DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 11/21/2025.
Claims 1-9 remain pending. Claims 10-11 have been added. Claims 1-11 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/015504 filed 4/14/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 2022/0014934 A1) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2021/0120440 A1) in view of Teslenko et al. (US 2019/0199419 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Matsunaga teaches:
A communication control system comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information related to a wireless communication device and environment information that affects wireless communication quality; (a control device including an acquiring unit to acquire quality information indicating a correspondence relationship between a position and communication quality related to wireless communication at the position, and route information indicating a movement route of a mobile base station [Matsunaga: 0035; 0037; Fig. 4]);
a prediction unit configured to predict future wireless communication quality based on the information related to the wireless communication device; (control device includes a specifying unit to specify an area predicted to be lower than the predetermined communication quality based on the communication quality in a past as the area in which the communication quality is lower than the predetermined communication quality [Matsunaga: 0035; 0046; Fig. 4]);
a control unit configured to control, based on the future wireless communication quality, a target device to achieve wireless communication quality responsive to a purpose of a user using wireless communication; (the control device includes a controlling unit to execute control for moving a selected mobile base station to a position at which it can provide wireless communication service in at least a part of the specified area to a terminal device in a remote or automated driving vehicle [Matsunaga: 0035; 0042; 0016; Fig. 4]);
a cooperation unit configured to execute a cycle including acquisition of information by the acquisition unit, prediction by the prediction unit, and control by the control unit; (the control device includes the acquiring unit, the specifying unit, and the controlling unit [Matsunaga: 0028; 0035; Fig. 3]).
However, Matsunaga does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
a prediction unit configured to predict future wireless communication quality based on the information related to the wireless communication device and the environment information;
In a similar field of endeavor involving determining wireless communication channel quality of vehicles, Reimann discloses:
a prediction unit configured to predict future wireless communication quality based on the information related to the wireless communication device and the environment information; (estimating a channel quality based on a current position of the mobile subscriber at a current time and a future position and environment estimated on the basis of the current position using an environmental model [Reimann: 0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsunaga in view of Reimann in order to predict future wireless communication quality based on environment information in the system of Matsunaga.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsunaga with Reimann as doing so would allow the predicted wireless communication quality to take into account what the future environment will be like at a future time which is particularly beneficial for fast moving devices such as vehicles [Reimann: 0015-16].
However, Matsunaga-Reimann does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
a cooperation unit configured to execute a cycle including acquisition of information by the acquisition unit, prediction by the prediction unit, and control by the control unit, repeatedly.
In a similar field of endeavor involving controlling the direction of the beam based on a vehicle's predicted position, Teslenko discloses:
a cooperation unit configured to execute a cycle including acquisition of information by the acquisition unit, prediction by the prediction unit, and control by the control unit, repeatedly; (dynamically adjusting a beam's direction as needed for the beam's direction to track vehicle movement in a substantially continuous or quick periodic fashion so that the vehicle remains in focus of the beam, wherein the adjusting is based on a route schedule and positioning measurements of the vehicle [Teslenko: 0031-34; Fig. 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsunaga-Reimann in view of Teslenko in order to execute a cycle including acquisition of information by the acquisition unit, prediction by the prediction unit, and control by the control unit, repeatedly in the system of Matsunaga-Reimann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsunaga-Reimann with Teslenko as doing so would perform adjustments as needed to maintain a substantially constant and high quality service channel for moving device(s) onboard the vehicle [Teslenko: 0038].
With regard to Claim 2, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a data storage unit, wherein the acquisition unit stores the acquired information in the data storage unit, and wherein the prediction unit predicts the future wireless communication quality by using information read from the data storage unit; (the information acquired by the communication circuit 204 can be stored in memory 202 or storage device 203 [Matsunaga: 0027]. Reimann teaches the environmental model uses data captured by an environment capture device along with the aid of digital road maps or similar data to determine what the environment will be like at a future time [Reimann: 0015-16]).
With regard to Claim 3, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system according to claim 1, wherein the target device includes at least one of a base station or a terminal, and wherein the control unit controls a wireless parameter for at least one of the base station or the terminal; (the control device includes a controlling unit to execute control a selected mobile base station [Matsunaga: 0035; 0042; 0016; Fig. 4]. Reimann teaches adjusting at least one parameter of the communication system based on the estimation, wherein the at least one parameter is a cyclic prefix of a transmission symbol [Reimann: 0011; 0021]).
With regard to Claim 5, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system according to claim 1, wherein the target device includes a movable base station, and wherein the control unit controls a position of the movable base station; (the control device includes a controlling unit to execute control for moving a selected mobile base station to a position at which it can provide wireless communication service in at least a part of the specified area to a terminal device in a remote or automated driving vehicle [Matsunaga: 0035; 0042; 0016; Fig. 4]).
With regard to Claim 6, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system according to claim 1, wherein the environment information includes at least one of video information captured by a camera, sensor information sensed by a sensor, or map information acquired from a map information database; (the environmental model uses data captured by an environment capture device along with the aid of digital road maps or similar data to determine what the environment will be like at a future time, wherein the environment capture device comprises a multiplicity of sensor systems such as cameras, radar sensors, lidar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, etc. which are used to determine objects and their properties, in particular, their reflection behavior [Reimann: 0015-16]).
With regard to Claim 7, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system according to claim 1, wherein the information related to the wireless communication device includes received power information related to the wireless communication device and object information obtained by detecting an object around the wireless communication device by wireless sensing; (a K factor indicates the ratio between the direct power between the subscribers and the power received via reflections [Reimann: 0012], and the environment capture device comprises a multiplicity of sensor systems such as cameras, radar sensors, lidar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, etc. which are used to determine objects and their properties, in particular, their reflection behavior [Reimann: 0015-16]. Matsunaga teaches communication quality to be improved here can be represented by indices such as signal-to-noise power ratio (SNR), signal-to-interference-plus-noise power ratio (SINR), reference signal received power (RSRP), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), and received signal strength [Matsunaga: 0015]).
With regard to Claims 8-9, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 1 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claims 8-9 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
With regard to Claim 11, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system of claim 1, wherein the cooperation unit is further configured to repeat the cycle until the wireless communication quality is satisfied; (the radio network node may re-direct the beam when the position prediction warrants a pointing direction change that meets or exceeds a defined threshold [Teslenko: 0038]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 2022/0014934 A1) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2021/0120440 A1) in view of Teslenko et al. (US 2019/0199419 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 101936624 B1).
With regard to Claim 4, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches:
The communication control system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls a radio wave direction; (the control device includes a controlling unit to execute control a selected mobile base station [Matsunaga: 0035; 0042; 0016; Fig. 4]. Teslenko teaches dynamically adjusting the direction of a particular beam as needed for the beam's direction to track movement of the vehicle [Teslenko: 0037]).
However, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
wherein the target device includes a reflector, and wherein the control unit controls at least one of a radio wave reflection direction or radio wave reflection power of the reflector.
In a similar field of endeavor involving received signals at a moving object using wave reflection, Kim discloses:
wherein the target device includes a reflector, and wherein the control unit controls at least one of a radio wave reflection direction or radio wave reflection power of the reflector; (a control device for controlling a rotating device for adjusting the polarization direction of the fixed station antenna according, the direction of the mobile terminal antenna, and the horizontal posture (azimuth angle, horizontal angle) [Kim: p. 3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko in view of Kim in order to control at least one of a radio wave reflection direction or radio wave reflection power of a reflector in the system of Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko with Kim as doing so uses the position and posture information of the moving body to adjust the polarization direction of a transmission antenna with a polarization wave, which is vertical to the reflection surface, thereby improving service quality [Kim: abstract].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 2022/0014934 A1) in view of Reimann et al. (US 2021/0120440 A1) in view of Teslenko et al. (US 2019/0199419 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Levin et al. (US 2011/0287801 A1).
With regard to Claim 10, Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko teaches the communication control system according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the environment information includes high-definition three-dimensional map information including data representing at least one of a building shape or a tree type.
In a similar field of endeavor involving predicting signal strength in an urban environment, Levin discloses:
wherein the environment information includes high-definition three-dimensional map information including data representing at least one of a building shape or a tree type; (maintaining a geographical database that may include terrain information, building information, road information, land use information, and/or other geographical feature information to be used for prediction of ray trajectory, ray power, propagation delay, propagation delay spread, signal strength, etc., wherein the database may be a three dimensional database comprising building contours, building height, footprint dimensions, number of floors, etc. [Levin: 0037; 0039; 0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko in view of Levin in order to utilize environment information that includes high-definition three-dimensional map information including data representing at least one of a building shape or a tree type in the system of Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsunaga-Reimann-Teslenko with Levin as doing so would allow for more accurate modeling and prediction of wave propagation due to diffraction around buildings and/or scattering from vegetation and from structures [Levin: 0051].
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (KR 102207836 B1) which teaches adjusting the reflection phase to be in phase with the direct wave radiated from the radiator so that a reflected wave reflected from the plurality of reflection cells 106 and a direct wave radiated from the radiator 104 become in-phase, thereby causing constructive interference, and achieving a high antenna gain [Kim: p. 3].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights