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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 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 § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (20240284285) hereinafter Lee, in view of Dhanapal et al. (20230076738), hereinafter Dhanapal.
Re. Claims 1 and 6, Lee teaches a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of wireless base stations and a wireless terminal (Fig. 1), wherein among the plurality of wireless base stations, each wireless base station includes: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 2) and configured to: set, by a wireless base station, a threshold for determining a congestion degree of the wireless base station on a basis of an actual value of past communication (¶0188 - The terminal may determine the threshold based on the upper and lower limits of the threshold, recorded channel quality measurement values, and the paging success probability for thresholds used in the past);
However, Lee does not expressly teach where the base station is configured to determine, by the wireless base station, a congestion degree of the wireless base station using the threshold, change, by the wireless base station, a connection condition of the wireless base station on a basis of a congestion degree of the wireless base station.
Yet, Dhanapal explicitly teaches where the base station is configured to determine, by the wireless base station, a congestion degree of the wireless base station using the threshold (¶0078 - determine a level of congestion associated with the 4G connection and compare the level of congestions to a pre-designated congestion threshold); and change, by the wireless base station, a connection condition of the wireless base station on a basis of a congestion degree of the wireless base station (¶0112 - the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a level of network congestion, corresponding to the 4G connection, above a network congestion threshold; initiate a RRC release procedure regarding the 4G connection; reprioritize 5G SA connections over 4G connections; and establish another 5G connection with the base station of the wireless communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Dhanapal to the teaching of Lee. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission capabilities based on congestion levels as Dhanapal provides that a base station can select its connection based on a congestion level (Dhanapal, ¶0112). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dhanapal, and Ding et al. (20220167262), hereinafter Ding.
Re. Claim 2, Lee and Dhanapal teach Claim 1.
Dhanapal further teaches wherein, in the setting, an actual value of past communication quality of the wireless base station is set as the threshold (¶0188 - The terminal may determine the threshold based on the upper and lower limits of the threshold, recorded channel quality measurement values, and the paging success probability for thresholds used in the past).
However, the combination of Lee and Dhanapal does not teach in the determining, the wireless base station is determined to be congested in a case where a value of communication quality that can be provided by the wireless base station is smaller than the threshold.
Yet, Ding explicitly teaches in the determining, the wireless base station is determined to be congested in a case where a value of communication quality that can be provided by the wireless base station is smaller than the threshold (¶0090 - As examples, one or more event triggers may include one or more of… signal measurements indicated by the measurement reports being above or below a threshold signal strength or signal quality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ding to the teaching of Lee and Dhanapal. The motivation for such would be to improve network communication efficiency by prioritizing a lower congestion than a threshold as Ding discloses (Ding, ¶0090). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 3, Lee and Dhanapal teach Claim 1.
Dhanapal further teaches wherein, in the setting, an actual value of past communication quality of the wireless base station is set as the threshold (¶0188 - The terminal may determine the threshold based on the upper and lower limits of the threshold, recorded channel quality measurement values, and the paging success probability for thresholds used in the past).
However, the combination of Lee and Dhanapal does not teach in the determining, the wireless base station is determined to be congested in a case where a value of communication quality that can be provided by the wireless base station is larger than the threshold.
Yet, Ding explicitly teaches in the determining, the wireless base station is determined to be congested in a case where a value of communication quality that can be provided by the wireless base station is larger than the threshold (¶0090 - As examples, one or more event triggers may include one or more of… signal measurements indicated by the measurement reports being above or below a threshold signal strength or signal quality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ding to the teaching of Lee and Dhanapal. The motivation for such would be to improve network communication efficiency by prioritizing a lower congestion than a threshold as Ding discloses (Ding, ¶0090). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dhanapal and Tsuda; Shinichiro (20140194093), hereinafter Tsuda.
Re. Claim 4¸ Lee and Dhanapal teach Claim 1.
However, the combination of Lee and Dhanapal does not teach wherein, in the changing, a connection cost of the wireless base station is increased in a case where the wireless base station is congested.
Yet, Tsuda explicitly teaches wherein, in the changing, a connection cost of the wireless base station is increased in a case where the wireless base station is congested (¶0097 - For example, the charging information calculation unit 250 calculates the communication fee with respect to the communication volume at the time of communication by the use of a communication unit price corresponding to the communication quality at the time of communication.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Tsuda to the teaching of Lee and Dhanapal. The motivation for such would be to improve network communication efficiency by adjusting the connection cost for future connections based on current congestion as Tsuda discloses (Tsuda, ¶0097). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 4¸ Lee and Dhanapal teach Claim 1.
However, the combination of Lee and Dhanapal does not teach wherein, in the changing, a connection cost of the wireless base station is decreased in a case where the wireless base station is not congested.
Yet, Tsuda explicitly teaches wherein, in the changing, a connection cost of the wireless base station is decreased in a case where the wireless base station is not congested (¶0097 - For example, the charging information calculation unit 250 calculates the communication fee with respect to the communication volume at the time of communication by the use of a communication unit price corresponding to the communication quality at the time of communication.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Tsuda to the teaching of Lee and Dhanapal. The motivation for such would be to improve network communication efficiency by adjusting the connection cost for future connections based on current congestion as Tsuda discloses (Tsuda, ¶0097). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hongo et al. (20160353320) - ¶0043-0159
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights