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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorentino (US 2023/0174109) in view of Fiorentino (EP 3941002).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Fiorentino describes a method performed by a first user equipment (UE)/first UE (fig. 2 & para. 23, process/method of determining interference source may be distributed, from management device 120 to the auto guided vehicle 158, para. 69), for reception of communication from a network node in an industrial environment, the industrial environment comprising a plurality of industrial devices (title & para. 30-32, auto guidance vehicles & other control devices 140,154,158,164,170,180 as mobile units each having transceiver (UE) for connecting to the wireless network & communicating information with other devices & systems in the industrial facility), the method comprising:
determining whether the communication to the first UE is being blocked by one of: one or more second industrial device, in the industrial environment (fig. 1-2 & para. 32, detection of interference (blocked) by another control device 180 (second industrial device).
Fiorentino describes that the communication is determined to be blocked (fig. 1 & para. 32, interference (blockage) detected), but fails to further explicitly describe:
while the communication is determined to be blocked, receiving the communication from the network node through one or more of: an antenna positioned on the first industrial device, and a second UE connected to the second industrial device.
Fiorentino ‘002 also describes wireless industrial communication network with jamming (blockage) condition (title), further describing:
while the communication is determined to be blocked, receiving the communication from the network node through one or more of: an antenna positioned on the first industrial device, and a second UE connected to the second industrial device (fig. 1 & para. 8 or abstract, when direct path between first device 134 & second devices are 154 thru network 130&150 is jammed/interfered, determining an indirect transmission path between first and second network devices (UEs) thru alternate path 158 but still thru network node 150 by use of phased array antennas for the one or more indirect communication paths, para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention specify that the first UE of Fiorentino to receive communication to/from network via indirect path as in Fiorentino ‘002.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this address issue for slowing down the production process in the industrial environment (Fiorentino ‘002, para. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Fiorentino describes a method for enabling a first user equipment, (UE) for reception of communication from a network node, in an industrial environment, the industrial environment comprising a plurality of industrial devices, each industrial device being connected to a UE, the method being performed by an industrial controller connected to the network node (fig. 2 & title & para. 30-32, process/method of determining interference source from management device 120 to the auto guidance vehicle 158 in an industrial facility, para. 69), the method comprising:
determining that the communication to the first UE is being blocked by one of: a first industrial device, or one or more second industrial devices, in the industrial environment (fig. 1-2 & para. 32, detection of interference (blocked) by another control device 180 (second industrial device).
Fiorentino describes that the communication is determined to be blocked (fig. 1 & para. 32, interference (blockage) detected), but fails to further explicitly describe:
causing the first UE to receive the communication from the network node through one or more of: an antenna positioned on the first industrial device, and a second UE connected to the second industrial device.
Fiorentino ‘002 also describes wireless industrial communication network with jamming (blockage) condition (title), further describing:
causing the first UE to receive the communication from the network node through one or more of: an antenna positioned on the first industrial device, and a second UE connected to the second industrial device (fig. 1 & para. 8 or abstract, when direct path between first device 134 & second devices are 154 thru network 130&150 is jammed/interfered, determining an indirect transmission path between first and second network devices (UEs) thru alternate path 158 but still thru network node 150 by use of phased array antennas for the one or more indirect communication paths, para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention specify that the first UE of Fiorentino to receive communication to/from network via indirect path as in Fiorentino ‘002.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this address issue for slowing down the production process in the industrial environment (Fiorentino ‘002, para. 6).
Regarding claim 24, Fiorentino and Fiorentino ‘002 combined describe:
a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, wherein the computer program is loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit (Fiorentino para. 69, method/apparatus implemented as a program stored in computer readable medium).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorentino in view of Fiorentino ‘002 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of
Hviid (US 2023/0101924).
Regarding claim 9, Fiorentino and Fiorentino ‘002 combined already describe:
determining that the communication to the first UE is being blocked by one of:
the first industrial device, or the one or more second industrial devices in the industrial environment as in claim 8, but fails to further explicitly describe:
receiving, sensor data, acquired using one or more sensors positioned on each of the plurality of industrial devices;
receiving information related to a movement of the plurality of industrial devices; and
determining that the communication to the first UE is being blocked by one of: the first industrial device, or the one or more second industrial devices using the sensor data and the information related to the movement of the plurality of industrial devices.
Hviid also describes wireless communication between network devices via first & second data connection with interfering inducing obstacles 310 (fig. 3), further describing:
receiving, sensor data, acquired using one or more sensors positioned on each of the plurality of industrial devices; (para. 23, 32, 35, implemented as sensor network, each devices as sensors provide measure of power level or signal strength);
receiving information related to a movement of the plurality of industrial devices (para. 61 or 80, network collects movement and related data of moveable device);
determining that the communication to the first UE is being blocked using the sensor data and the information related to the movement of the plurality of industrial devices (fig. 3 & 81, implement as sensors in production network, moveable device 305 faces obstacle (blocked) will report its measurement of [decreased] power level or signal strength, para. 23, 32 & 35)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the blockage by the first/second network device in Fiorentino and Fiorentino ‘002 be reported to network as sensor data per above steps as in Hviid.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this using enables a [sensor] network algorithm that reduces power consumption compared to a situation where the algorithm is running constantly (Hviid, para. 56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 10-11 and 13-18 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the prior art fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the step of determining whether the communication to the first UE is being blocked by one of: the first industrial device, or the one or more second industrial devices comprises one or more of:
identifying whether the first industrial device is blocking the communication from the network node to the first UE using an operating state of the first industrial device; and
identifying whether the one or more second industrial devices are blocking the communication from the network node to the first UE using an operating state of the one or more second industrial devices.
The closest prior art, Kovas (US 2024/0196187) describing determine a state of the at least one second user device as either served by a network node or not served by a network node (para. 52), in combination with Fiorentino and Fiorentino ‘002, fail to render the above additional features as a whole obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the prior art fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the step of receiving the communication from the network node through one or more of:
the antenna positioned on the first industrial device, and the second UE connected to the second industrial device comprises:
determining whether the first industrial device is blocking the communication from the network node; and
while determined that the first industrial device is blocking the communication, receiving the communication from the network node through the antenna positioned on the first industrial device.
The closest prior art, Fiorentino ‘002, describing using second antenna from the second UE in communicating via indirect path with the first UE with its first antenna, in combination with Fiorentino, fail to render the above features obvious.
Regarding claims 10-11, the prior art fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the step of causing the first UE to receive the communication from the network node comprises: determining the second UE and an antenna of the second UE to be used to relay the communication from the network node to the first UE through the second UE; and transmitting, to the first UE, an indication related to the second UE to cause the first UE to receive the communication from the network node.
The closest prior art, Kovac (US 2024/0196187) describing UE 414 acting as relay between remote UE & and the network (fig. 4), is incompatible with Fiorentino (US 2023/0174109) and Fiorentino (EP 3941002) where first and second UEs are end-to-end communication points, and thus, in combination, fail to render the above additional features as a whole obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Horiuchi (US 2009/0239524) describing communication method capable of preventing reduction of the throughput by use of relay & updated modulation (abstract), Saad (US 2023/0170976) describing beam selection where UE may be configured to communicate with a base station based on a BPL associated with the direction of the current serving beam. The UE may perform a measurement for the base station, and communicate over the BPL based on the sensor information indicating that the direction of the current serving beam relative to the UE is different from a previous serving beam direction relative to the UE (abstract & fig. 4), and Fiorentino (EP 3917046) and Fiorentino (EP 3910986) each describing detection of degradation of network based on quality info from plural network devices & transmit connection info of 1+ redundant gateways to UEs for UEs to connected to (abstract & fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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, Ian Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights