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
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, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo and Hinkle and further in view of Edge (2018/0343635).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Vivo discloses a wireless communication method comprising: receiving by an access and mobility management node (AMF, page 13) from a sensing network node (Sensing function/AF.NEF), a first message (sensing function selection) and one or more identifiers of target access network nodes (NG-RAN, page 13, step 4, selects NG-Rans based on target area, which inherently requires identifiers of the NG-Ran). Vivo discloses transmitting by the AMF to the target access network nodes (step 5) to request the target access network nodes to generate sensing data, wherein the sensing data is transmitted to the sensing network node (step 7) to allow the sensing network node to generate a result (steps 8-10). Also note page 12 which shows the Sensing function is connected between the AMF and RAN.
Vivo does not explicitly disclose the use of address information for the sensing network node. However, the use of address information for routing is known in art, as taught by Hinkle. Hinkle further teaches the use of address information in routing data to network nodes (Col. 1;15-45, Col 3;15-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include address information in order to route data and signaling properly.
The combination of Vivo and Hinkle disclose the access mobility node is configured to receive address information of the target access nodes and also the sensing data is transmitted in tunnels based on address information. The combination of Vivo and Hinkle does not disclose the address information explicitly between mobility and target access nodes. However, Edge teaches the use of address information (cell ID, para 42) in a request for sensing data (location request) and using the address information to send things back to a sensing node (Figure 4, steps 419-420). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include address information for routing purposes.
Regarding claim 20, Vivo disclose a wireless communication method comprising (pages 12-14: receiving, by an access network node (NG-ran) from an access and mobility management node (AMF), a first message (sensing message, step 5); performing by the access network node, measurements to generate sensing data according to the first message (step 6, page 13), and transmitting, by the access network node, the sensing data to a sensing network node (sensing function) to allow the sensing network node to generate a calculated result according to the sensing data(steps 7-10). Also note page 12 which shows the Sensing function is connected between the AMF and RAN.
Vivo does not explicitly disclose the use of address information for the sensing network node. However, the use of address information for routing is known in art, as taught by Hinkle. Hinkle further teaches the use of address information in routing data to network nodes (Col. 1;15-45, Col 3;15-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include address information in order to route data and signaling properly.
The combination of Vivo and Hinkle disclose the access mobility node is configured to receive address information of the target access nodes and also the sensing data is transmitted in tunnels based on address information. The combination of Vivo and Hinkle does not disclose the address information explicitly between mobility and target access nodes. However, Edge teaches the use of address information (cell ID, para 42) in a request for sensing data (location request) and using the address information to send things back to a sensing node (Figure 4, steps 419-420). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include address information for routing purposes.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Vivo discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the sensing data being transmitted via tunnels between a sensing node and a network node. However, Hinkle teaches in an analogous art, a wireless system in which tunnels (140) are used for communications between target network access nodes, BS 1110) and sensing nodes (gateways 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include tunneling in order to package data efficiently.
Regarding claim 6, Edge further teaches the access mobility node (AMF) is configured to transmit the first message with a routing identifier of the sensing node (E_SMLC/LMF) to target access nodes, and receiving the address information from the target access nodes and sending it back to the sensing nodes (Figure 4, sending of OTDOA request and Transport messages to the target NB nodes, followed by information sent back to the LMF). Therefore, claim 6 is rejected given the same reasoning as in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 15, Edge further teaches the access and mobility management
node (AMF 115) is configured to receive the sensing data and transmit it to the sensing node (steps 407-420). Claims 7-8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claims 5 and 14 above.
Regarding claim 17, Vivo doesn’t disclose receiving at least one of a sensing quality of service or object types. However, Hinkle teaches the use of quality of service (abstract) as a requirement for communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include QoS information in order to prevent low quality or error prone communications.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo and Hinkle and Edge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwai (2017/0251357).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Vivo, Hinkle, and Edge disclose all the particulars of the claim except for the address information comprises an Internet Protocol, IP address. Hinkle discloses the use of IP ports over UDP (abstract). However Iwai teaches that addresses in a mobile network include internet protocol or IP addresses (Figure 2b, a particular GUMMEI has an address mapped to an IP address which is an internet protocol address, also Figure 13 – Tunnel IDs are tied to MME IP addresses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include IP addresses in order to route information through a network.
Claim(s) 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo, Hinkle and Edge in view of Cho (2020/0163042).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the combination of Vivo, Hinkle, and Edge discloses the use of a sensing network node and communication with an access mobility node (Page 13). Vivo discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the use of a tracking area identity (TAI) list which is received from a network exposure node, and determining one or more identifiers from the TAI list. However, Cho teaches a wireless network in which a TAI list (abstract, para 9) is used from a network exposure node (5g core network) and in which one or more identifiers can be determined from the TAI list (para 9, 14-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a TAI list in order to provide accurate location information.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo, Hinkle, and Edge in view of Hooker (9826370).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Vivo, Hinkle, and Edge discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the transmission of information of one or more unavailable access nodes. However, Hooker teaches in a wireless system, if the system realizes a cell site (access network node) is unavailable (not visible), information about this is transmitted to the mobility node (steps 612, 616, Figures 2 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include information about unavailable nodes in order to provide a complete routing picture to the management portion of the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vivo does not disclose communications routed through the AMF as it routes directly between Sensing Function and the RAN. However, the claim language does not preclude the current interpretation as shown in Vivo (page 12 shows that the AMF is positioned between the RAN and Sensing function) and the process of page 13 steps 2-4 and 9 require interaction between the RAN and AMF to perform the process which meets the current claim language.
Conclusion
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sedlack (12144047) discloses session management that reduces unnecessary signaling.
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 WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights