Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
5. Claims status: Claims 8-14 & 21-33 are pending. Claims 1-8 & 15-20 are cancelled after restrictions.
CLAIM OBJECTION
6. Claim 10 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. Interpreting the claims in light of the specification, examiner finds the claimed invention is distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in the claim 10.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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 8-9 & 11-14 & 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soryal (Pub No. 2024/0137957) and further in view of Zhang et al (Pub No. 2014/0342736).
Regarding claim 8, Soryal discloses mobile core network (Para. 30: Mobile core network), configured to: establish wireless communication sessions with multiple user devices located with the mobile core network (Para. 31 & Fig. 1 & 5: Multiple devices communicating located with the mobile core network); form a connection between the mobile core network and a macro core network (Para. 37 & 39: Connecting the mobile core network and a macro core network) & (Para. 33); authenticate a first subset of the multiple user devices as having access rights to communicate with the macro core network via relay through the mobile core network (Para. 25 & 28: RAN application authenticating communication devices & Para. 73-74: Relayed authentication) (Note: each user communication device read as subset device. See Fig. 5); aggregate the received communication to form an aggregated communication (Para. 35: Carrier aggregation & Para. 86); and transmit the aggregated communication to the macro core network (Para. 86: Multi carrier transmission reception/ transmission-Carrier aggregation. In multi carrier transmission/reception operation device communicate over macro network).
Soryal is silent regarding multiple user devices located on a same movable platform; receive communication from a second subset of the first subset of the multiple user devices.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zhang et al discloses multiple user devices located on a same movable platform (Fig. 2: Multiple wireless devices on a same movable platform-250); receive communication from a second subset of the first subset of the multiple user devices (Para. 40: Computing device transmit a first TA list to the wireless communication devices on the moving platform. wireless communication devices in the group receives transmit communication from other devices) (Fig. 1-2: Multiple UE’s communication group- subset of the multiple user devices & Para. 17: numerous wireless communication group devices 210a-m, 220a-n, 230a-p shown in FIG. 2 are capable of broadband wireless communications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multi device communication system of Zhang’s disclosure with the moving device authentication system, as taught by Soryal. Doing so would have resulted in effectively authenticating wireless devices based on moving location and providing robust wireless connection in a macro network system.
Regarding claim 9, Soryal teaches the mobile core network (Para. 30).
Soryal fails to disclose movable platform is a train, the mobile core network is located in a first car of the train, and the user device is located in the first car of the train or a second car of the train.
Zhang et al discloses movable platform is a train (Fig. 1-2), the mobile core network is located in a first car of the train (Para. 2: LTE network. Examiner taking official notice that a mobile core network can be located in a first car of the train), and the user device is located in the first car of the train or a second car of the train (Fig. 2: User devices in the train).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multi device communication system of Zhang’s disclosure with the moving device authentication system, as taught by Soryal. Doing so would have resulted connecting multiple devices in a wireless system properly while the devices are moving on a train.
Regarding claim 11, Soryal teaches the mobile core network is microtized, having less functionality than the macro core network (Para. 37: Macro cell and mobile core network) (Note: macro core network cover broader range connection than mobile network, therefore, mobile network is microtized).
Regarding claim 12, Soryal teaches the mobile core network is configured to form the connection with the macro core network according to a make before break scheme (Para. 37: Macro cell and mobile core network & Para. 88: Core network).
Regarding claim 13, Soryal teaches the mobile core network forms multiple bonded connections with the macro core network (Para. 37: Macro cell and mobile core network).
Regarding claim 14, Soryal teaches during a first time, the mobile core network is configured to form the connection with the macro core network via a radio access network (Para. 149: radio access network), and during a second time, the mobile core network is configured to form the connection with the macro core network via a satellite (Para. 101 & 147: macro core network satellite connection).
Regarding claim 21, Soryal teaches authenticate devices network (Para. 25 & 28: authenticating communication devices).
Soryal fails to disclose authenticate a third subset of the multiple user devices as having access rights to communicate via local access on the movable platform.
Zhang et al discloses authenticate a third subset of the multiple user devices as having access rights to communicate via local access on the movable platform (Fig. 1-2: User devices in the train).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multi device communication system of Zhang’s disclosure with the moving device authentication system, as taught by Soryal. Doing so would have resulted authenticating and connecting multiple devices while the devices are moving on a train.
Regarding claim 22, Soryal teaches the third subset of the multiple user devices does not have access rights to communicate with the macro core network via relay through the mobile core network (Para. 25 & 28: authenticating communication devices for communication. When devices are not authenticates, they cannot communicate).
Regarding claim 23, Soryal teaches a user plane function (UPF); a mobility management function (AMF); and a session management function (SMF) (Para. 43 & 78 & 82-84: Network generally hae AMF, SMF, UPF functions).
Regarding claim 24, Soryal does not explicitly discloses the mobile core network does not include a Unified Data Management (UDM) function, a Unified Data Repository (UDR) function, and a Policy Control Function (PCF).
Examiner taking official notice that the mobile core network may not include a Unified Data Management (UDM) function, a Unified Data Repository (UDR) function, and a Policy Control Function (PCF). Doing so would have resulted in limiting the functionality of the mobile core network, while macro network manages the functionality.
Regarding claim 25, Soryal teaches the mobile core network is configured to serve content to the user devices from an edge device via the local access (Fig. 1 & Para. 18 & 99), wherein the edge device is located in the movable platform and stores the content (Fig. 5: moving devices-108 & Fig. 6: store content at the memory).
Regarding claim 26, Soryal teaches wherein the mobile core network is configured to obtain the content from the macro core network based on a determined popularity of the content and cache the content in the edge device (Fig. 5 & Para. 99 & 95).
Regarding claim 27, Soryal teaches the mobile core network is configured to establish a communication channel with the macro core network, and wherein before breaking the communication channel, the mobile core network is configured to establish a second communication channel with the macro core network (Fig. 5 & Para. 33 & 37: macro core network connection).
Regarding claim 28, Soryal teaches wherein the mobile core network is implemented on a system-on-a-chip (Para. 134-135: system bus).
Regarding claim 29, Soryal teaches the mobile core network is configured to arbitrate communication as a relay between the first subset of user devices and the macro core network, wherein the mobile core network includes a subset of functionality of the macro core network (Para. 25 & 28: RAN application authenticating communication devices & Para. 73-74: Relayed authentication & Para. 103) (Note: each user communication device read as subset device. See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, Soryal teaches the connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network via a radio access network (RAN) associated with the macro core network (Para. 37 & 49 & 88).
Regarding claim 31, Soryal teaches control the first subset of user devices to: communicate with the macro core network through a RAN associated with the mobile core network responsive to a signal strength between the RAN associated with the macro core network and the user device being less than a threshold (Para. 32 & 49); and communicate with the macro core network through the RAN associated with the macro core network responsive to the signal strength between the RAN associated with the macro core network and the user device not being less than the threshold (Para. 25 & 28: RAN application authenticating communication devices & Para. 73-74: Relayed authentication & Para. 103) & (Para. 49).
Regarding claim 32, Soryal teaches the mobile core network is implemented on a transportation vehicle suitable for moving from a first location to a second location, and wherein the mobile core network is configured to arbitrate the communication between the first subset of user devices and the macro core network at least while the transportation vehicle is in motion (Para. 30 & 23: Mobile core network & Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 33, Soryal teaches wherein the macro core network and the mobile core network are of a same telecommunication provider (Para. 30 & 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights