145) based on estimated location information and location information of a target device (prediction module 115 predicts location of the user/target device and directs communications via the network based on the future predicted location Col 5;18-Col. 6;40). Hamilton further discloses caching the transmission data (Col. 5;6-18), and scheduling a transfer of data to the mobile access device and a subsequent transfer of the transmission data by performing a transmission data download (Col. 6;62 – Col 7;45 – the system caches the data and can alter transmission to allow transmission based on movement thru the system). Hamilton fails to disclose that the selection of a mobile access device is based on the estimated location of the mobile access device.
Hasegawa, in an analogous art, teach the use of mobile access device (Fig, 5, 20) which has an estimated location (para 92-93, use of traveling path/speed to determine which base station 30 to communicate to terminal device on airplane.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the estimated location on a moving conveyance to provide communications without interruption.
The combination of Hamilton and Hasegawa fails to disclose the scheduling of a subsequent transfer of the transmission data. However, Zhu teaches that a mobile device can schedule a subsequent transfer (target device, Para 168-cached data is scheduled to be sent). Zhu teaches that a terminal utilizes a second terminal to relay information (Figure 4, as well as in particular, claim 7 teaches that a second terminal has a subsequent transmission to be scheduled). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling of subsequent transfers to allow for transmission at a particular time.
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa further discloses a system configured to upload or download data via a macro access device (base station 30) when the mobile access device (20) is in a predetermined range of the macro device.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Hamilton further discloses taking into account traveling schedules (Col 7;18-3545) and identifying which of the mobile access devices (processing nodes) can deliver transmission data to the target device (user 150/155) taking into account position of the target device (Col 6;23-41), the positions of the mobile access devices (location of processing nodes), and communications requirements (Service level requirements Col 6;65-7;6).
Regarding claim 5, Hamilton further discloses the apparatus of claim 1 further configured to inform the mobile access device (processing nodes 135-145) about the position of the target device (Col. 7;6-48) or data requirements (col. 7;1-6). Note, the claim refers to alternative language and only one is required to be met.
Regarding claim 6, Hamilton discloses the apparatus configured to select a location for transfer of the transmission data and starting time for communications between the mobile device and the access device (Hamilton selects the appropriate processing node based on predicted position and caches the transmission data to arrive based on the future location (Col. 5;35-Col;8;55). Hamilton does not use a macro device between the mobile access device and the target device.
Hasegawa teaches the use of a macro device (Base station 30) which utilizes the traveling path (location) and speed (traveling speed, para 93) to communicate with a mobile access device (20) and a target device (terminal station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to include macro and mobile access devices in order to provide communications to users on moving vehicles.
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton fails to disclose that the mobile access device is vehicle mounted. However, Hasegawa teaches that the mobile access device (mobile base station 20) is a vehicle mounted access device (Figure 5 – mounted inside airplane). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to include vehicle mounted mobile access devices to allow for communications in moving conveyances.
Regarding claim 13, Hamilton further discloses the data is distributed in a mobile edge computing environment (Col 4; 50-63, mobile access devices/processing nodes are edge servers) which are controlled by a MEC administrator (Caching controller 105), where data is transferred based on the MEC administrator based on requests for communications by the target device (user 150/155).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton and Hasegawa and Zhu as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Deakin et al (US 2015/0032974).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hamilton, Hasegawa, and Zhu discloses a target device (user terminal) that is configured to join a mobile access device (processing nodes 130-145) if it fulfills predetermined conditions such that data transfer can be initiated (i.e. – level of service is met Col. 7;1-6 Hamilton). The combination fails to disclose the use of a core network function to trigger a conditional handover to a mobile access device once it has been selected. However, Deakin teaches via Fig 9 and Para 82-90, the use of a core network function (Figure 1 and 9, packet based network and OCGI) to trigger a request for handover to a mobile access device (Base station). Note the claim recites multiple alternative language limitations and only one is required. Therefore it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include core network handover in order to provide seamless communications as a terminal moves through the network.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further discloses the mobile access device (20) and macro access device (30) are split between a central unit (network based communication) and a distributed unit (localized communications), in particular see para 20-30. Hasegawa further discloses that the central unit is configured to send connection reconfiguration messages (switching) for moving between a source and target distributed unit (para 88-93, switching between communication macro access units depending on position/location information) wherein the target device includes information about data delivery in a random access complete procedure (flow control messaging para 85-86). Hamilton discloses that information is cached at the target distributed unit (processing node and prediction module ensure that cached data is delivered, Fig. 2-3). Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 10 above.
Claims 12 and 18 are 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.
Claim 12 recites the use of an integrated access and backhaul donor unit to create communications parameters in dependence on estimated mobility information of a mobile access device which activates said parameters when the mobile access device is within range of the IAB donor unit. These limitations are not found nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-13, 16-20 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.
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 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2442