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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Kalkunte US 20240004022
1. A communication system comprising:
a detector configured to detect a geographical region in which there is a need for communication (Kalkunte: [0064-0071] a sensing function 218 may be activated to sense a surrounding area of the edge device 104A);
a motor vehicle including a first wireless interface coupled to a mobile device in an area of the motor vehicle and a second wireless interface coupled to a communication network (Kalkunte: [0065] e.g., the repeater device 302 and the UE 304 may be co-located at the vehicle; however, the repeater device 302 may be wirelessly connected to the central cloud server 102 over an LTE control channel independent of the UE 304); and
a management device configured to control the motor vehicle in order to make a communication connection in the geographical region between a mobile device in the geographical region and a resource connected to the communication network (Kalkunte: [0038-0040, 0083] The control circuitry 214 may be further configured to recognize a first UE 106A in motion to be a valid device to receive one or more services from the edge device 104A);
wherein a plurality of motor vehicles are included (Kalkunte: [0049, 0079] a number of objects, such as vehicles, moving in the surrounding area of the edge device 104A may be counted).
wherein the management device is configured to plan a journey by one of the motor vehicles such that the motor vehicle is at least temporarily in the geographical region (Kalkunte: [0049, 0065, 0079] configured to predict a travel path of the repeater device 302 in motion (that moves along the vehicle in this case)….).
2. The communication system according to claim 1, wherein the management device is configured to switch the communication connection for a mobile device that is not associated with the motor vehicle (Kalkunte: [0065-0066, 0077-0079] The control moves to 422A or 422B based on a defined setting at the edge device 104A).
3. The communication system according to claim 2, wherein a relative movement takes place between the mobile device and the motor vehicle (Kalkunte: [0065, 0071] a position of the first UE 106A in motion may be tracked from the edge device 104A).
4. The communication system according to claim 1, wherein the detector is configured to determine a period of time relating to the need for communication (Kalkunte: [0077-0079] a start time and an end time of a signal blockage may be predicted for the first UE 106A in motion being serviced by the edge device 104A).
6. The communication system according to claim 5, wherein the motor vehicle is selected from the plurality of motor vehicles according to a predetermined heuristic (Kalkunte: [0049, 00079] plurality of edge devices).
7. The communication system according to claim 5, wherein the communication connection extends at least between a first motor vehicle and a second motor vehicle (Kalkunte: [0049, 00079] plurality of edge devices).
10. The communication system according to claim 5, wherein the management device is configured to control a distribution of communication connections over the motor vehicles in the geographical region (Kalkunte: [0049, 00079] plurality of edge devices).
11. The communication system according to claim 1, wherein the management device is configured to determine the geographical region based on an indication of an event happening in the geographical region (Kalkunte: [0058] communication range).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalkunte US 20240004022 in view of Iwamoto US 20190306779
9. The communication system according to claim 8, wherein the motor vehicle is autonomously steered into the geographical region (Iwamoto [0055, 0060, 0100-0102] autonomous vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Kalkunte’s invention in order to travel on a reasonable route for traveling to a branch destination, as taught by Iwamoto.
Regarding claims 12-14, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, where the difference used is a “method” and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
According to amended claim 1, wherein a plurality of motor vehicles are included, wherein the management device is configured to plan a journey by one of the motor vehicles such that the motor vehicle is at least temporarily in the geographical region. Such a distinction is not disclosed in Kalkunte.
Response to Arguments:
With respect to the above argument, Examiner would like to draw attention to that it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In addition, the Examiner would like to draw attention to ([0049, 0065, 0079]) of Kalkunte, for example: a number of objects, such as vehicles, moving in the surrounding area of the edge device 104A may be counted (herein it’s considered same as wherein a plurality of motor vehicles are included).
addition, the Examiner would like to draw attention to ([0065]) of Kalkunte, for example: the central cloud server 102 may be configured to predict a travel path of the repeater device 302 in motion (that moves along the vehicle in this case). In other words, the central cloud server 102 predicts travel path that the UE 304 is likely to take based on sensing information received from the repeater device 302. The repeater device 302 may further include a sensor, for example, a geospatial position sensor (such as GPS sensor), which may capture velocity of its movement. This captured sensing information, for example, the velocity (e.g., indicating speed and moving direction) is used by the central cloud server 102 to determine one or more alternative wireless connectivity options that may be made available to the UE 304 in motion. In other words, the central cloud server 102 may be guided by the velocity information, which in turn may trigger the central cloud server 102 to elastically alter how many directives (or instructions for alternative wireless connectivity options) it queues to the repeater device 302. The central cloud server 102 may be configured to pre-load impending choices in terms of one or more alternative wireless connectivity options to minimize signaling latency between the repeater device 302 and a base station and/or the central cloud server 102 (In this case the UE 304 may be in a vehicle where the repeater device 302 is co-located as an edge device within a vehicle). In other words, the central cloud server 102 may be configured to communicate one or more alternative wireless connectivity options to the repeater device 302 (i.e., an edge device), where the one or more alternative wireless connectivity options are used by the UE 304 (which may be communicatively coupled to the repeater device 302) as fallback options to maintain consistent wireless connectivity to a base station or the repeater device 302 (i.e., the edge device). As control channel at times can be lost briefly, such pre-loaded one or more alternative wireless connectivity options may be used by the UE 304 as guidance when cellular connectivity (e.g., 5G wireless connection) is lost for several seconds, such as when the UE 304 and the repeater device 302 provided in the vehicle moves in a tunnel or in some remote areas where cellular coverage is sparse. In an implementation, the prediction of the travel path of the repeater device 302 (and the UE 304 that is co-located) in motion may be executed based on the machine learning model of the central cloud server 102 (herein it’s considered same as wherein the management device is configured to plan a journey by one of the motor vehicles such that the motor vehicle is at least temporarily in the geographical region).
Thus, for the above reason, the prior art meet the claim limitation.
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the 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.
Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the Examiner directs the applicant to those responses above.
Remark:
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is 571-270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 8:30am to 5:00pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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. 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.
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights