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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15, 21-25 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1-15 in the reply filed on 3/20/26 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103.
Regarding remarks on 10-11, applicant states regarding the prior art cited “A. Newman does not disclose the claimed access point receiving the sensor data. To reject Applicant's claimed receiving, the rejection improperly equates Newman's hub device with the claimed "access point." Newman treats those entities as different network roles. Newman describes its sub-network as a hub-and-spoke network in which loT end devices communicate with a hub device, and the hub device in turn communicates with a larger network. See Newman at paras. [0037]-[0038]. Newman further explains that the hub may itself be registered as a regular user of the larger network. See id. at para. [0041].” Referring to the prior art, Newman was cited for (see at least 0174, fig. 1, end devices may include sensors which may sense measurements and send them to a hub device (access point)). While applicant asserts the hub cannot be the claimed access point, and states “Particularly, Newman identifies a base station or "AP" as infrastructure of the larger 3GPP network communicating with user devices, while separately defining the "hub device" as a user device of the larger network that also belongs to the sub-network” Newman discloses (0192, “The hub devices 102 serve as gateway devices between the end devices 101 and the base station 103.” 0041, “That is, a pre-configured sub-network may be added to any of a variety of plant-wide networks with little or no modification, as long as the hub device can provide gateway service between the sub-network and the larger network.”). The claim merely recites ‘access point’ with no further limitations on access type; as shown in Newman fig. 1-2, the hub device functions as an entry/gateway point connecting subnetwork 104 and network 110, thus comprising a type of access point under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further states on page 12 “…Newman explains that the hub may accumulate or process data and thereafter transmit summary reports to the larger network. See Newman at para. [0038]. In another embodiment, Newman explains that the hub may average, perform trend extraction, or otherwise generate processed "summary data" before sending information to the base station. See id. at para. [0197]. This reinforces that Newman's downstream base station/core need not even receive the same aggregated sensor data maintained by the hub and instead may receive only a derived summary.” Referring to the prior art, Newman was cited for (see at least 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data and then transmit summary reports to the base station or core network”). The claim merely recites ‘aggregating the sensor data’ with no further limitations on aggregation type or steps; as processing and summarizing may also comprise aggregation, data collected from sensors and/or reports themselves may comprise aggregated data under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 102.
Rejections for similar independent and dependent claims are revised and/or maintained accordingly. Claim 3, 25 remain objected to as allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673).
For claim 8, Newman teaches: A communication system in a transportation vehicle (see at least 0173-0174, a vehicle may comprise devices with processor/memory), comprising:
a first access point disposed in the transportation vehicle (see at least 0174, fig. 1, vehicle network may comprise a hub device (access point));
an Internet of Things (IoT) device disposed in the transportation vehicle (see at least 0174, fig. 1, vehicle network may comprise end devices including sensors. See at least Abstract, end devices may be IoT);
a mobile core network disposed in the transportation vehicle and coupled to the first access point (see at least 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data and then transmit summary reports to the base station or core network”; 0173, “In some embodiments, the vehicle may include a closed 3GPP network including a base station and core network on the vehicle”, thus the mobile core may be located in a vehicle); and
an antenna disposed on an exterior of the transportation vehicle and coupled to the mobile core network (see at least 0173, “In some embodiments, the vehicle may include a closed 3GPP network including a base station and core network on the vehicle, which maintains contact with various local fixed-position base stations or core networks, as the vehicle passes by…”; vehicle antenna is inherent for wireless);
wherein the access point is configured to receive data from the IoT device and transmit the data to the mobile core network (see at least 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data and then transmit summary reports to the base station or core network”).
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 9, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601).
For claim 1, Newman teaches: A data management method in a transportation vehicle (see at least 0173-0174, a vehicle may comprise devices with processor/memory), comprising:
receiving, at an access point, sensor data from a plurality of sensor devices (see at least 0174, fig. 1, end devices may include sensors which may sense measurements and send them to a hub device (access point); 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data”);
aggregating the sensor data (see at least 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data”);
transmitting the aggregated sensor data to a mobile core network located in the transportation vehicle (see at least 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data and then transmit summary reports to the base station or core network”; 0173, “In some embodiments, the vehicle may include a closed 3GPP network including a base station and core network on the vehicle”, thus the mobile core may be located in a vehicle).
Newman discloses mobile core may receive aggregated sensor data (see at least 0038, “The end devices can then transmit data or acknowledgements back to the hub, which may accumulate or process the data and then transmit summary reports to the base station or core network. The base station or core network may then pass occasional status reports up to the higher authority when needed”) but not explicitly: …caching, at the mobile core network, the aggregated sensor data. Fortenberry from an analogous art teaches (see at least col. 7 line 50-col. 8 line 9, source device e.g. vehicle may comprise onboard storage caching data; see at least col. 9 line 63-col. 10 line 7, data may be sensor data. Also see col. 9 line 13-16, data may be cached prior to transfer). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Fortenberry to Newman, so the mobile core comprises cache storage for data e.g. sensor data, as suggested by Fortenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance storage by implementing well known caching for data (Fortenberry col. 8 line 4-9).
For claim 9, Newman teaches claim 8, but not explicitly: wherein the mobile core network is configured to categorize the data as high priority data or low priority data. Fortenberry from an analogous art teaches (see at least col. 9 line 63-col. 10 line 7, sensor data may be communicated upstream according to a priority; col. 12 line 45-50, data may be assigned priority levels e.g. higher or lower). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Fortenberry to claim 8, so the sensor data may be assigned higher or lower priorities, as suggested by Fortenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by assigning an appropriate urgency to sensor data for timely provision (Fortenberry col. 12 line 45-50).
For claim 13, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 9, Fortenberry further teaches: wherein responsive to the data being low priority data, the mobile core network caches the data (see at least col. 12 line 45-50, lower priority data may be cached until low cost connection is available). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Fortenberry to claim 9, so the lower priority data is cached until available connection, as suggested by Fortenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by caching data for an appropriate connection based on importance (Fortenberry col. 12 line 45-50).
Claim 2, 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2020/0162990) in view of Dusenberry et al. (US 2022/0201615).
For claim 2, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 1, Newman further teaches the mobile core may communicate with a fixed core (0173, vehicle core network may maintain contact with fixed core networks) but not explicitly: further comprising: determining, at the mobile core network, a signal strength of a connection between the mobile core network and a macro core network; responsive to the signal strength being less than a threshold amount, retaining the aggregated sensor data for later transmission to the macro core network; and responsive to the signal strength not being less than the threshold amount, transmitting the aggregated sensor data to the macro core network. Reimann from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device). Dusenberry from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0025, data transmission may be delayed until signal strength is sufficient to meet a threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Reimann, Dusenberry to claim 1, so the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core (as suggested by Reimann) and determines signal strength for transmission, including delaying transmission until a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Dusenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract) and ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Dusenberry 0025).
For claim 11, Newman, Fortenberry, Reimann teaches claim 10, Reimann further teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device via RAN) but not explicitly: wherein responsive to a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) communication connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network having a signal strength greater than a threshold amount, the mobile core network is configured to transmit the data via the antenna to the macro core network via the terrestrial RAN. Dusenberry from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0025, data transmission may be delayed until signal strength is sufficient to meet a threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Reimann, Dusenberry to claim 10, so the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core (as suggested by Reimann), and determines signal strength for transmission, including transmitting when there is a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Dusenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract) and ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Dusenberry 0025).
Claim 4, 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601) in view of Khasis (US 2020/0287775).
For claim 4, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the transportation vehicle is a train and the sensor data includes telemetry data of the train. Khasis from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0039, vehicle may comprise a telemetry system; 0055, vehicles may be trains). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Khasis to claim 1, so the vehicle is a train and comprises telemetry sensors, as suggested by Khasis. The motivation would have been to enhance sensing by implementing the sensor/telemetry system in various vehicles e.g. trains (Khasis 0039, 0055).
For claim 5, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the transportation vehicle is a freight train and the sensor data includes inventory data of a cargo of the freight train. Khasis from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0039, vehicle may comprise a telemetry system which may log data including amount and type of inventory; 0055, vehicles may be freight trains). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Khasis to claim 1, so the vehicle is a train and comprises sensors for inventory, as suggested by Khasis. The motivation would have been to enhance sensing by implementing the sensor/telemetry system in various vehicles e.g. trains to capture various data e.g. inventory (Khasis 0039, 0055).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601) in view of Wilbrink et al. (US 2008/0111670).
For claim 6, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the transportation vehicle is a first train and the plurality of sensor devices are located in a second train. Wilbrink from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0034, vehicle may receive sensor data from nearby vehicles that broadcast sensor information; 0022, vehicles may be trains). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Wilbrink to claim 1, so the vehicle is a train and sensor data is collected from other nearby trains, as suggested by Wilbrink. The motivation would have been to enhance sensing by implementing the sensor/telemetry system between nearby vehicles e.g. trains (Wilbrink 0034).
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601) in view of Wilbrink et al. (US 2008/0111670) in view of McPhee et al. (US Patent 10,887,808).
For claim 7, Newman, Fortenberry, Wilbrink teaches claim 6, but not explicitly: wherein the access point receives the sensor data as the first train and the second train pass one another. McPhee from an analogous art teaches (see at least col. 9 line 48-53, fig. 5, vehicles shown passing each other may directly share sensor data e.g. network performance data). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate McPhee to claim 6, so the train receives sensor data from passing trains, as suggested by McPhee. The motivation would have been to enhance sensing by implementing the sensor/telemetry system between nearby vehicles e.g. passing trains (McPhee fig. 5).
Claim 10, 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2020/0162990).
For claim 10, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 9, Fortenberry further teaches: wherein responsive to the data being high priority data, the mobile core network is configured to transmit the data…via a first available communication connection (see at least col. 12 line 45-50, higher priority data may be sent on more expensive transmission mediums), but not explicitly: …transmit the data via the antenna to a macro core network. Reimann from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device via RAN). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Fortenberry, Reimann to claim 9, so higher priority data is sent on a first, more expensive connection (as suggested by Fortenberry), and the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core, as suggested by Reimann. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by transmitting data on an appropriate connection based on importance (Fortenberry col. 12 line 45-50) and providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract).
For claim 23, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 1, Fortenberry further teaches: further comprising: determining whether the aggregated sensor data is high priority data or low priority data; responsive to the aggregated sensor data being high priority data, transmitting the aggregated sensor data…at a first time; and responsive to the aggregated sensor data being low priority data, transmitting the aggregated sensor data…at a second time (see at least col. 9 line 63-col. 10 line 7, sensor data may be communicated upstream according to a priority; col. 12 line 45-50, data may be assigned priority levels e.g. higher or lower, high priority data may be sent while lower priority data may wait until low cost connection is available), but not explicitly: …to a macro core network. Reimann from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device via RAN). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Fortenberry, Reimann to claim 1, so the sensor data is assigned higher or lower priorities, and transmitted at faster or slower times depending on priority (as suggested by Fortenberry), and the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core, as suggested by Reimann. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by assigning an appropriate urgency to sensor data for timely provision (Fortenberry col. 12 line 45-50) and providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract).
Claim 12, 14, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Fortenberry et al. (US Patent 12,045,601) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2020/0162990) in view of Bastianelli (US 2020/0099644).
For claim 12, Newman, Fortenberry, Reimann teaches claim 10, but not explicitly: wherein responsive to a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) communication connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network having a signal strength less than a threshold amount, the mobile core network is configured to transmit the data via the antenna to the macro core network via a satellite connection. Bastianelli from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0040, satellite communication may be used if terrestrial signal strength falls under a threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Bastianelli to claim 10, so the mobile core determines signal strength for transmission, including switching to satellite if terrestrial RAN is under a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Bastianelli. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Bastianelli 0040).
For claim 14, Newman, Fortenberry teaches claim 13, but not explicitly: wherein responsive to a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) communication connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network having a signal strength greater than a threshold amount, the mobile core network is configured to transmit the data via the antenna to the macro core network via the terrestrial RAN. Reimann from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device via RAN). Bastianelli from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0040, satellite communication may be used if terrestrial signal strength falls under a threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Reimann, Bastianelli to claim 13, so the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core (as suggested by Reimann), and determines signal strength for transmission, including using terrestrial RAN if over a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Bastianelli. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract) and ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Bastianelli 0040).
For claim 24, Newman, Fortenberry, Reimann teaches claim 23, but not explicitly: determining a signal strength of a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) communication connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network; responsive to the signal strength being greater than a threshold amount at the first time, transmitting the high priority data via the terrestrial RAN; and responsive to the signal strength being less than a threshold amount at the first time, transmitting the high priority data via a secondary communication modality. Bastianelli from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0040, satellite communication may be used if terrestrial signal strength falls under a threshold, comprising a secondary mode). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Bastianelli to claim 23, so the mobile core determines signal strength for transmission, including switching to secondary satellite mode if terrestrial RAN is under a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Bastianelli. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Bastianelli 0040).
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2020/0162990) in view of Kong (US 2020/0021962).
For claim 15, Newman teaches claim 8, but not explicitly: wherein the mobile core network transmits the data to a macro core network via a line of sight transmission system. Reimann from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device). Kong from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0056, vehicle may connect to a network via line of sight). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Reimann, Kong to claim 8, so the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core (as suggested by Reimann) via a line of sight network connection, as suggested by Kong. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract) via a well known network connection type (Kong 0056).
Claim 21, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2024/0080673) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2020/0162990) in view of Dusenberry et al. (US 2022/0201615).
For claim 21, Newman teaches claim 8, but not explicitly: wherein the mobile core network is configured to determine a signal strength of a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) communication connection between the mobile core network and a macro core network. Reimann from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0080, fig. 1, vehicles may transmit sensor data and derived data therefrom to core network device via RAN). Dusenberry from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0025, data transmission may be delayed until signal strength is sufficient to meet a threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Reimann, Dusenberry to claim 8, so the mobile core transmits the sensor data to external/macro core (as suggested by Reimann), and determines signal strength for transmission, including delaying transmission until a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Dusenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by providing relevant sensor data for core network services (Reimann 0078-0080, Abstract) and ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Dusenberry 0025).
For claim 22, Newman, Reimann, Dusenberry teaches claim 21, Dusenberry further teaches: wherein the mobile core network is configured to: responsive to the signal strength being less than a threshold amount, retain the data for later transmission to the macro core network; and responsive to the signal strength not being less than the threshold amount, transmit the data to the macro core network (see at least 0025, data transmission may be delayed until signal strength is sufficient to meet a threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Dusenberry to claim 21, so the mobile core determines signal strength for transmission, including delaying transmission until a threshold signal strength, as suggested by Dusenberry. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by ensuring sufficient signal strength to transmit (Dusenberry 0025).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 25 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.
For claim 3 the prior art fails to teach/suggest: further comprising: identifying a first portion of the aggregated sensor data as high priority data and a second portion of the aggregated sensor data as low priority data; and responsive to the signal strength being less than a threshold amount, transmitting the high priority data via a second connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network. The closest prior art Dusenberry et al. (US 2022/0201615) discloses delaying transmission until sufficient signal strength (0025) but not the limitations of the claim(s).
For claim 25 the prior art fails to teach/suggest: further comprising: determining a signal strength of a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) communication connection between the mobile core network and the macro core network; responsive to the signal strength being less than a threshold amount and the aggregated sensor data being low priority data, caching the aggregated sensor data at the mobile core network; responsive to the signal strength being greater than a threshold amount, transmitting the low priority data via the terrestrial RAN; and responsive to the signal strength recovering above the threshold amount after a period of caching, transmitting cached aggregated sensor data to the macro core network via the terrestrial RAN. The closest prior art Dusenberry et al. (US 2022/0201615) discloses delaying transmission until sufficient signal strength (0025) but not the limitations of the claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al. (US 2020/0084278) discloses network controlled sensor information sharing between vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights