Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
4. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
5. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 1-6 & 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al (Pub No. 2018/0020334), in view of Benco et al (Pat No. 8055704) and further in view of Bjurstrom (Pub No. 2021/0070335).
Regarding claim 1, Karlsson et al discloses a wireless communication system for use aboard a moving vehicle (Para. 4 & 12-14: Moving vehicle/ Train), the wireless communication system comprising: at least one router in the moving vehicle for communication with at least one stationary remote server through at least one external network comprising a plurality of base stations (Para. 33 & Para. 12-14: Router in the moving vehicle communicating with base station), at least one front antenna connected to the router (Fig. 1), the at least one front antenna being provided on a front portion of the moving vehicle (Para. 29-33: two or four antennas on each carriage), at least one aft antenna connected to the router, the at least one aft antenna being provided on an aft portion of the moving vehicle (Para. 29-33: two or four antennas on each carriage. Antenna on the front and back), wherein the router is arranged to establish a connection with the at least one stationary remote server over a front communication link via the at least one front antenna and a first base station of said external network (Para. 33 & 25: router connection with the remote server over a front communication link by antenna and a first base station), wherein the router is arranged to establish a connection with the at least one stationary remote server over a aft communication link via the at least one antenna and a second base station of said external network (Para. 70-72 & 25: communication link between the router and the BS. Aft communication[Wingdings font/0xE0] both voice and data communication), wherein the at least one stationary remote server at least comprises an aggregation server (Para. 76 & 26: aggregation server), wherein the router is configured for receiving and transmitting wireless data to and from said aggregation server, using aggregated communication over a plurality of separate communication links, the communication thereby at the end points appearing as a single link (Para. 25-26 & 30-33 & 73-75: Aggregated communication over a plurality of separate communication links and a single link) and plurality of separate communication links comprises the front communication link (Para. 25-26 & 73-74 & 33: Front end communication).
Karlsson et al does not explicitly disclose plurality of separate communication links comprises the aft communication link.
In a similar field of endeavor, Benco et al discloses plurality of separate communication links comprises the aft communication link (Col. 5 Line 61-67: Aft directions in order to ensure that the communication will reach the ground link airplane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use air plane communication system of Benco’s disclosure with the wireless communication system of a moving vehicle, as taught by Karlsson. Doing so would have result in improved efficiency of communications for a moving vehicle and providing data wireless service without interruption.
Karlsson et al does not explicitly disclose the front and aft antennas are directional antennas, and wherein the front and aft antennas are directed towards the first and second base stations respectively.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bjurstrom discloses the front and aft antennas are directional antennas (Para. 65: front and aft antennas are directional antennas- directional antennas 51a, 51b, 52a, and 52b), and wherein the front and aft antennas are directed towards the first and second base stations respectively (Para. 65: directional antennas 51a and 51b directed to access points in the backward direction of the train, directional antennas 52a and 52b directed to access points in the forward direction of the train).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use directional antenna in the vehicle toward forward direction and backward direction for robust wireless communication with minimum signal loss.
Regarding claim 2, Karlsson et al discloses the frequency band of a front and aft communication link are overlapping (Para. 21: Wifi communication & Para. 27: data links two or more of e.g. GSM, Satellite, DVB-T, HSPA, EDGE, 1×RTT, EVDO, LTE, WiFi (802.11) and WiMAX; and combine).
Regarding claim 3, Karlsson et al discloses the frequency band of the front and aft communication link are in an Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure, UNII, frequency band (Para. 21: Wifi communication & Para. 27: data links two or more of e.g. GSM, Satellite, DVB-T, HSPA, EDGE, 1×RTT, EVDO, LTE, WiFi (802.11) and WiMAX; and combine).
Regarding claim 4, Karlsson et al discloses the frequency band of the front and aft communication link are in at least one of the UNII-1 and UNII-3 frequency bands (Para. 21 & 27).
Regarding claim 5, Karlsson et al discloses the moving vehicle is a moving train with at least three carriages, and wherein the front antenna and aft antenna are provided on a front and aft carriage respectively, the front and aft carriage being separated by at least one carriage (Para. 29-33: two or four antennas on each carriage. Antenna on the front and back & Para. 73-74).
Regarding claim 6, Karlsson et al discloses said front and aft communication links are of a first frequency band, said system further comprising: a second front and aft antenna configured to communicate with the first and second base station respectively over a second frequency band, forming a second front and aft communication link, the second frequency band being different from the first frequency band and the plurality of communication links further comprising the second front and aft communication links (Para. 21 & 27 & Para. 29-33 & Para. 73-74: second frequency band b different from the first band and the plurality of communication links includes the second front and aft communication links).
Regarding claim 8, Karlsson et al discloses an antenna steering unit configured to steer an antenna beam of said at least one directional antenna. Examiner taking official notice that a directional antenna can steer an antenna beam for communication. Doing so would have resulted in control beam for communication.
Regarding claim 9, Karlsson et al discloses the at least one directional antenna is at least one of an electronically steered phased array antenna and a mechanically steered antenna, and wherein the antenna steering unit is configured to electronically or mechanically steer said antenna beam (Fig. 1 & Para. 30). Examiner taking official notice that a directional antenna can steer an antenna beam for communication. Doing so would have resulted in control beam for communication.
Regarding claim 10, Karlsson et al discloses the router is configured for receiving and transmitting wireless data to and from both said aggregation server, using aggregated communication over said front and aft communication links, and at least one other stationary communication server, using non-aggregated communication over a single link, and the router further being accessible by a plurality of client devices onboard said moving vehicle (Para. 30 & 34 & 43).
Regarding claim 11, Karlsson et al discloses a controller within or connected to said router, said controller including at least one selection rule for selecting whether to use aggregated or non-aggregated communication, the controller being configured to determine, upon a request from a client device to communicate with one of said at least one stationary remote server, whether one of said at least one selection rule applies, and to select using aggregated communication via said aggregation server or non-aggregated communication via said at least one other stationary communication server for communication based on said determination (Para. 24 & 45 & 59 & 73-78).
Regarding claim 12, Karlsson et al discloses the router is arranged to automatically separate communication traffic between the front and aft communication links based on specific optimization conditions (Para. 64 & 30: optimize performance).
Regarding claim 13, Karlsson et al the specific optimization conditions are at least one of price, latency, and speed (Para. 79& 30: optimize performance).
Regarding claim 14, Karlsson et al discloses the router is further connected to an internal network on-board the moving vehicle, for connection to on-board client devices (Fig. 1 & Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Karlsson et al discloses the internal network is a wireless internal network (Fig. 1 & Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Karlsson et al discloses the wireless internal network is operated in accordance with an IEEE 802.11 standard (Para. 27).
Regarding claim 17, Karlsson et al discloses comprising an auxiliary antenna provided on the moving vehicle, the auxiliary antenna being connected to the router, wherein the router is further arranged to establish a connection with the remote server over an auxiliary communication link via the auxiliary antenna and said external network, and wherein said plurality of separate communication links further comprises the auxiliary communication link (Fig. 1 & Abstract & Para. 70-73).
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 corresponds to claim 1 and is analyzed accordingly.
Another Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Another prior art, LEGG ET AL (US 2021/0392709) discloses communication between a vehicle and a remote correspondent station via a fixed network which comprises a plurality of wireless access points with a directional antenna for radio communication using directional beams.
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Patent Examiner Md Talukder whose telephone number is (571) 270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Th 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867.
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.
/MD K TALUKDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights