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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Applicant amended claim 1 and added 19 new claims, examiner updated the search new rejection is provided.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisht (US 20220244745) in view of Lei (US 20210250727).
Regarding claim 1, Bisht teaches, a method of providing public messages for emergency services (one or more aerial user equipment (UEs) to receive a broadcast message indicating emergency information via a cellular radio access network (RAN). A base station may receive an indication of emergency information from a third party. The base station may configure a broadcast message including the emergency information. In some examples, the base station may set an emergency protocol notification bit in the broadcast message. The base station may transmit the broadcast message to one or more aerial UEs via a RAN. An aerial UE may receive and decode the broadcast message to obtain emergency instructions. In some examples, the aerial UE may monitor for a system information block (SIB) that may include the emergency instructions. The aerial UE may perform one or more aerial operations based on the emergency instructions), comprising:
sending, by a Core Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (Paragraph 74 and Fig. 1, el. 130 AMF), a warning message to a first base station over a first interface (Fig. 1, el. 105);
broadcasting, by the first base station, the warning message to all User Equipment (UEs) in a coverage area of the first base station (Paragraph 96: base station 105-a may be operable to broadcast an emergency notification to multiple non-aerial UEs 115 (e.g., phones, IoT devices, or other devices not pictured in FIG. 2). For example, base station 105-a (e.g., or some other network entity) may support a public warning system (PWS); sending, by the first base station, a warning response message to the AMF (Paragraph 112: transmit an emergency information response to the third party 325. The emergency information response may indicate receipt of the emergency information (e.g., an acknowledgement of the emergency information). Additionally or alternatively, the emergency information response may indicate that the UTM 320 forwarded the emergency information to the RAN and Paragraph 116: The emergency distribution response may acknowledge receipt of the emergency distribution request from the UTM 320 and may indicate that the RAN 315 has distributed the emergency information));
sending, by the first base station, the warning message to at least one other base station connected over a second interface to the first node (Paragraph 75 and 49); and
broadcasting, by the at least one other base station, the warning message to all UEs in their respective area (Paragraph 49: The base stations 105 may be dispersed throughout a geographic area to form the wireless communications system 100 and may be devices in different forms or having different capabilities. The base stations 105 and the UEs 115 may wirelessly communicate via one or more communication links 125. Each base station 105 may provide a coverage area 110 over which the UEs 115 and the base station 105 may establish one or more communication links 125. The coverage area 110 may be an example of a geographic area over which a base station 105 and a UE 115 may support the communication of signals according to one or more radio access technologies and Paragraph 51: he base stations 105 may communicate with the core network 130, or with one another, or both) and
sending a warning message response back to the first base station over the second interface (Paragraph 112, 116).
Bisht does not teach that the second interface is an Xn interface or X2 interface as claimed per applicant’s amendments.
Lei in the same art of endeavor teaches of providing public messages for emergency services (abstract and Paragraph 4), base station (Paragraph 24: a device configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus. The base station may be a base transceiver station (BTS) in a global system for mobile communications (GSM) system), first and second interfaces wherein the interface is an Xn interface or X2 interface (Paragraph 71: Each eNB supports a maximum of 16 interfaces S1. Another important change is an interface X2, that is, a distributed interface between neighboring eNBs. The interface X2 is mainly used for mobility management (handover) and interference suppression of neighboring cells. Each eNB can define 32 interfaces X2. In actual deployment, a quantity of neighboring eNodeBs depends on the coverage, and S1-flex is the connection between a plurality of eNodeBs and a plurality of MMEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bisht with Lei in order to provide faster, smoother user handovers (reducing latency and failures), efficient load balancing between neighboring base stations (eNodeBs), and improved interference management, all through direct eNodeB-to-eNodeB communication, bypassing the core network for local tasks, leading to lower core network load and better overall user experience.
Regarding claim 2, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the first base station and the at least one other base station are gNodeBs (gNBs) in a 5G network (Bisht: Paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 3, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the warning message comprises an emergency warning message selected from the group consisting of natural disaster alerts, public health threat notifications, criminal activity warnings, traffic condition alerts, and child abduction emergency alerts (Bisht: Paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 4, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the at least one other base station comprises a neighboring base station determined based on established neighbor relationships with the first base station (Bisht: Paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 5, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the sending of the warning message to the at least one other base station occurs automatically upon receipt of the warning message from the AMF (Lei: Paragraph 32, 94).
Regarding claim 6, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the broadcasting by the at least one other base station extends warning coverage to a geographic area adjacent to the coverage area of the first base station (Lei: Paragraph 40, 71).
Regarding claim 7, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the warning message comprises a Write-Replace Warning Request message (Lei: Paragraph 60: The CBC sends a Write-Replace Warning Request message containing the warning message to be broadcast and the delivery attributes).
Regarding claim 9, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, wherein the warning message includes an indication of an originating base station to enable users to identify a source area of an emergency situation (Lei: Paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 11, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 2 rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 3 rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 4 rejections.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 5 rejections.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 6 rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 7 rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 9 rejections.
Claims 8, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisht (US 20220244745) in view of Lei (US 20210250727) in view of Stojanovski (US 20220078692).
Regarding claim 8, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, the claimed invention.
Bisht in view of Lei teaches does not teach wherein the established neighbor relationships are determined using Automatic Neighbor Relations (ANR).
Stojanovski in the same art of endeavor teaches (abstract: During operation, the computer system performs a first registration of the user equipment over a first access, where, after the first registration, the user equipment is connected via the first access with a first access and mobility management function (AMF). Then, the computer system performs a second registration of the user equipment over a second access, where the second access is different from the first access and, after the second registration, the user equipment is connected via the second access with a second AMF. Moreover, when performing the second registration, the computer system: transfers a context of the user equipment from the first AMF to the second AMF; and/or relocates a network interface in a control plane from the first AMF to the second AMF.
Stojanovski also teaches (Paragraph 366: ANR Automatic Neighbor Relation) as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Bisht in view of Lei with Stojanovski in order to improve the system by automating the creation and maintenance of neighbor cell lists, which boosts performance, cuts operational costs (OPEX), reduces manual effort, improves user experience through seamless handovers, and enhances network stability by preventing dropped calls and optimizing resource use. It dynamically learns new cell connections, removing the need for tedious manual setup and configuration, especially when new sites are added or network conditions change.
Regarding claim 10, Bisht in view of Lei teaches, the claimed invention.
Bisht in view of Lei teaches does not teach wherein the first interface comprises an N2 interface between the AMF and the first base station.
Stojanovski in the same art of endeavor teaches (abstract: During operation, the computer system performs a first registration of the user equipment over a first access, where, after the first registration, the user equipment is connected via the first access with a first access and mobility management function (AMF). Then, the computer system performs a second registration of the user equipment over a second access, where the second access is different from the first access and, after the second registration, the user equipment is connected via the second access with a second AMF. Moreover, when performing the second registration, the computer system: transfers a context of the user equipment from the first AMF to the second AMF; and/or relocates a network interface in a control plane from the first AMF to the second AMF.
Stojanovski also teaches N2 interface between the AMF and the first base station (Paragraph 128-129 and 209).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Bisht in view of Lei with Stojanovski in order to improve the system by enabling control-plane signaling for registration, session management, and handovers, facilitating smooth LTE-to-5G transition, and supporting essential 5G features like connection/mobility management for enhanced network reliability and user experience.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 8 rejections.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 10 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692