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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 3/28/2024 in which claims 17-37 are presented for examination.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claim 30 recites the claimed limitations of "...the iterative method...", however, there are insufficient prior antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
All claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected for fully incorporating the deficiencies of the above rejected claims from which they depend.
For complete examination purposes, the Examiner will broadly address all of the above rejected claims in light of the overall concept of Applicant’s invention. Appropriate corrections are therefore required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 35 recites “…Computer program product...", however claim 35 specifically fails to define the Computer program product” in the claim.
Appropriate corrections/rewording are required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112()
6. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
The Claim limitations “means for…” recited in claim 32 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitations, applicant must identify any corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
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 17-18, 22 and 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotsch et al., (US 2020/0275324), (hereinafter, Dotsch) in view of Yeh et al., (US 2019/0182730), (hereinafter, Yeh).
Regarding claims 17 and 35-36, Dotsch discloses a Method/ Computer program product/transceiver equipment for handover of a transceiver equipment from a serving cell (S) to a target cell (T) in a cellular communications network, said serving cell (S) belonging to a first base station and said target cell (T) belonging to a second base station, and said target cell (T) being selected from a group of neighbor cells (Ni, N2, ...,Nx, ..., Nm) whose Reference Signal Received Power and/or Reference Signal Received Quality and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio is higher than the Reference Signal Received Power and/or Reference Signal Received Quality and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio of the serving cell (S) by an offset, wherein the transceiver equipment is a user equipment (UE) or on-board equipment (OBE) and is configured to select a neighbor cell (Nx) from the group of neighbor cells (= method is performed by a network node such as a base station; and comparing RSRP of the cells, see [0070]), the method comprising the steps of:
I. transmitting a measurement report to the first base station, said measurement report comprising information on a neighbor cell (Nx) selected from the group of neighbor cells (Ni, N2, ..., Nx, ..., Nm), based on i. a distance criterion by selecting the neighbor cell (Nx) as having a lower propagation delay compared to the remaining neighbor cells (Ni, N2,Nm) and/or to the serving cell (S) (= receiving a measurement report from a terminal/OBE; measurement report may include distance from the terminal of cells the A2G network as measured by the OBE; and measurement report includes only the information for cells that are located less than a maximum distance from the OBE, see [0070]), and/or
ii. a trajectory criterion by selecting the neighbor cell (Nx) as having a higher changing rate of propagation delay compared to the remaining neighbor cells (Ni, N2, ..., Nm) and/or to the serving cell (S),
Dotsch explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“II. receiving a handover command from the first base station, said handover command comprising instruction for handover to the selected neighbor cell (Nx) becoming the target cell (T), and
III. completing handover with the second base station.”
However, Yeh which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“II. receiving a handover command from the first base station, said handover command comprising instruction for handover to the selected neighbor cell (Nx) becoming the target cell (T) (= source eNB 302 communicates a handover command 328 to the drone UE 101, see [0084]) and
III. completing handover with the second base station” (= at operation 330, handover completion 332 can take place, include multiple operations in order to complete their handover to target eNB 304, see [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Yeh with Dotsch for the benefit of achieving a communication system that collected geographical and base station information from higher layers for handover enhancements.
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned in claim 17, Dotsch further discloses the method wherein the measurement report is based on Reference Signal Received Power measurement, Reference Signal Received Quality measurement and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio measurement, in particular filtered at Layer 3 (see, [0050]).
Regarding claim 22, as mentioned in claim 17, Dotsch further discloses the method wherein at least one of the distance criterion or the trajectory criterion is applied even if one of the remaining neighbor cells (Ni, N2, ..., Nm) has a higher Reference Signal Received Power and/or Reference Signal Received Quality and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio, than the selected neighbor cell (Nx) and the serving cell (S) (see, [0070]).
Regarding claim 30, as mentioned in claim 17, Dotsch further discloses the method wherein the iterative method is adapted to be used for air-to-ground communications (see, [0028]).
Regarding claim 31, as mentioned in claim 17, Dotsch further discloses the method wherein the transceiver equipment comprises an on-board equipment of an aircraft and the first base station and/or the second base station comprises a ground unit (see, [0024]).
Regarding claim 32, Dotsch discloses a Transceiver equipment, wherein the transceiver equipment is a user equipment (UE) or on-board equipment (OBE), configured for handover from a serving cell (S) to a target cell (T) in a cellular communications network (= OBE performs handover, see [0024]), said transceiver equipment comprising:
means for selecting a neighbor cell (Nx) from a group of neighbor cells (Ni, N2, ...,Nx,..., Nm) being better than the serving cell (S) by an offset, in particular whose Reference Signal Received Power and/or Reference Signal Received Quality and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio is higher than the Reference Signal Received Power and/or Reference Signal Received Quality and/or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio of the serving cell (S) by an offset, in particular means for determining and comparing propagation delay for the neighbor cells (Ni, N2, ..., Nx, ..., Nm) and/or for the serving cell (S) (= OBE may measure the RSRP of two cells, see [0030-32 and 0050]),
means for transmitting a measurement report to a first base station to which the serving cell (S) belongs (= receiving a measurement report from a terminal/OBE, see [0070 and 0050]).
Dotsch explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“means for receiving a handover command from the first base station,
means for completing handover with a second base station to which the target cell (T) belongs”.
However, Yeh which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“means for receiving a handover command from the first base station (= source eNB 302 communicates a handover command 328 to the drone UE 101, see [0084]),
means for completing handover with a second base station to which the target cell (T) belongs” (= at operation 330, handover completion 332 can take place, include multiple operations in order to complete their handover to target eNB 304, see [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Yeh with Dotsch for the benefit of achieving a communication system that collected geographical and base station information from higher layers for handover enhancements.
Regarding claim 33, as mentioned in claim 32, Dotsch further discloses the Transceiver equipment, wherein the transceiver equipment comprises an on-board equipment of an aircraft (see, [0024]).
Regarding claim 34, as mentioned in claim 32, Dotsch further discloses the transceiver equipment wherein the transceiver equipment is an on-board equipment in an aircraft, said on-board equipment configured to act as a gateway for further traffic distribution to user equipments on board of the aircraft (see, [0024]).
Regarding claim 37, as mentioned in claim 36, Dotsch further discloses the transceiver equipment wherein the transceiver equipment is a user equipment (UE) or on-board equipment (OBE) (see, [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 19-21 and 23-29 are 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.
CONCLUSION
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Shrestha et al., (US 2023/0121634) teaches techniques for communicating satellite revisit time in a non-terrestrial network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights