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 .
2. The following is a Non-final Office action in response to Applicant submission received on 02/27/2024.
3. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Oath/Declaration
5. The applicant's oath/declaration filed on 02/27/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
6. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 02/27/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication unit that performs” in claims 1, 12; “control unit being configured to perform” in claims 1, 12; “the control unit obtains” in claim 3; “the control unit starts” in claims 4, 5, 6; “the control unit determines” in claims 4, 5, 6, 8; “the control unit performs” in claim 9; “the control unit trains” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
”communication unit that performs” appears to be a combination of a processor and antenna (FIG. 4 and para. [0061][0077] of the Application Publication);
“control unit that configured to perform” appears to be a processor (para. [0091] of the Application Publication);
“control unit obtains/starts/determines” appears to be a processor (para. [0091] of the Application Publication).
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al. (US 2016/0323898 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2021/0058913 A1).
Regarding claim 1, JO discloses a communication device (Fig. 11: communication device 100) comprising:
a communication unit (transceiver 130) that performs wireless communication using at least one of a plurality of beams (JO, Fig. 3B, para. [0049]: a beam is selected based on a link performance, ping-ponging may occur in beam selection, such as beam #1 beam #2 beam #3); and
a control unit (controller 120), the control unit being configured to perform operations including: acquiring service communication quality corresponding to a quality level requested on a service (JO, para. [0012]-[0014]: a controller that determines a type of service and selects an optimal beam based on the determined type of service);
maintaining communication by a currently working beam which is being used for the wireless communication in a case where the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more even when a beam quality of a non-currently working beam which is not being used for the wireless communication is higher than the beam quality of the currently working beam (JO, Figs. 1-3, para. [0041] [0048] [0049] [0053]: when a data radar that is capable of maintaining a service is obtainable, empirically selecting a beam #3, of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality, may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam #1 that has the highest SNR or RSSI. When a beam is selected based on a link performance, ping-ponging may occur in beam selection, such as beam #1 beam #2 beam #3).
JO does not appear to explicitly disclose obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment; and determining switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality.
In the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment (Jang, Fig. 5, para. [0068]: the terminal measures reference signals (e.g., SSB or CSI-RS) and derives link quality metrics such as RSRP, RSRQ, or SNIR, which represent estimated achievable communication quality for each beam. These metrics are obtained from received signals after propagation through the radio environment. Moreover, the cited reference is a 5G reference which uses mmwave, see also para. [0004], [0088]); and
determining switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality (Jang, Fig. 5, para. [0068]-[0074]: a threshold value of a reference signal received power (RSRP) value, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) value or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SNIR) value which is obtained by measuring a synchronous signal block (SSB) or a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) which corresponds to the beam. This RSRP or RSRQ or SNIR threshold value is a service quality corresponding to a quality level of a request service. That is, when communication quality degrades below the threshold. The communication device requests switching of the currently working beam, the base station selects a beam to be used for wireless communication, and the base station instructs the communication device to change to the selected beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO with the teaching of Jang by using the above features such that obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment and determining switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality as taught by Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce propagation loss of radio waves and increase a transmission distance, a beam forming technique, a massive multiple-input multiple-output technique (Jang, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 1, however, Jang further teaches wherein the service is a real-time service which provides information to a user in real time (Jang, para. [0102]: teaches a real-time service such as voice over IP (VoIP) through an internet protocol is served through a shared channel, so a device for collecting state information such as buffer states).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO with the teaching of Jang by using the above features such that the service is a real-time service which provides information to a user in real time as taught by Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce propagation loss of radio waves and increase a transmission distance, a beam forming technique, a massive multiple-input multiple-output technique (Jang, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 1, however, Jang further teaches wherein the control unit obtains the estimated communication quality for each of a plurality of quality levels requested for the service (Jang, para. [0068]: Jang teaches evaluating communication quality relative to a requested service quality level and estimating whether a beam can achieve that required communication quality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO with the teaching of Jang by using the above features such that obtaining the estimated communication quality for each of a plurality of quality levels requested for the service as taught by Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce propagation loss of radio waves and increase a transmission distance, a beam forming technique, a massive multiple-input multiple-output technique (Jang, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit starts communication with the service communication quality with the highest quality level (JO, para. [0042]: selecting the most effective beam depending on a situation when selecting the direction of a physical beam, and through this, maximizing the quality of service (QoS) based on a type of service), and when the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0041]: selecting a beam of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam having the highest SNR or RSSI), the control unit determines to reduce the quality level to a highest quality level within a range in which the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0041][0057]: an amount of time that may be used for transmitting data for a service may be reduced and a probability that a service is disconnected may become higher. In the case of a real time service, when a data radar that is capable of maintaining a service is obtainable, empirically selecting a beam of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam having the highest SNR or RSSI).
Regarding claim 5, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit starts communication with the service communication quality with the lowest quality level (JO, para. [0041]: when a service is disconnected while a user is provided with a real-time service, the user may experience a significantly lower quality of service), and when the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0041]: selecting a beam of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam having the highest SNR or RSSI), the control unit determines to increase the quality level to a highest quality level within a range in which the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0036] [0061]: the transmitting node 100 adjusts a beam change period based on whether the combination of the changed Tx/Rx beams is capable of providing a service and updates a beam priority. When the combination of changed Tx/Rx beams is capable of providing the service, the transmitting node 100 increases the beam change period. Conversely, when the combination of changed Tx/Rx beams is incapable of providing the service, the transmitting node 100 increases the cost associated with the corresponding beam and updates the beam priority).
Regarding claim 6, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit starts communication at the service communication quality of the quality level being a predetermined level, when the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0041]: selecting a beam of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam having the highest SNR or RSSI), the control unit determines to increase the quality level to a highest quality level within a range in which the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0036] [0061]: the transmitting node 100 adjusts a beam change period based on whether the combination of the changed Tx/Rx beams is capable of providing a service and updates a beam priority. When the combination of changed Tx/Rx beams is capable of providing the service, the transmitting node 100 increases the beam change period. Conversely, when the combination of changed Tx/Rx beams is incapable of providing the service, the transmitting node 100 increases the cost associated with the corresponding beam and updates the beam priority), and when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality (JO, para. 52: the beam priority is determined to enable a beam having a lower beam cost to have a higher probability of being selected when a beam is changed), the control unit determines to reduce the quality level to a highest quality level within a range in which the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more (JO, para. [0041][0057]: an amount of time that may be used for transmitting data for a service may be reduced and a probability that a service is disconnected may become higher. In the case of a real time service, when a data radar that is capable of maintaining a service is obtainable, empirically selecting a beam of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam having the highest SNR or RSSI).
Regarding claim 8, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 1, however, Jang further teaches wherein the control unit determines switching of the beam based on the service communication quality set in accordance with a usage state of the service (Jang, Fig. 5, para. [0068]-[0074]: a threshold value of a reference signal received power (RSRP) value, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) value or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SNIR) value which is obtained by measuring a synchronous signal block (SSB) or a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) which corresponds to the beam. This RSRP or RSRQ or SNIR threshold value is a service quality corresponding to a quality level of a request service. That is, when communication quality degrades below the threshold. The communication device requests switching of the currently working beam, the base station selects a beam to be used for wireless communication, and the base station instructs the communication device to change to the selected beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO with the teaching of Jang by using the above features such that determining switching of the beam based on the service communication quality set in accordance with a usage state of the service as taught by Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce propagation loss of radio waves and increase a transmission distance, a beam forming technique, a massive multiple-input multiple-output technique (Jang, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, JO discloses a communication method (Fig. 9: communication method of figure 9) comprising:
performing wireless communication using at least one of a plurality of beams (JO, Fig. 3B, para. [0049]: a beam is selected based on a link performance, ping-ponging may occur in beam selection, such as beam #1 beam #2 beam #3);
acquiring service communication quality corresponding to quality requested on a service (JO, para. [0012]-[0014]: a controller that determines a type of service and selects an optimal beam based on the determined type of service);
maintaining communication by a currently working beam which is being used for the wireless communication in a case where the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more even when a beam quality of a non-currently working beam which is not being used for the wireless communication is higher than the beam quality of the currently working beam (JO, Figs. 1-3, para. [0041] [0048] [0049] [0053]: when a data radar that is capable of maintaining a service is obtainable, empirically selecting a beam #3, of which quality of service does not deteriorate by externality, may be better, from the perspective of a user, than selecting a beam #1 that has the highest SNR or RSSI. When a beam is selected based on a link performance, ping-ponging may occur in beam selection, such as beam #1 beam #2 beam #3).
JO does not appear to explicitly disclose obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment; and determining switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality.
In the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment (Jang, para. [0068]: the terminal measures reference signals (e.g., SSB or CSI-RS) and derives link quality metrics such as RSRP, RSRQ, or SNIR, which represent estimated achievable communication quality for each beam. These metrics are obtained from received signals after propagation through the radio environment. Moreover, the cited reference is a 5G reference which uses mmwave, see also para. [0004], [0088]); and
determining switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality (Jang, Fig. 5, para. [0068]-[0074]: a threshold value of a reference signal received power (RSRP) value, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) value or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SNIR) value which is obtained by measuring a synchronous signal block (SSB) or a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) which corresponds to the beam. This RSRP or RSRQ or SNIR threshold value is a service quality corresponding to a quality level of a request service. That is, when communication quality degrades below the threshold. The communication device requests switching of the currently working beam, the base station selects a beam to be used for wireless communication, and the base station instructs the communication device to change to the selected beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO with the teaching of Jang by using the above features such that obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment and determining switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality as taught by Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce propagation loss of radio waves and increase a transmission distance, a beam forming technique, a massive multiple-input multiple-output technique (Jang, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, JO discloses a communication system (Fig. 5: communication system of figure 5) comprising:
a base station device (transmitting node 100); and a communication device (receiving node 200) that performs wireless communication with the base station device (Fig. 5: the transmitting node 100 and the receiving node 200 perform wireless communication), wherein the communication device includes:
a communication unit (transceiver 130) that performs the wireless communication with the base station device by using at least one of a plurality of beams (JO, Figs. 2-3, para. [0034]-[0036]: teach a wireless communication using multiple candidate beams. Moreover, figures 2-3 illustrate multiple candidate beams used for communication between the communication device and a base station); and
a control unit (controller 120), the control unit being configured to perform operations including:
acquiring service communication quality corresponding to quality requested on a service (JO, para. [0012]-[0014]: a controller that determines a type of service and selects an optimal beam based on the determined type of service);
maintaining communication by a currently working beam which is being used for the wireless communication in a case where the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more even when a beam quality of a non-currently working beam which is not being used for the wireless communication is higher than the beam quality of the currently working beam (JO, Figs. 1-3, para. [0025]-[0027] [0051]-[0055] [0077]: the control unit of the communication device maintains communication using the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is equal or greater than the service communication quality even when the beam quality of another beam is higher. That is, UE 115 may manage one or more beams (e.g., to select beams, refine beams, change beams, or the like) to maintain high quality communications with other devices (e.g., base station 105). UE 115 may select one or more parameters for beam management. For instance, UE 115 may determine filtering coefficients for beam measurements, time hysteresis for beam switching, power hysteresis for beam switching, or the like. Moreover, UE 115 may improve beam management by applying a beam measurement filter with smaller coefficient values, resulting in increased granularity for tracking the rotational effect of UE 115 on beam quality for an active beam 215. Similarly, if UE 115 is in a Doppler scenario with no rotation, UE 115 may select longer time hysteresis values, which may smooth out Doppler and noise effects, avoid ping-pong beam switching or cell handovers), and the base station device performs operations including: instructing the communication device to change to the currently working beam selected (JO, para. [0066],[0076],[0077],[0098]]: the base station provides control information enabling communication using the selected beam, then instructing the terminal to operate using the selected beam).
JO does not appear to explicitly disclose obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment; and requesting the base station device for switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality, and the base station device performs operations including: selecting the currently working beam, which is to be used for the wireless communication, in response to the request from the communication device.
In the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches obtaining, by estimation, an estimated communication quality achievable by the communication unit, based on a radio wave propagation environment (Jang, para. [0068]: the terminal measures reference signals (e.g., SSB or CSI-RS) and derives link quality metrics such as RSRP, RSRQ, or SNIR, which represent estimated achievable communication quality for each beam. These metrics are obtained from received signals after propagation through the radio environment. Moreover, the cited reference is a 5G reference which uses mmwave, see also para. [0004], [0088]); and
requesting the base station device for switching of the currently working beam when the estimated communication quality is below the service communication quality (Jang, Fig. 5, para. [0068]-[0074]: a threshold value of a reference signal received power (RSRP) value, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) value or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SNIR) value which is obtained by measuring a synchronous signal block (SSB) or a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) which corresponds to the beam. This RSRP or RSRQ or SNIR threshold value is a service quality corresponding to a quality level of a request service. That is, when communication quality degrades below the threshold. The communication device requests switching of the currently working beam, the base station selects a beam to be used for wireless communication, and the base station instructs the communication device to change to the selected beam), and the base station device performs operations including: selecting the currently working beam, which is to be used for the wireless communication, in response to the request from the communication device (Jang, Fig. 8, para. [0014] [0015] [0086]: a transmitting node apparatus of a wireless communication system, including: a controller that determines a type of service and selects an optimal beam based on the determined type of service; and a transceiver that transmits data using the selected optimal beam.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jang with the teaching of JO by using the above features such that maintaining communication by a currently working beam which is being used for the wireless communication in a case where the estimated communication quality is the service communication quality or more even when a beam quality of a non-currently working beam which is not being used for the wireless communication is higher than the beam quality of the currently working beam and selecting the currently working beam, which is to be used for the wireless communication, in response to the request from the communication device as taught by Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce propagation loss of radio waves and increase a transmission distance, a beam forming technique, a massive multiple-input multiple-output technique (Jang, para. [0004]).
16. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al. (US 2016/0323898 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2021/0058913 A1) and further in view of Hosein (US 20050185583 A1).
Regarding claim 7, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 1, but do not appear to disclose wherein the service communication quality is a total value of the service communication quality requested for each of a plurality of applications that provide the service.
In the same of endeavor, Hosein teaches wherein the service communication quality is a total value of the service communication quality requested for each of a plurality of applications that provide the service (Hosein, para. [0008]: the mobile station computes a service rate needed to maintain a desired quality of service for each service instance and sums the desired rates to compute an aggregate rate for all applications or service instances. The mobile station then determines a desired transmission rate for the R-PDCH based on the aggregate rate needed to maintain the desired quality of service for all applications or service instances and sends a rate request to the base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jang with the teaching of Hosein by using the above features such that the service communication quality is a total value of the service communication quality requested for each of a plurality of applications that provide the service as taught by Hosein. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide quality of service (QoS) guarantees to subscribers (Hosein, para. 17).
17. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al. (US 2016/0323898 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2021/0058913 A1) and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2019/0342763 A1).
Regarding claim 9, JO and Jang disclose the communication device according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the control unit performs operations including: estimating a predicted radio wave propagation environment after a lapse of a predetermined time by using a prediction model having position information of the communication device as input and having information related to the radio wave propagation environment as output; and determining switching of the currently working beam in accordance with the predicted radio wave propagation environment.
In the same of endeavor, Jung teaches wherein the control unit performs operations including: estimating a predicted radio wave propagation environment after a lapse of a predetermined time by using a prediction model having position information of the communication device as input and having information related to the radio wave propagation environment as output (Jung, para. [0065]: predict and analyze the received signal quality at the position of a receiver by reflecting the propagation paths of the signal transmitted from a transmitter to the receiver and the real environment information on the propagation paths that are acquired as a result of the ray tracing simulation); and determining switching of the currently working beam in accordance with the predicted radio wave propagation environment (Jung, para. [0065] [0078]: the ray tracing simulation may be performed in such a way of changing beam information in consideration of the corresponding beam direction or under the assumption that the transmitter forms a beam in all directions in which it can transmit in the same time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO and Jang with the teaching of Jung by using the above features such that estimating a predicted radio wave propagation environment after a lapse of a predetermined time by using a prediction model having position information of the communication device as input and having information related to the radio wave propagation environment as output as taught by Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for reflecting the real environment to the simulation so as to guarantee accuracy (Jung, para. [0010]).
18. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al. (US 2016/0323898 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2021/0058913 A1), Jung et al. (US 2019/0342763 A1) and further in view of Isken et al. (US 20220084181 A1).
Regarding claim 10, JO, Jang, and Jung disclose the communication device according to claim 9, but fail to teach wherein the control unit trains the prediction model by using information related to the radio wave propagation environment obtained by measurement and the position information of the communication device obtained at the time of the measurement of the radio wave propagation environment.
In the same of endeavor, Isken teaches wherein the control unit trains the prediction model by using information related to the radio wave propagation environment obtained by measurement and the position information of the communication device obtained at the time of the measurement of the radio wave propagation environment (Isken, para. [0128] [0422]: performing the training step on the training data, the training data comprising a set of labeled digital training images of coating surfaces, the labels identifying the location/positions and/or type of defects in the training images, the predictive model being trained for recognizing the pattern by means of the labeled training images using back propagation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of JO, Jang, and Jung with the teaching of Isken by using the above features such that training the prediction model by using information related to the radio wave propagation environment obtained by measurement and the position information of the communication device obtained at the time of the measurement of the radio wave propagation environment as taught by Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the predictive model to correlate the parameters with the defect patterns (Isken, para. [0131]).
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Zhu et al. (US 2023/0033247 A1) discloses methods, systems, and devices for wireless communications in which a user equipment (UE) may perform beam measurements for one or more subsets of beams that are selected to provide enhanced beam switch determinations.
b) Sadr (US 7729244 B2) discloses aggregating rate request within each rate request of each QOS level.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN F VOLTAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-3953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30 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, REBECCA E. SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417