DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Claims 2-10 are directed to “the communication control apparatus” which depend from claim 1, claim 1 was amended from “a communication control apparatus” to “an apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required to amend claims 2-10 to match the preamble of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim( s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea and the function(s) performed by such generic computer elements would be routine, conventional , and well-understood to one of ordinary skill in the computer arts.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims are directed to an abstract ideas as shown below:
STEP 1, Do the claims falls within the statutory categories of invention? Yes. Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 13, the claims are directed to an apparatus and method, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, (Prong 1): Is a Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 13, the claims include the limitations of “identify/identifying a moving communication device that moves with a moving station” and “restricting a connection” based on a “relative movement relationship” which are related to concepts that can be performed in the human mind/mental process (e.g., an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, etc.). That is, other than reciting, a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or manually. For example, identifying a relative movement relationship between two device can be accomplished via observation.
STEP 2A, (Prong 2): Integration into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites generic computer components (i.e., processor, memory, moving communication device, moving station) to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide technological improvements.
STEP 2B: Does it recite “Significantly More”? No. The claim recites a processor, memory, and instructions to identify a moving communication device and restrict a connection based on a “relative movement relationship”, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by TEYEB et al. (US 2014/0192781).
Regarding claim 1, Teyeb discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
identify a moving communication device that moves with a moving station from among a plurality of communication devices, the moving communication device being identified based on a relative movement relationship with the moving station (p. [0116]: UEs entering the vehicle are identified by a sensor and allowed to handover/connected to the relay cell, served by the mobile relay node (i.e., moving station); p. [0092], [0096] – the mobile relay node detects its mobility state and indicate its mobility state to UEs under its control; p. [0101]; the mobile relay node may indicate a moving mobility state, which would also corresponds to the mobility state of the connected UEs); and
selectively restrict a connection of the identified moving communication device with a communication cell through which the moving station passes (p. [0101]; relayed UEs in a moving mobility state include (1) inbound/outbound handovers from/to the relay cell, i.e., the cell served by the mobile RN are prevented (2) relayed UEs stop measuring other cells, i.e., cells which are neighbors to the serving relay cell (3) relayed UEs do not perform cell reselection to other cells….therefore, connection is restricted to cells (i.e., neighbor cells) that the mobile RN passes).
Regarding claim 6, Teyeb discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the moving station is a moving base station capable of providing a moving communication cell to a communication device (p. [0096], [0099]; the mobile relay node provides a relay cell).
Regarding claim 10, Teyeb discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the moving station is installed to a movable object (p. [0073]; the mobile relay node is attached to a vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, Teyeb discloses a method comprising:
identifying a moving communication device that moves with a moving station from among a plurality of communication devices, the moving communication device being identified based on a relative movement relationship with the moving station (p. [0116]: UEs entering the vehicle are identified by a sensor and allowed to handover/connected to the relay cell, served by the mobile relay node (i.e., moving station); p. [0092], [0096] – the mobile relay node detects its mobility state and indicate its mobility state to UEs under its control; p. [0101]; the mobile relay node may indicate a moving mobility state, which would also corresponds to the mobility state of the connected UEs); and
selectively restricting a connection of the identified moving communication device with a communication cell through which the moving station passes (p. [0101]; relayed UEs in a moving mobility state include (1) inbound/outbound handovers from/to the relay cell, i.e., the cell served by the mobile RN are prevented (2) relayed UEs stop measuring other cells, i.e., cells which are neighbors to the serving relay cell (3) relayed UEs do not perform cell reselection to other cells….therefore, connection is restricted to cells (i.e., neighbor cells) that the mobile RN passes).
Regarding claim 13, Teyeb discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (p. [0124]) storing a program causing a computer to perform:
identifying a moving communication device that moves with a moving station from among a plurality of communication devices, the moving communication device being identified based on a relative movement relationship with the moving station (p. [0116]: UEs entering the vehicle are identified by a sensor and allowed to handover/connected to the relay cell, served by the mobile relay node (i.e., moving station); p. [0092], [0096] – the mobile relay node detects its mobility state and indicate its mobility state to UEs under its control; p. [0101]; the mobile relay node may indicate a moving mobility state, which would also corresponds to the mobility state of the connected UEs); and
selectively restricting a connection of the identified moving communication device with a communication cell through which the moving station passes (p. [0101]; relayed UEs in a moving mobility state include (1) inbound/outbound handovers from/to the relay cell, i.e., the cell served by the mobile RN are prevented (2) relayed UEs stop measuring other cells, i.e., cells which are neighbors to the serving relay cell (3) relayed UEs do not perform cell reselection to other cells….therefore, connection is restricted to cells (i.e., neighbor cells) that the mobile RN passes).
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, 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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYEB et al. in view of SHARMA N (WO 2022/025637 – cited on IDS filed on 06/17/2025).
Regarding claim 2, Tayeb discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the moving station is capable of communicating with a base station to expand a communication cell provided by the base station.
However, Sharma teaches the moving station that is capable of communicating with a base station to expand a communication cell provided by the base station (p. [0058]-[0059], [0061]; the moving network node (i.e., moving station) may be an Integrated Access Backhaul and may extend the cellular range to the regions with low or no network coverage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tayeb with the teachings of Sharma, since such a modification would provide extended cellular coverage to the regions with low or no network coverage.
Regarding claim 5, Tayeb discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, but does not particularly disclose wherein the moving station is a relay station that relays communication signal between the base station and a communication device.
However, Sharma teaches a moving station that is a relay station that relays communication signal between the base station and a communication device (p. [0058]-[0059], [0061]; the moving network node (i.e., moving station) may be an Integrated Access Backhaul and may extend the cellular range to the regions with low or no network coverage, the in-vehicle unit serves front-haul access for the UEs in the vehicles and an outside mounted on the vehicle is connected to a fixed base station, the in-vehicle unit and the outside unit is collectively termed as a Moving Relay). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tayeb with the teachings of Sharma, since such a modification would provide extended cellular coverage to the regions with low or no network coverage.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYEB et al. in view of HAUSTEIN et al. (US 2024/0040463).
Regarding claim 3, Tayeb discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, but does not particularly disclose wherein the moving station comprises a communication-device functional unit that functions as a communication device to the base station, and a base-station functional unit that functions as a base station to a communication device with which the moving station can communicate.
However, Haustein teaches a moving station comprises a communication-device functional unit that functions as a communication device to the base station, and a base-station functional unit that functions as a base station to a communication device with which the moving station can communicate (p. [0038]-[0041], [0118]; Haustein teaches IAB nodes that are mobile or moving nodes to support a number of UEs in a car for example, the IAB node including a mobile termination MT (i.e., communication-device functional unit) and a distributed unit (i.e., base-station functional unit)-see Figs. 3(b), 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tayeb with the teachings of Haustein, since such a modification would enable the deployment and extend the coverage of newer communication standards (e.g., 5G).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tayeb and Haustein disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, Haustein teaches wherein the moving station is an IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul) node, the communication-device functional unit is a MT (Mobile Termination), and the base-station functional unit is a DU (Distributed Unit) ((p. [0038]-[0041], [0118]; Haustein teaches IAB nodes that are mobile or moving nodes to support a number of UEs in a car for example, the IAB node including a mobile termination MT (i.e., communication-device functional unit) and a distributed unit (i.e., base-station functional unit)-see Figs. 3(b), 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tayeb with the teachings of Haustein, since such a modification would enable the deployment and extend the coverage of newer communication standards (e.g., 5G).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIKAMA T. in views of HORANGIC, and WILHELMSSON (WO 2015/144216).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shikama and Horangic disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not particularly disclose further configured to: acquire relative movement information concerning the movement of a communication device relative to each of the plurality of communications devices relative to the moving station; and identify the moving communication device based on the relative movement information.
However, Wilhelmsson teaches to acquire relative movement information concerning the movement of a communication device relative to each of the plurality of communications devices relative to the moving station; and identify the moving communication device based on the relative movement information (page 16, lines 30-35; when the base station and mobile terminal move jointly, the relative speed between the mobile terminal and base station is small and most favorable to set up a connection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tayeb with the teachings of Wilhelmsson, in order to identify that the mobile terminal (i.e., moving communication device) and the base station (i.e., moving station) move jointly and initiate a connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are 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.
Conclusion
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 MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights