DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/20/2023.
Claims 1- 10 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 10/20/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190327007 A1), hereinafter “Wang”; and in further view of Rasool et al. (US 20220124735 A1), hereinafter “Rasool”.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches An electronic device in a high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system, comprising: a receiving unit configured to obtain traffic information of a cell in the communication system [Wang: Abstract; teaches the high altitude platform station receives information that includes a location of a base station and a radius of a central area of a coverage area of the base station];
a control unit configured to determine configuration information [Wang: Abstract teaches calculates an interference start time and an interference end time according to the received information and a flight parameter of the high altitude platform station] of at least one of a high- altitude platform station (HAPS) and a terrestrial base statin covering the cell according to the traffic information [Wang: Par. 74- 76 and 133; Fig. 5; 16 shows a high altitude platform station disclosed in an embodiment of this application. The high altitude platform station includes a transceiver and a processor wherein Par. 0134 further teaches the processor is configured to calculate an interference start time and an interference end time according to the information, the radius, and a flight parameter of the high altitude platform station, where the interference start time is a time at which the high altitude platform station starts to interfere with the ground base station];
a transmitting unit configured to notify of the configuration information [Wang: Par. 133-134 teaches the high altitude platform station includes a transceiver configured to send interference coordination information to the ground base station].
PNG
media_image1.png
542
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein traffic information being traffic load information.
Rasool in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches traffic information being traffic load information [Rasool: Fig. 5; Par. 39 and 42 teaches a TN gNB may use traditional load Information X2 IE to indicate UL interference to HAPS gNB].
PNG
media_image3.png
578
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention was made to utilize the teaching of Rasool for traffic information being traffic load information in the Wang’s system. One of the ordinary skill in the art would be motivate to utilize the teaching Rasool in the Wang system in order to reduce the interference when communicate its priority to use certain resources [Rasool: Par. 39].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the receiving unit is further configured to obtain channel state information of the cell in the communication system [Wang: Fig. 5; step 505 teaches of receiving interference coordination information including interference frequency for communication link and start time and end time]; and the control unit is further configured to determine the configuration information of the at least one of the HAPS and the terrestrial base station covering the cell according to the channel state information [Rasool: Par. 0134 further teaches the processor is configured to calculate an interference start time and an interference end time according to the information, the radius, and a flight parameter of the high altitude platform station].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the HAPS in the high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system is connected to a cloud [Rasool: par. 54 teaches of using edge cloud server for distributed computing];
the terrestrial base station in the high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system is connected to the cloud; the electronic device is disposed in the cloud [Rasool: Par. 54 and Fig. 7A illustrates the devices and communication system are in communication with cloud server];
the receiving unit receives the traffic load information from cells of the HAPS and the terrestrial base station in the high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system [Wang: Par. 133-134 teaches the high altitude platform station includes a transceiver configured to send interference coordination information to the ground base station].; and
the transmitting unit notifies at least one of the HAPS and the terrestrial base station in the high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system of the configuration information [Wang: Par. 133-134 teaches the high altitude platform station includes a transceiver configured to send interference coordination information to the ground base station].
Regarding claim 4, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the electronic device is the HAPS in the high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system; the receiving unit obtains traffic load information of a cell covered by the HAPS and receives, from a terrestrial base station within a coverage range of the HAPS, traffic load information of a cell covered by the terrestrial base station [Rasool: Fig. 5; Par. 39 and 42 teaches a TN gNB may use traditional load Information X2 IE to indicate UL interference to HAPS gNB].; and
the transmitting unit notifies at least one of the HAPS and the terrestrial base station within the coverage range of the HAPS of the configuration information [Wang: Par. 0134 further teaches the processor is configured to calculate an interference start time and an interference end time according to the information, the radius, and a flight parameter of the high altitude platform station, where the interference start time is a time at which the high altitude platform station starts to interfere with the ground base station.
Regarding claim 5, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the electronic device is the terrestrial base station; the receiving unit obtains traffic load information of a cell covered by the terrestrial base station and receives, from an HAPS corresponding to the terrestrial base station, traffic load information of a cell covered by the HAPS [Wang: Fig. 5; 6]; and
the transmitting unit notifies at least one of the terrestrial base station and the HAPS corresponding to the terrestrial base station of the configuration information [Wang: Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 6, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 4. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the HAPS and the terrestrial base stations communicate over an interface between base stations or a backhaul interface [Rasool: Par. 43 teaches of backhaul connection is used].
Regarding claim 7, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 4. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the HAPS is used as a centralized unit or a donor-distributed unit of integrated access backhaul [Rasool: Fig. 7A], and
a customer premises equipment (CPE) connected to the HAPS is used as a distributed unit of the integrated access backhaul or a mobile terminal [Rasool: Par. 43 teaches of backhaul connection is used for communication between HAPS and other devices].
Regarding claim 8, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the electronic device is a customer premises equipment (CPE) connected to the HAPS in the high-altitude platform station-terrestrial communication system;
the receiving unit obtains traffic load information on at least one of a cell covered by the HAPS to which the CPE is connected and a cell covered by the CPE [Wang: Par. 0134 further teaches the processor is configured to calculate an interference start time and an interference end time according to the information, the radius, and a flight parameter of the high altitude platform station], and receives, from a terrestrial base station within a coverage range of the CPE, traffic load information of a cell covered by the terrestrial base station [Rasool: Fig. 5; Par. 39 and 42 teaches a TN gNB may use traditional load Information X2 IE to indicate UL interference to HAPS gNB]; and
the transmitting unit notifies at least one of the CPE and the terrestrial base station within the coverage range of the CPE of the configuration information [Wang: Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 9, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the electronic device is the terrestrial base station;
the receiving unit obtains traffic load information of a cell covered by the terrestrial base station and receives, from a customer premises equipment (CPE) corresponding to the terrestrial base station [Wang: Par. 0134 further teaches the processor is configured to calculate an interference start time and an interference end time according to the information, the radius, and a flight parameter of the high altitude platform station, traffic load information of a cell covered by the CPE [Rasool: Fig. 5; Par. 39 and 42 teaches a TN gNB may use traditional load Information X2 IE to indicate UL interference to HAPS gNB];; and the transmitting unit notifies at least one of the CPE corresponding to the terrestrial base station and the terrestrial base station of the configuration information [Rasool: Fig. 6A illustrates informing and exchange mitigation with the terrestrial nodes 5; Par. 39 and 42 teaches a TN gNB may use traditional load Information X2 IE to indicate UL interference to HAPS gNB].
Regarding claim 10, the combined Wang in view of Rasool teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 8. Wang in view of Rasool further teaches the CPE and the terrestrial base station communicate over an interface between base stations or a backhaul interface [Rasool: Par. 43 teaches of backhaul connection is used].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights