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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 03/05/2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment filed on 03/05/2024. Claims 1-6 are now pending in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 03/05/2024 and 04/02/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) On line 4 of claim 1, replace “comprising” with “comprising:”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Remarks
For the purpose of compact prosecution, on 02/05/2026, examiner reached out to Applicant’s attorney Mr. Travis V. Howell (Reg. No. 73,150), discussing incorporation of allowable subject matter into claim 1 as an examiner’s amendment, however, Applicant’s attorney requested for issuance of an Office Action in this regards.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“communication control apparatus configured to prohibit…”, “communication control apparatus is configured to determine…”, in claims 1, 2 and 3, “a takeoff and landing detection unit configured to detect…”, in claim 2, and “communication control apparatus is configured to cancel…”, in claims 4, 5 and 6.
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 the corresponding structure 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) limitations “communication control apparatus configured to prohibit…”, “communication control apparatus is configured to determine…”, in claims 1, 2 and 3, “a takeoff and landing detection unit configured to detect…”, in claim 2, and “communication control apparatus is configured to cancel…”, in claims 4, 5 and 6 (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0015] and [0028]).
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over HANYA (JP 2019210131 A, hereinafter Hanya), in view of SHUKAIR et al. (US 2019/0320491 Al, hereinafter Shukair).
Regarding Claim 1, Hanya discloses, a mobile terminal configured to move together with a cargo, to acquire position data from a GPS module, and to perform wireless transmission of position information based on the position data to a communication network via a wireless base station (see e.g., “The cargo location reporting device 10 includes…means for storing location information of a specified area; a GPS (Global Positioning System) 3, which is a positioning means for measuring the current location of the cargo and outputting the location information; a determination unit 4 for determining whether the cargo is present within the specified area; a transmission unit 5 for transmitting the cargo information output from the cargo information memory 1 to the cargo location management device 20 via wireless communication”, [0028]), the mobile terminal comprising:
a communication control apparatus configured to prohibit the wireless transmission in a case where any one of a plurality of wireless transmission prohibition conditions is satisfied (see e.g., “a communication control unit 6 for prohibiting transmission by the transmission unit 5 when the determination unit 4 determines that the cargo is present within the specified area, and for lifting the prohibition on transmission by the transmission unit 5 when it determines that the cargo is no longer present within the specified area”, [0028]), the plurality of wireless transmission prohibition conditions including a first wireless transmission prohibition condition that a current position based on the position data is a wireless transmission prohibited area (see e.g., “and a communication control unit 6 for prohibiting transmission by the transmission unit 5 when the determination unit 4 determines that the cargo is present within the specified area…”, [0028]),
wherein the communication control apparatus is configured to determine whether the second wireless transmission prohibition condition is satisfied on condition that the first wireless transmission prohibition condition is not satisfied (see e.g., “a determination means that compares the location information output by the positioning means with the area information in the area information storage means and determines whether the cargo has reached a predetermined area”, [0018] and/or “Within the communication-prohibited area, electronic devices that emit radio waves for communication when activated and that communicate wirelessly with equipment outside the aircraft, i.e., electronic devices that may interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft, are prohibited”, [0008]).
Hanya fails to explicitly disclose, a second wireless transmission prohibition condition that a reference signal received power (RSRP) of a signal transmitted from the wireless base station is smaller than a preset reference value.
In the same field of endeavor, Shukair discloses, second wireless transmission prohibition condition that a reference signal received power (RSRP) of a signal transmitted from the wireless base station is smaller than a preset reference value (see e.g., “the scheduled entity may determine one or more rules for delaying UL transmissions…delaying UL transmissions may include a set of thresholds for channel condition measurements…the scheduled entity may determine a first threshold for a reference signal received power (RSRP)…if the scheduled entity determines that the channel condition measurements meet or exceed the set of thresholds for channel condition measurements (e.g., the previously described first, second, third, and/or fourth thresholds), the scheduled entity may not delay the UL transmission. Otherwise, if the scheduled entity determines that the channel condition measurements do not meet or exceed the set of thresholds for channel condition measurements, the scheduled entity may delay the UL transmission until the channel conditions are improved (e.g., until the channel condition measurements meet or exceed the set of thresholds for the channel condition measurements)”, [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hanya with Shukair, in order of power saving, or a result of a cost function, by delay transmission of UL traffic based on threshold for a reference signal received power (RSRP) (please see Shukair, paras. [0080] and [0088]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hanya and Shukair combined discloses, wherein the communication control apparatus is configured to cancel the prohibition of the wireless transmission in a case where none of the plurality of wireless transmission prohibition conditions is satisfied (see Hanya e.g., “when the aircraft carrying cargo moves to a predetermined distance before the cargo handling area at the arrival airport B2, the communication control unit 6 of the cargo position reporting device 10' lifts the prohibition on wireless communication with the transmitter 5”, [0055] and/or “lifting the prohibition on transmission by the transmission unit 5 when it determines that the cargo is no longer present within the specified area”, [0029] and/or “electronic devices that may interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft, are prohibited from use from the time all boarding”, [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2, none of prior arts of record, alone or in combination teaches, “ an acceleration sensor; and
a takeoff and landing detection unit configured to detect takeoff and landing of the mobile terminal on board an airplane based on a detection result of the acceleration sensor, wherein the plurality of wireless transmission prohibition conditions includes a third wireless transmission prohibition condition that the mobile terminal is after takeoff and before landing, and
the communication control apparatus is configured to determine whether the third wireless transmission prohibition condition is satisfied on condition that the second wireless transmission prohibition condition is not satisfied.”
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 6, as these claims further define features in claim 2, they are also objected to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9679. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at 5712727795. 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.
/FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2645