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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application # 18579005 filed 01/12/2024. Claims 1-5 amended, claim 6 canceled, and claim 7 added. Claims 1-5 and 7 are subject to examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-5 and 7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of copending Application No. 18683401 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because same method are used for deployment position selection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18579005
Co-pending application 18683401
1. (Currently Amended) A base station deployment position selection method executed by a computer, the method comprising:
calculating, in an area where a first base station to which a plurality of terminals are connected is deployed, for each of a plurality of candidates for a deployment position of a second base station, in a case where the second base station is deployed at the deployment position being a candidate, a number of first terminals connected to the first base station and a number of second terminals connected to the second base station; and
selecting one candidate from the plurality of candidates based on the number of first terminals and the number of second terminals.
1. A base station control system comprising:
one or more first base stations whose placement positions are undetermined; and a base station control apparatus including circuitry configured to generate, for each of possible combinations of the first base stations that are each to couple to one or more terminals among terminals coupled to at least one second base station, combination patterns each including candidate positions of each first base station, and transmitted power candidates of the first base station that is at the candidate positions, based on positions of the one or more terminals,
determine, for each of the combination patterns regarding each possible combination of the first base stations, (i) the number of first terminals to be coupled to each of the first base stations and (ii) the number of second terminals to be coupled to the second base station, upon occurrence of a condition in which the first base stations are provided at the respective candidate positions, in conjunction with a condition in which each of the first base stations outputs transmitted power of the transmitted power candidates regarding the combination pattern, and
select one combination pattern from the combination patterns regarding possible combinations of the first base stations, based on the number of first terminals and the number of second terminals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4 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.
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 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPPEI (TEPPEI hereafter) (JP 2018195928 A, submitted in IDS) in view of Egner et al (Egner hereafter) (US 20180184303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 5, and claim 7, TEPPEI teaches, A base station deployment position selection method executed by a computer, the method comprising:
calculating, in an area where a first base station to which a plurality of terminals are connected is deployed (TEPPEI; FIG. 1 may include ... Two or more of the terminal 10, the base station 20 ... The terminal 10 can perform wireless communication with the base station 20 in a wireless area formed or provided by the base station 20, pg 2), for each of a plurality of candidates for a deployment position of a second base station (TEPPEI; the base station 20 may be configured to be movable, pg 3), in a case where the second base station is deployed at the deployment position being a candidate (TEPPEI; at each position, pg 7), a number of first terminals connected to the first base station and a number of second terminals connected to the second base station (TEPPEI; The control station 40 estimates the number of terminals 10 connected to the base station 20 when the base station 20 is arranged at each position based on the received power at each position, pg 7); and
selecting one candidate from the plurality of candidates based on the number of first terminals and the number of second terminals (TEPPEI; the control station 40 may determine the position of the mobile base station 20 so that the difference in the estimated number of connected terminals between the base stations 20 is minimized (in other words, leveled), pg 7).
Although TEPPEI teaches that the mobile base station 20 and the mobile sensor 30 can be combined as one unit in Fig. 14, but failed to explicitly teach that the combined unit is used at each candidate position for estimating performance of each candidate positions. However, in the same field of endeavor, Egner teaches in Par. 0098 Fig. 6 step 616 that the WLAN AP is moved to each potential optimal location for potential interference calculation between the WLAN AP and each of a plurality of neighboring base transceiver systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of TEPPEI to include the use of moving AP at each potential location as taught by Egner in order to select optimal position (Egner; Par. 0098, Fig. 4, 6).
Specifically for claim 5, TEPPEI teaches, A base station deployment position selection apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to (TEPPEI; The control station 40, pg 7).
Specifically for claim 7, TEPPEI teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer- readable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed, cause a computer to execute a method, the method comprising (TEPPEI; The control station 40 estimates, pg 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent art US 20150156640 A1 teaches in Fig. 3 a method for selecting base station candidate positions based on probabilities of connection between a plurality of terminals included in the wireless network and the base stations installed at the candidate positions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-6419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/SHARMIN CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416