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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. WO 2016/148197 A1 in view of Jindal et al. US 2022/0231944 A1 and Liu et al. US 2013/0102305 A1.
Claims 1, 14 and 15:
Nakano discloses a relay apparatus comprising a processor and a storage unit (See figs. 3 and 4, distribution device comprising processor and storage), wherein the processor is configured to implement the following by executing a program stored in the storage unit: a first communication unit that receives uplink data associated with first identification information from a base station (See fig. 3, the packet is received at distribution device from the base station 10 including terminal ID and destination information in the header. Also, see paras 31-41); a division integration unit that determines to transmit the uplink data to the mobile network associated with the first identification information among a plurality of mobile networks (See fig. 3 and para 32-33, the packet is transmitted by the distribution device to EPC 1 or EPC 2. Also, see paras 31-41); and a second communication unit that transmits the uplink data including the second parameter to the mobile network associated with the first identification information (See fig. 3 and paras 37-39, “The control unit 121 specifies the transfer destination of the packet from the extracted terminal identification information, and controls the processing unit 122 to transfer the packet to the EPC network corresponding to the terminal….the processing unit 122 sets the transmission destination information in the header of the packet transmitted from the terminal side to the transfer destination address so as to transfer it to the ingress node of the corresponding EPC network”. Also, see paras 31-41).
Nakano doesn’t explicitly disclose a converter that converts a first parameter, which is included in the uplink data received from the base station, into a second parameter on the basis of the first identification information.
Jindal discloses a converter that converts a first parameter, which is included in the uplink data received from the base station, into a second parameter on the basis of the first identification information (See para 16, “may perform a particular DNAT on a received packet to identify a destination endpoint for the packet …by looking at a source port number in the packet header (e.g., in addition to other tuples, such as destination port number, and in some cases, source and/or destination IP address). The destination gateway may, based on such identification, replace the destination IP address and port number in the packet header with the private IP address and port number of the identified destination EP before sending the packet to the destination EP”. Also see para 15, SNAT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano with the teachings of Jindal to improve the method disclosed by Nakano by including the feature of converting a first parameter, which is included in the uplink data received from the base station, into a second parameter on the basis of the first identification information. The motivation to combine would have been to keep the destination/source IP address private.
Nakano in view of Jindal doesn’t disclose a plurality of emulators, each emulator of which is associated with any one of the plurality of mobile networks, wherein the emulator is configured to function as a virtual base station which is communicatively connected exclusively to the mobile network associated with the emulator.
Liu discloses a plurality of emulators, each emulator of which is associated with any one of the plurality of mobile networks (See para 54, virtual base stations providing coverage), wherein the emulator is configured to function as a virtual base station which is communicatively connected exclusively to the mobile network associated with the emulator (See para 54, virtual base stations providing coverage for the wireless access network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano in view of Jindal with the teachings of Liu to improve the method disclosed by Nakano in view of Jindal by including the feature of virtual base station. The motivation to combine would have been to provide better quality via beams from the virtual BS.
Claim 2:
Nakano discloses the determination by the division integration unit (See fig. 3 and para 32-33, the packet is transmitted by the distribution device to EPC 1 or EPC 2. Also, see paras 31-41);
However, Nakano doesn’t disclose that the converter performs the conversion after the determination by the division integration unit.
Jindal discloses that the converter performs the conversion after the determination by the division integration unit (See para 29, “after the security associations between the source and destination EPs are established, a source EP may enable a feature (e.g., NAT Traversal or NAT-T)”. The determination corresponds to security association establishment and conversion corresponds to NAT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano with the teachings of Jindal to improve the method disclosed by Nakano by including the feature of conversion after determination. The motivation would have been to know whether it is authenticated to communicate with the other network before NAT.
Claim 3:
Nakano discloses the determination by the division integration unit (See fig. 3 and para 32-33, the packet is transmitted by the distribution device to EPC 1 or EPC 2. Also, see paras 31-41);
However, Nakano doesn’t disclose that the converter performs the conversion after the determination by the division integration unit.
Jindal discloses that the division integration unit performs the determination after the conversion by the converter (See para 16, “may perform a particular DNAT on a received packet to identify a destination endpoint for the packet …by looking at a source port number in the packet header (e.g., in addition to other tuples, such as destination port number, and in some cases, source and/or destination IP address). The destination gateway may, based on such identification, replace the destination IP address and port number in the packet header with the private IP address and port number of the identified destination EP before sending the packet to the destination EP”, In other words, looking at or checking the destination IP address (that was replaced) corresponds to the determination and on the basis of that the packet is forwarded. Also see para 27, “After modifying the headers of the flow packets, the destination gateway may send the packets of the flow to their final destination which is the destination EP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano in view of Liu with the teachings of Jindal to improve the method disclosed by Nakano in view of Liu by including the feature of determination after conversion. The motivation for doing so would have been to know which ingress node the data should be sent.
Claim 4:
Nakano discloses that the relay apparatus is provided between the base station and the plurality of mobile networks (See fig. 3, distribution device between BS 10 and networks 20A-B and 30).
Claim 5:
Nakano discloses that the relay apparatus is provided at the base station (See fig. 2-3, “In FIG. 2, the distribution device is mounted in the base station 10”).
Claim 9:
Jindal discloses that the first parameter is uniquely identified on the plurality of mobile networks and the second parameter is uniquely identified on a specific mobile network among the plurality of mobile networks (See para 15-17, private address in a network and public address amongst across networks).
Claim 11:
Jindal discloses that the converter converts the first parameter into the second parameter on the basis of a conversion table associated with the first identification information (See para 46, “This identification data may be configured in one or more tables that are stored at each gateway in some embodiments”).
Claim 7:
Nakano in view of Jindal doesn’t disclose mutually different addresses to be used for communication are assigned to the plurality of emulators, respectively.
Liu discloses mutually different addresses to be used for communication are assigned to the plurality of emulators, respectively (See para 54, virtual base stations with different identifiers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano and Liu in view of Jindal with the teachings of Liu to improve the method disclosed by Nakano and Liu in view of Jindal by including the feature of virtual base station with different IDs. The motivation to combine would have been to enable faster communication in the relevant coverage areas by delivering the packets to the antennas being used as virtual BSs.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Jindal, Liu and CHO et al. US 2019/0182874 A1.
Claim 8:
Nakano doesn’t disclose that the second communication unit receives downlink data from the plurality of mobile networks; the converter converts the second parameter included in the downlink data into the first parameter; the division integration unit integrates the downlink data received from the plurality of mobile networks; and the first communication unit outputs the downlink data, which includes the first parameter and has been integrated, to the base station.
Jindal discloses that the converter converts the second parameter included in the downlink data into the first parameter (See para 15, “The gateway may similarly protect the private network devices that are located within the datacenter by performing a DNAT process on the incoming network traffic to convert the destination address (e.g., the public IP address of the datacenter) in the packet headers of the incoming network traffic to the destination addresses of the individual private network devices within the datacenter”).
Cho discloses receives downlink data from the plurality of mobile networks (See para 347, receives DL data. Also, see fig. 2, two EPCs); the division integration unit integrates the downlink data received from the plurality of mobile networks (See para 347, receives DL data. Also see para 356. Also, see fig. 2, two EPCs); and the first communication unit outputs the downlink data, which includes the first parameter and has been integrated, to the base station (See para 348, transmit DL data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano in view of Jindal and Liu with the teachings of Cho to improve the method disclosed by Nakano in view of Jindal and Liu by including the feature of receiving and integrating DL data. The motivation to combine would have been to forward the data to the terminal to complete the communication.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Jindal, Liu and Qiang et al US 20150140965 A1
Claim 10:
Nakano in view of Jindal doesn’t that the first parameter and the second parameter include identification information of the base station.
Qiang discloses that the first parameter and the second parameter include identification information of the base station (See para 43, public and private IP addresses for a base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nakano in view of Jindal and Liu with the teachings of Qiang to improve the method disclosed by Nakano in view of Jindal and Liu by including the feature of receiving and integrating DL data first and second parameter being BS IDs. The motivation to combine would have been to allow BSs to have network address translation feature to allow privacy and efficient communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Although, Applicant notes on page 2 of the applicant’s remarks that the term ‘virtual base station’ does not necessarily imply an emulator, however, provides no explanation how these two terms differ from each other. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets “emulator” as “virtual base station”. This interpretation is according to Applicant’s specification’s paragraph 100 which discloses “The emulator is configured to function as a virtual base station…”. Also see other paragraphs 102, 103 and 106 for similar interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130267229 A1 discloses a system and method for a partner network sharing architecture is provided. In an embodiment a piece of user equipment that is part of a partner network is handed off or otherwise attached to a wholesale network. The identification of the partner network that the piece of user equipment originated from is determined by an ordering of a list of PLMN IDs that is transmitted to the wholesale network. US 20140120911 A1 discloses at the time of registration of a base station, the base station reports to a gateway device list information regarding core networks that are to be connected. At the time of call origination from a user terminal, the base station reports to the gateway device, by means of a message of protocol for termination between a base station and a gateway, network identification information that indicates core networks that are to be connected to the user terminal The gateway device transfers a control message from the user terminal to the core networks indicated by the network identification information that was reported. At the time of call connection to the user terminal, the gateway device selects the base station to which paging from the core network is to be transmitted on the basis of the list information reported from the base station at the time of registration.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475