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 Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 09/05/2024.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
For claim 14, the claims recite a device having no structural element to perform the plurality of functions, therefore lack more than one structure to perform the plurality of functions.
Claims 15-16 depend on claims 14 respectively, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Applicants are reminded that a machine claim must comprise a combination of device elements. Applicants are reminded that according to MPEP 2106, “Machine – a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863)”.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim contains the statement “the value being determined at least according to a bandwidth allocated to this communication, to transmission features of the serving device, to at least one other access device of the first network and to at least one other access device of at least one second wireless communication network, "; however, the statement is unclear and vague. Does the statement mean the value being determined according to at least one of a bandwidth allocated to this communication, transmission features of the serving device, at least one other access device of the first network, and at least one other access device of at least one second wireless communication network?
Claim 1 also contains the statement “the other access devices being configured to use the given frequency band and being likely to interfere with the communication, and to a topology of the first network and of the at least one second network in at least one zone referred to as an interference zone"; however, the statement is unclear and vague. Does the statement mean the other access devices configured to use the given frequency band that are likely to interfere with the communication; and the topologies of the first network and the at least one second network within at least one interference zone?
Claims 14 are rejected for the similar reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 2-13 and 15-16 depend on claims 1 and 14 respectively, therefore they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US_20110212694_A1_Karabinis.
Regarding claim 1, Karabinis teaches a method of monitoring a quality-of-service level of a communication between a user device and a first wireless communication network (Karabinis figure 3, paragraphs 11-12) wherein the method comprises: determining a value of a parameter representative of the quality-of-service level of the communication between an access device referred to as a serving device of the first network to which the user device is attached and the user device (Karabinis, paragraph 38, “…if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal …”, also read paragraph 57, the BER is corresponding to the claimed “parameter”), the communication using a given frequency band (Karabinis figures 1, 3, paragraph 30, L-band spectrum), the value being determined at least according to a bandwidth allocated to this communication, to transmission features of the serving device, to at least one other access device of the first network and to at least one other access device of at least one second wireless communication network (Karabinis paragraph 37, “…a radioterminal may be operatively configured with signaling capability, such as, for example, in-band signaling capability, so as to inform a system, and/or a component thereof, such as a satellite gateway and/or other component of the system, of a Bit Error Rate (BER) measure at the radioterminal. In response to the BER measure received by the system, the system (i.e., a satellite and/or a satellite gateway) may provide a different amount of power to the radioterminal (such as more power to the radioterminal if the BER measure is, for example, greater than a first predetermined threshold, or less power to the radioterminal if the BER measure is, for example, smaller than a second predetermined threshold; where the first and second predetermined thresholds may be the same or different) relative to the power delivered to the radioterminal by the system prior to the reception by the system of the BER measure transmitted by the radioterminal via a signaling channel”; paragraph 38, “… in response to the BER measure received by the system from the radioterminal, and following a predetermined increase in power level to the radioterminal for the purpose of establishing a BER measure that may be within an acceptable range, the system may command the radioterminal to utilize a different down-link (forward-link) carrier and/or channel, if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal. The different down-link (forward-link) carrier may be chosen from an available pool of carriers, and/or the different down-link (forward-link) carrier may be chosen at a maximum or near maximum frequency distance relative to a frequency or frequencies used by the at least one terrestrial infrastructure component, ATC, and/or ATN of the first system”, and figure 2, paragraph 40), the other access devices being configured to use the given frequency band and being likely to interfere with the communication (Karabinis figures 1, 3, paragraph 30, “Continuing with system embodiments utilizing L-band spectrum, a second satellite 102 that may be operated by a second satellite operator (i.e., Inmarsat) and/or the radioterminal(s) thereof may be using at least some of the L-band frequencies that are also used by the first satellite 101 and/or the radioterminals thereof to communicate. Specifically, at least some of the up-link band frequencies used by the satellite radioterminals communicating with the second satellite 102 may also be frequencies that are used by at least one radioterminal communicating with the first satellite 101 and/or the at least one terrestrial infrastructure component. As such, the second satellite 102 may receive a level of interference from the emissions of the at least one radioterminal communicating with the first satellite 101 and/or the at least one terrestrial infrastructure component”), and to a topology of the first network and of the at least one second network in at least one zone referred to as an interference zone (Karabinis figures 1, geographic region 112; figure 3, geographic region 312); and when the determined value does not reach a target value of the parameter (Karabinis paragraph 38, “…if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal…”), obtaining a modification of at least one transmission feature of the serving access device and/or of at least one other access device of the first and/or of the at least one second network, according to the target value (Karabinis paragraph 38, “…in response to the BER measure received by the system from the radioterminal, and following a predetermined increase in power level to the radioterminal for the purpose of establishing a BER measure that may be within an acceptable range, the system may command the radioterminal to utilize a different down-link (forward-link) carrier and/or channel, if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal…”. Also read paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 2, Karabinis teaches the monitoring method according to claim 1 wherein the parameter value is determined at least according to the bandwidth allocated to the communication, to a distance between the user device and the serving device, to a transmission power of the serving device (Karabinis paragraph 37, “…a radioterminal may be operatively configured with signaling capability, such as, for example, in-band signaling capability, so as to inform a system, and/or a component thereof, such as a satellite gateway and/or other component of the system, of a Bit Error Rate (BER) measure at the radioterminal. In response to the BER measure received by the system, the system (i.e., a satellite and/or a satellite gateway) may provide a different amount of power to the radioterminal (such as more power to the radioterminal if the BER measure is, for example, greater than a first predetermined threshold, or less power to the radioterminal if the BER measure is, for example, smaller than a second predetermined threshold; where the first and second predetermined thresholds may be the same or different) relative to the power delivered to the radioterminal by the system prior to the reception by the system of the BER measure transmitted by the radioterminal via a signaling channel”; paragraph 38, “… in response to the BER measure received by the system from the radioterminal, and following a predetermined increase in power level to the radioterminal for the purpose of establishing a BER measure that may be within an acceptable range, the system may command the radioterminal to utilize a different down-link (forward-link) carrier and/or channel, if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal. The different down-link (forward-link) carrier may be chosen from an available pool of carriers, and/or the different down-link (forward-link) carrier may be chosen at a maximum or near maximum frequency distance relative to a frequency or frequencies used by the at least one terrestrial infrastructure component, ATC, and/or ATN of the first system”, and figure 2, paragraph 40), to antenna gain ratios between the serving device and the at least one other access device of the first network and between the serving device and the at least one other access device of the at least one second network, and to the topology of the first network and of the at least one second network in the at least one interference zone (Karabinis figures 1, geographic region 112; figure 3, geographic region 312).
Regarding claim 13, Karabinis teaches the monitoring method according claim 1, wherein at least one modified transmission feature belongs to a group comprising at least: a transmission power of the serving access device (Karabinis paragraph 38, “…in response to the BER measure received by the system from the radioterminal, and following a predetermined increase in power level to the radioterminal for the purpose of establishing a BER measure that may be within an acceptable range, the system may command the radioterminal to utilize a different down-link (forward-link) carrier and/or channel, if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal…”. Also read paragraph 57).; a gain of the serving device; a transmission bandwidth of the serving device, a transmission power of at least one other access device, a gain of at least one other access device; and a transmission bandwidth of at least one other access device.
Regarding claim 14, Karabinis teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Karabinis teaches the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Karabinis teaches communication system, wherein the communication system comprises access devices of a first network and of at least one second network (Karabinis figures 1, 3), the access devices being configured to transmit radio frequency beams in a given frequency band (Karabinis figures 1, 3, paragraph 30, L-band spectrum), the system further comprising a user device attached to one of the access devices, referred to as a serving access device, and a device for monitoring, according to claim 14, a quality-of-service level of a communication between the serving access device and the user device (Karabinis paragraph 37, “…a radioterminal may be operatively configured with signaling capability, such as, for example, in-band signaling capability, so as to inform a system, and/or a component thereof, such as a satellite gateway and/or other component of the system, of a Bit Error Rate (BER) measure at the radioterminal. In response to the BER measure received by the system, the system (i.e., a satellite and/or a satellite gateway) may provide a different amount of power to the radioterminal (such as more power to the radioterminal if the BER measure is, for example, greater than a first predetermined threshold, or less power to the radioterminal if the BER measure is, for example, smaller than a second predetermined threshold; where the first and second predetermined thresholds may be the same or different) relative to the power delivered to the radioterminal by the system prior to the reception by the system of the BER measure transmitted by the radioterminal via a signaling channel”; paragraph 38, “… in response to the BER measure received by the system from the radioterminal, and following a predetermined increase in power level to the radioterminal for the purpose of establishing a BER measure that may be within an acceptable range, the system may command the radioterminal to utilize a different down-link (forward-link) carrier and/or channel, if the radioterminal continues to report to the system a BER measure that is not within the predetermined range and is inferior to the system's Quality of Service (QoS) standard for the service being provided by the radioterminal. The different down-link (forward-link) carrier may be chosen from an available pool of carriers, and/or the different down-link (forward-link) carrier may be chosen at a maximum or near maximum frequency distance relative to a frequency or frequencies used by the at least one terrestrial infrastructure component, ATC, and/or ATN of the first system”, and figure 2, paragraph 40).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20110212694_A1_Karabinis in view of US_20220060929_A1_Hassan.
Regarding claim 10, Karabinis teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the quality-of-service parameter belongs to a group comprising at least: a useful rate of data reception by the user device (Karabinis paragraphs 38, 56-57, Bit Error rate BER); but does not teach the quality-of-service parameter belongs to a group comprising at least: a useful delay of data transmission to the user device; and a useful power of data reception by from the user device.
Hassan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: the quality-of-service parameter belongs to a group comprising at least: a useful delay of data transmission to the user device; and a useful power of data reception by from the user device (Hassan paragraph 121, “The UE may be configured to analyze the QoS information of one or more data packets and the UE may be configured to sort the packets in the QoS categories stated earlier to assist later transmission. The QoS categories including the QoS fields metric comprise… a packet delay… link quality in terms of CSI/CQI, RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Hassan into Karabinis, since Karabinis suggests a technique for monitoring the QoS or the radioterminal, and Hassan suggests the beneficial way of The QoS categories including the QoS fields metric comprise… a packet delay… link quality in terms of CSI/CQI, RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ so that/thus allows network operators to optimize resource allocation, prevent network congestion (Hassan paragraphs 98-99, 116 123) in the analogous art of communication.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference US_20220386164_A1_Lee, teaches when a guaranteed bit rate (GBR) QoS flow is required for a PDU session used by the terminal, an event of monitoring the QoS level which is currently supportable to the terminal may be configured for the base station. Based on this, the base station may determine the QoS level which can be provided to the terminal, and may inform of the same to the core network (Lee paragraphs 71, 72, 74).
The reference US_20220053364_A1_Kim, teaches when a guaranteed bit rate (GBR) QoS flow is required for a PDU session used by the UE, an event for monitoring a QoS level that may be currently supported for the UE may be configured for the BS. Based on this, the BS may determine a QoS level it is able to provide for the UE and notify the core network of the QoS level (Kim figures 2-4, paragraphs 48-49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights