Response
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 .
The response and/or remarks dated 7/20/26 has been received and made of record.
Applicants’ argument with respect to claims 1 and 11 has been fully considered but are persuasive for the following reason.
Applicant argument:
Applicant respectfully submits that this stated rationale does not provide the required rational underpinning connecting the proposed combination to the subject matter actually claimed. Independent claim 1 recites selecting one or more transports for a traffic type, requesting a connection for each of the one or more transports, and coordinating each of the connections for a common application, wherein at least one of the transports comprises a deep penetrative radio frequency transport having a non-standard coverage.
Because the articulated reason to combine addresses geolocation and geo-referencing rather than the claimed selection and coordination of transports including a deep penetrative radio frequency transport, the reason offered does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Chitrapu with the teachings of Perdomo to arrive at the claimed invention. A rejection premised on a rationale that is disconnected from the claim language cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection therefore rests on conclusory reasoning insufficient to sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant respectfully submits that this cited disclosure concerns selecting and associating an access network for transport of a given IP flow, and does not teach or suggest coordinating each of a plurality of connections for a common application in the manner recited in claim 1. However, Chitrapu merely discloses selecting an access network for an IP connection(" The network entity 107 may be configured and/or adapted (collectively "configured") to manage one or more packet data network ("PDN") connections carried over the access systems 105₁₋ₙ (hereinafter "multi-access connection manager 107".' [0047], emphasis added) .
As such, Chitrapu fails to discloses coordinating multiple simultaneous connections for a single common application as claimed. The distinction is significant, and the present claimed invention and specification (see FIG. 4 and accompanying description discussing transports 406, 406', 406") describes the first network application using multiple transports simultaneously. Applicant further respectfully submits that Perdomo does not cure this deficiency.
Examiner response
First, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, examiner relies Pedro reference to may provide connections for non-standard coverage which may be utilized device with may possess limited transmission capability , as this may provide an alternative transport. For example, Pedro describes the system “provides peer to peer transceiver devices which enable an extended range of much greater than 100 m, for example up to several km or more. They may be configured to operate in an unlicensed radio band using narrow channels, in a public band that may be lightly regulated, or as broadband communicators. Preferably, in any band in which they operate which has standardized protocols, the radio is compatible with the various protocols (multiprotocol), and where different protocols are preferred or mandated on a geographic basis, the device is controlled to employ those preferences”(see par. 0043). Thus the examiner asserts that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. furthermore, Examiner asserts it’s not unreasonable expectation to combine Chitrapu which provides standard coverage with Pedro which provides non-standard coverage network that includes an extended coverage network such as a Mobile Satellite Services (MSS). a non-standard coverage[i.e., Mobile Satellite Services (MSS0, a satellite network, or non-standard or cellular network or the like that may communicate via radio frequency transport] because the two transports provide two different coverages and roaming. the Pedro system provides a band management protocol to gracefully select the communication channel to minimize interference, provide retransmission as appropriate. offers frequency coverage in a number of major bands, including non-standard frequencies or licensed frequency bands, and includes optimal phase noise, blocking, and selectivity performance for narrow band and licensed band applications (see par. 0044, 0082).
Second, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Third, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case Chitrapu discloses selecting one or more transports from transports for a traffic type( see par. 0065, 0076 where the multi-access connection manager 107 may select any of the other the access systems 105.sub.3-n if added to the multiple-access PDN connection for transport of the given IP flow and after selecting the access network 105.sub.1, the multi-access connection manager 107 may send to the WTRU 102 a request to associate the given IP flow with the access network 105.sub.1, as shown in block 304. requesting a connection for each of the one or more transports, coordinating each of the connections for a common application(connection manager 107)(see par. 0065,0076 the multi-access connection manager 107 may select any of the other the access systems 105.sub.3-n if added to the multiple-access PDN connection for transport of the given IP flow), and transmitting packet traffic over each connection of the one or more transports(see par. 0076, 0276). Here, Chitrapu is silent wherein the transports are capable of providing wireless connectivity to a mobile terminal, and at least one of the one or more transports comprises a deep penetrative radio frequency transport having a non-standard coverage. Perdomo discloses disclose wherein the transports are capable of providing wireless connectivity to a mobile terminal, and at least one of the one or more transports comprises a deep penetrative radio frequency transport having a non-standard coverage[i.e., a satellite network, or non-standard or cellular network or the like that may communicate via radio frequency transport] (see par.0082, 0094).
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrapu et al. U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140161055[hereinafter Chitrapu] in view of Perdomo; Jorge et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0268906 [herein after Perdomo]
As per claim 1, and 11 Chitrapu method for reaching a mobile terminal out of a standard coverage, the method comprising:
selecting one or more transports from transports for a traffic type( see par. 0065, 0076 where the multi-access connection manager 107 may select any of the other the access systems 105.sub.3-n if added to the multiple-access PDN connection for transport of the given IP flow and after selecting the access network 105.sub.1, the multi-access connection manager 107 may send to the WTRU 102 a request to associate the given IP flow with the access network 105.sub.1, as shown in block 304.
requesting a connection for each of the one or more transports;
coordinating each of the connections for a common application(connection manager 107)(see par. 0065,0076 the multi-access connection manager 107 may select any of the other the access systems 105.sub.3-n if added to the multiple-access PDN connection for transport of the given IP flow.; and
transmitting packet traffic over each connection of the one or more transports(see par. 0076, 0276).
Chitrapu does not explicitly disclose wherein the transports are capable of providing wireless connectivity to a mobile terminal, and at least one of the one or more transports comprises a deep penetrative radio frequency transport having a non-standard coverage.
Perdomo discloses disclose wherein the transports are capable of providing wireless connectivity to a mobile terminal, and at least one of the one or more transports comprises a deep penetrative radio frequency transport having a non-standard coverage[i.e., a satellite network, or non-standard or cellular network or the like that may communicate via radio frequency transport] (see par.0082, 0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate eth teachings of Perdomo into the system of Chitrapu such that the geolocation determining system provides a geo-reference to the database, and retrieves appropriate parameters for operating the radio at the respective location.
As per claim 2, Chitrapu discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising determining connectivity of the transports to the mobile terminal prior to the selecting(see par. 0051).
As per claim 3, Chitrapu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the selecting selects the deep penetrative radio frequency transport when the determining determines that a remaining transport of the transports does not have connectivity to the mobile terminal(see par. 0051).
As per claim 4, Chitrapu The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting selects the deep penetrative radio frequency transport when the traffic type comprises an alert(see par. 0061, 0279).
As per claim 5, Chitrapu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting selects the deep penetrative radio frequency transport when the traffic type comprises a failsafe delivery request(see par. 0270, 0273).
As per claim 6, Chitrapu The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting selects a standard coverage transport from the one or more transports(see par. 0043, 0081)
As per claim 7, Perdomo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the deep penetrative radio frequency transport comprises an Internet of Things (IoT) transport.(see par. 0060).
As p er claim 8, Perdomo The method of claim 1, wherein the deep penetrative radio frequency transport comprises a satellite transport(see par. 0067).
As per claim 9, Chitrapu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprises receiving the packet traffic via the connections(see par. 0065); and forwarding the packet traffic to the common application, wherein the coordinating comprises discarding duplicate packet traffic prior to the forwarding(see par. 0065).
Asper claim 10, Chitrapu The method of claim 1, further comprises receiving the packet traffic via the connections; and forwarding the packet traffic to the common application, wherein the coordinating comprises restoring a packet order in the packet traffic prior to the forwarding(see par. 00294).
As per claims 11-20 the claims are similar with claims 1-10 discussed above, thus claims 11-20 are rejected same rational as claims 1-10
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4009. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6: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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABDULLAHI E SALAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights