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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification, 40 pages, has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: First line, “Aspects of the subject disclosure may include, for example,”, should be deleted. Last two lines, “Other embodiments are disclosed.”, should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification, page 2, paragraph [0008], group figures FIGS. 2D-2F, together, which is improper. Each Figure needs to be described individually and uniquely, and, the descriptions of Figures may not be identical, they need to be different, from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 4, “facilitate performance of operations”, should be changed to: -- perform operations --.
Claim 12, lines 2-3, “facilitate performance of operations”, should be changed to: -- perform operations --.
Claim 12, line 4, “RAN”, needs to be defined, spelled out, in the Claim.
Claim 15, two lines from the bottom of the Claim, “other wireless devices”, what “wireless devices” is the Claim referring to?
Claim 15, line 3, “UEs”, needs to be defined, spelled out: -- user equipments (UEs)--.
Claim 16, line 2 to the extreme right, “the plurality”, should be changed to: --the plurality of UEs--.
Claim 18, line 1, “the communicating other RAN nodes”, should be changed to: the communicating --with-- other RAN nodes.
Claim 20, three lines from the bottom of the Claim, “at least one UE”, should be changed to: --the-- at least one UE.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner (US 20200323012 A1), and further in view of Rahman (US 20240113934 A1).
Examiner note:
In the dependent Claims: Compact notation has been utilized, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 1. Kreiner teaches a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (FIG. 4), the operations comprising: determining that a first radio access network (RAN) node (Fig. 1:110) has lost connection to a first backhaul (Fig. 1:155); instantiating a network slice at the first RAN node to provide communication between user equipments (UEs) connected to the first RAN node (Fig. 1:110,122,120,126).
Kreiner does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kreiner does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: instantiating a network slice.
The missing elements are disclosed by Rahman instantiating a network slice ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Rahman (Abstract, [0002]- [0004], [0014]- [0029]).
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 2. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the determining that the first RAN node has lost connection to the first backhaul comprises determining that the first RAN node has lost connection to a core network (Fig. 1:155. In Kreiner).
Claim 3. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the instantiating the network slice comprises determining that the first RAN node maintains sufficient information regarding the UEs to provide the communication between the UEs ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]. In Rahman).
Claim 4. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the instantiating the network slice comprises: determining that the first RAN node lacks sufficient information regarding the UEs to provide the communication between the UEs; detaching the UEs from the first RAN node; reattaching the UEs to the first RAN node; and collecting the sufficient information regarding the UEs to provide the communication between the UEs ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]. In Rahman).
Claim 5. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the reattaching the UEs to the first RAN node comprises reattaching the UEs without encryption ([0025] [0027] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0082] [0089]. In Rahman).
Claim 6. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: the first RAN node communicating with a second RAN node; sharing information regarding the UEs with the second RAN node; and providing communication between at least one of the UEs connected to the first RAN node and at least one other UE connected to the second RAN node ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]. In Rahman).
Claim 7. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the first RAN node communicates with the second RAN node over a network interface to provide the communication between the at least one of the UEs connected to the first RAN node and the at least one other UE connected to the second RAN node ([0041] [0054] [0058] [0068]FIG. 4. In Kreiner).
Claim 8. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the first RAN node communicates with the second RAN node through a wireless device connected to both the first RAN node and the second RAN node using cellular dual connectivity ([0029] [0049] [0063]. In Kreiner).
Claim 9. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein (In Kreiner) the operations further comprise: the first RAN node communicating with a second RAN node to determine if the second RAN node has a connection to a second backhaul (Fig. 1:110 communicating with 130) (Fig. 1:160); and providing a communication path between at least one of the UEs and the connection to the second backhaul over a network interface between the first RAN node and the second RAN node (Fig. 1:120 connects to 110, 130, 160, 145).
Claim 10. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the second backhaul comprises a satellite connection at the second RAN node ([0014] [0027] [0064]. In Kreiner).
Claim 11. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a first UE of the UEs has a multi radio access technology (RAT) capability; determining that the multi-RAT capability supports a connection to a second backhaul ([0119]- [0121] [0124] [0126]-[0127]. In Rahman); and using the connection to the second backhaul to provide communications abilities to ones of the UEs other than the first UE (Fig. 1. In Kreiner).
Claim 15. Kreiner teaches a method, comprising: collecting, at a first radio access network (RAN) node (Fig. 1:110), by a processing system including a processor (FIG. 4), information regarding a plurality of UEs connected to the first RAN node (Fig. 1:110,122,120,126); instantiating, by the processing system, in response to the first RAN node losing a connection to a communication network core (Fig. 1:155), a disaster slice at the first RAN node, wherein the disaster slice provides communications among the plurality of UEs connected to the first RAN node using the information regarding the plurality of UEs connected to the first RAN node (Fig. 1:110,122,120,126); and communicating, by the processing system, with other wireless devices to determine if a connection to an alternate backhaul is available (Fig. 1:110 communicating with 130).
Kreiner does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Kreiner does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: instantiating a disaster slice.
The missing elements are disclosed by Rahman instantiating a disaster slice ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Rahman (Abstract, [0002]- [0004], [0014]- [0029]).
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 16. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the communicating with other wireless devices comprises communicating with the plurality of UEs to determine if any of the plurality are multi radio access technology (RAT) devices capable of providing the connection to the alternate backhaul ([0119]- [0121] [0124] [0126]-[0127]. In Rahman).
Claim 17. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the communicating with other wireless devices comprises communicating with RAN nodes other than the first RAN node (Fig. 1:110 communicating with 130. In Kreiner).
Claim 18. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the communicating other RAN nodes comprises communicating over a network interface ([0041] [0054] [0058] [0068]FIG. 4. In Kreiner).
Claim 19. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the method of claim 15 wherein the instantiating the disaster slice comprises instantiating a subset of core network functions at the first RAN node ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]. In Rahman).
Claim 20. Kreiner in view of Rahman teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising sharing, by the processing system, the information regarding the plurality of UEs with a second RAN node to provide communications between one of the plurality of UEs attached to the first RAN node and at least one UE attached to the second RAN node, wherein the communications between the one of the plurality of UEs attached to the first RAN node and at least one UE attached to the second RAN node uses a network interface between the first RAN node and the second RAN node ([0025] [0044] [0045] [0047] [0050] [0051] [0053] [0072] [0077] [0081] [0089]. In Rahman).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kreiner (US 20200323012 A1).
Claim 12. Kreiner teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (FIG. 4), the operations comprising: determining that a first RAN node has lost a connection to a first backhaul (Fig. 1:155); communicating, by the first RAN node, with other RAN nodes to find a connection to a second backhaul (Fig. 1:110 communicating with 130); responsive to the communicating, determining that a second RAN node has the connection to the second backhaul (Fig. 1:160); and providing a communication path for at least one user equipment (UE) attached to the first RAN node to the second RAN node for use of the connection to the second backhaul (Fig. 1:120 connects to 110, 130, 160, 145).
Claim 13. Kreiner teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the providing the communication path comprises communicating, by the first RAN node, with the second RAN node over a network interface between the first RAN node and the second RAN node (Fig. 1:132).
Claim 14. Kreiner teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the providing the communication path comprises communicating, by the first RAN node, with the second RAN node through a device connected to both the first RAN node and the second RAN node using cellular dual connectivity ([0028]).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claims:
Rahman (US 11870638 B1)
Abstract
Power (US 20260046707 A1)
Abstract
Tamura (US 20250133424 A1)
Abstract
TAMURA (US 20240365432 A1)
Abstract
Park (US 20240179736 A1)
[0232]
Rune (US 20240098532 A1)
Abstract
Pateromichelakis (US 20230209370 A1)
[0102] [0105] [0114] [0117] [0119]
Park (US 20210195675 A1)
Abstract [0455]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOOMAN HOUSHMAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT.
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, AYMAN ABAZA can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/H.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights