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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljung et al. (Pub. No. 20170142595) in view of Kim et al. (Patent No. 11083038).
- With respect to claims 1, 17-18, Ljung teaches a communication control apparatus comprising at least one processor to execute: identifying, by a communication device identifier, a communication device inside an existing communication cell (e.g. step of determining mobile terminals exist in the cell see step 502-503 in Fig. 5); estimating, by a communication quality insufficiency estimator, an insufficient communication quality given by the existing communication cell to the communication device (e.g. step determining capacity of cell for service quality see par. 7 discloses “Present embodiments of the invention take into account both the current traffic load on the network and the location of the highest system capacity-intensive mobile terminals in determining an initial position for deploying the mobile cell. Additionally, embodiments provide for optimizing the location of deployed mobile cells based on the directional movement of the highest capacity-intensive mobile terminals, and, in some embodiments, service quality indicators provided by the mobile terminals and/or contextual information captured by the mobile cell apparatus”); and causing, by a dynamic communication cell provider, a dynamic communication station to provide a dynamic communication cell for the one or more communication devices inside the existing communication cell (e.g. the step of offload, dynamically optimize in step 510 of Fig. 5; see par. 37 discloses “The mobile cell provides for a moving cell or kinetic network for providing radio access network capacity increase in dynamic locations within conventional cells where it most beneficial (i.e., “traffic hotspots” or the like)”). Ljung fails to teach the estimating is based on activity history information which included present and past communication measurement results. Kim teaches the network uses history reporting to estimate user’s quality of service, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the method of using history report to estimate the user’s QoS in the communication to provide UE in mobile cell.
- With respect to claim 2, Ljung teaches wherein the dynamic communication cell provider moves the dynamic communication station to a place at which the dynamic communication cell can be provided for the one or more communication devices in accordance with an estimation of an insufficient communication quality made by the communication quality insufficiency estimator (see par. 36, 65 discloses “ the present invention provides for determining the dynamic positioning of mobile cells, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (e.g., drones) or other mobile apparatus equipped with the necessary antenna and functionality. Specifically, embodiments of the invention, provide for determining the initial positioning of the mobile cells based on the current traffic load in the network and the location of the highest system capacity-intensive mobile terminal(s) in determining an initial position for deploying the mobile cell”).
- With respect to claim 5, Ljung teaches wherein the dynamic communication station is switchable between an operation state in which the dynamic communication cell is provided and a suspension state in which the dynamic communication cell is not provided (e.g. step of deploy the mobile cell in response to high capacity area in Fig. 5 step 506).
- With respect to claim 6, Ljung teaches the dynamic communication station is a movable communication station, and the dynamic communication cell is a movable communication cell (e.g. step 506 as mobile cell and Fig. 2).
- With respect to claim 7, Ljung teaches wherein the dynamic communication station is a flying communication station capable of flying, and the dynamic communication cell provider changes an altitude of the flying communication station to change a size of the dynamic communication cell (e.g. the drone 200 in Fig. 200 assign to location in cell).
- With respect to claim 8, Ljung teaches wherein the dynamic communication station is at least one of a base station, an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node, a relay station, and a non-mobile communication station (e.g. Fig. 2 shows the network 300 see par. 40).
- With respect to claim 9-10, Ljung teaches wherein the communication quality insufficiency estimator estimates an insufficient communication quality given by the existing communication cell to the communication device based on a communication measurement result measured through a sensor around the communication device (e.g. par. 11 discloses the information on current system capacity usage by mobile terminals in the area that inherently understand the information is monitored).
- With respect to claim 11, Ljung teaches wherein the communication quality insufficiency estimator estimates an insufficient communication quality given by the existing communication cell to the communication device based on detection of priority communication performed by the communication device (e.g. par. 2 discloses “The market for high capacity mobile and wireless systems is continuously growing and the demand for further capacity enhancements is covered in the research and standardization efforts towards a 5.sup.th generation mobile/wireless network, commonly referred to as 5G. The load placed on a mobile network, referred to as the mobile traffic load, is, in its basic nature, very dynamic with user and application variations occurring over time and geographic areas. Such, dynamic mobile traffic load is due in part to the fact that users are highly mobile and have a tendency to congregate in one area (e.g., shopping centers. conferences, festivals, concerts and the like)”).
Claim(s) 3-4, 12-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljung et al. (Pub. No. 20170142595) and Kim in further view of Suthar et al. (Pub. No. 20170013476).
- With respect to claims 3-4, Ljung fails to teach when the insufficient communication quality estimated by the communication quality insufficiency estimator is estimated to have resolved, the dynamic communication cell provider causes the dynamic communication station to stop providing the dynamic communication cell for the communication device. Suthar teaches the insufficient communication quality estimated by the communication quality insufficiency estimator is resolved, the dynamic communication cell provider causes the dynamic communication station to stop providing the dynamic communication cell for the one or more communication devices (see Fig. 4 step 420, 425, 430). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the method of determining that area is satisfaction, deactivate the drone AP for solving the quality and capacity of congestion area in the cell to provide quality of service in wireless communication.
- With respect to claim 12, Suthar teaches wherein the at least one processor executes: estimating, by an interference estimator, interference between the dynamic communication cell and the existing communication cell (see par. 24 discloses “if the drone AP 105 is already dispatched to an area and the RF data indicates that one of the cell towers 155 interferes with the radio 110 in the drone AP 105”); and performing, by an interference reducer, an action for interference reduction on at least one of the dynamic communication cell and the existing communication cell to reduce the interference between the dynamic communication cell and the existing communication cell (e.g. par. 19 discloses the mitigate interference).
- With respect to claims 13-14, Suthar teaches wherein the interference estimator estimates interference between the dynamic communication cell and the existing communication cell based on a communication measurement result measured through the dynamic communication station (e.g. par. 24 discloses the interference based on output power).
- With respect to claims 15-16, Suthar teaches wherein the action for interference reduction includes at least one of: changing direction of providing (see par. 19); changing a beam used; changing an antenna used; changing a frequency band used; and applying inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC), in at least one of the dynamic communication cell and the existing communication cell.
- With respect to claim 19, Suthar teaches the action for interference reduction includes changing at least one of an antenna used (see par. 19 disclose the change of beam pattern of antenna) or a frequency band used.
- With respect to claim 20, Kim teaches wherein the interference estimator estimates based on the activity history information (see par. 4, 63 discloses history reporting used to solve potential interference).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights