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 .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 10/21/2024.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 31 & 32 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202210423128.3, filed on 4/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/21/2024 and 9/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Several of the claims in the present application recite Markush groups in the format of “at least one of A, B or C” (see MPEP §2117). For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting these Markush claims as a single element selection from a closed group of elements consisting of alternatives A, B, C, A&B, A&C, B&C, or A&B&C.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 15, “the BS comprises a flight module, and the BS migrates by means of the flight module” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function because of the combination of a non-structural element “flight module” and functionality “the BS migrates by means” of the flight module. While [0010] of the current application specification discloses that a flight module may be configured to provide flight power to fly the communication BS to the migration destination”, this does not provide structure for the flight module. Thus, the specification fails to disclose the specific structure of the “flight module”, making this claim indefinite (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112 section below).
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 8-11, 14, 15 & 21 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.
Claims 8-11, 14 are dependent on claim 7 which has been cancelled, and thus these claims lack a proper base and required antecedent basis. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting these claims to be dependent on claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, claim limitation “the BS comprises a flight module, and the BS migrates by means of the flight module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While [0010] of the current application specification discloses that a flight module may be configured to provide flight power to fly the communication BS to the migration destination”, this does not provide structure for the flight module. Therefore, this claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend this claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-14 & 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A method for base station (BS) scheduling, comprising: acquiring BS information, wherein the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information; and generating a scheduling instruction according to the BS information for migrating a BS from a first area to a second area.”
Analysis:
Step 1: the claim falls within the statutory categories of invention (i.e. process). (Step 1 = YES)
Step 2A Prong One which tests whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 falls within “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts which can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement): “…acquiring BS information; and generating a scheduling instruction according to the BS information for migrating a BS from a first area to a second area.”. Thus, claim 1 recites a “Judicial Exception” in regard to “Step 2A Prong One” test. (Step 2A Prong One = YES)
Step 2A Prong Two which tests whether the claim recited as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.”. It is seen that claim 1 does NOT pass “Step 2A Prong Two”. The judicial exception “…acquiring BS information; and generating a scheduling instruction according to the BS information for migrating a BS from a first area to a second area.” is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element of “wherein the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information” which amounts to no more than limiting the type of BS information that is acquired. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. (Step 2A Prong Two = NO)
Step 2B which tests whether additional elements amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception. The additional elements are “a method for a base station (BS) scheduling”. The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because a method for base station (BS) scheduling, wherein the BS scheduling is of movement of the BS from a first area to a second area, is no more than the abstract idea of “generating a scheduling instruction according to the BS information for migrating a BS from a first area to a second area”. Thus, the additional elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception. (Step 2B = NO)
Thus, claim 1 fails to fall within a statutory category because it is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the BS traffic information comprises at least one of: a number of users accessing the BS; BS uplink and downlink traffic; BS traffic history information; or BS traffic abnormality information”. The additional elements of claim 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 2 merely limits the type of BS traffic acquired. Therefore, claim 2 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the BS information further comprises: an administrator instruction.”. The additional elements of claim 3 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 3 merely limits the type of scheduling instruction generated by the BS information. Therefore, claim 3 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 4 recites “wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining a regional traffic distribution according to the BS information in an area; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the regional traffic distribution.”. The additional elements of claim 4 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 4 merely limits the type of BS information obtained and used in generating the scheduling instruction. Therefore, claim 4 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 5 recites “wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining a BS traffic change trend in an area according to the BS traffic history information in the area; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS location information and the BS traffic change trend.”. The additional elements of claim 5 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 5 merely limits the type of BS information obtained and used in generating the scheduling instruction. Therefore, claim 5 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 6 recites “wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the regional traffic distribution comprises: obtaining a traffic change trend according to history data of the regional traffic distribution, wherein the traffic change trend is predicted according to the history data of the regional traffic distribution; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the traffic change trend; or generating the scheduling instruction according to the regional traffic distribution comprises: obtaining the first area and the second area according to the regional traffic distribution; and generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information of the first area and traffic information of the second area.”. The additional elements of claim 6 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 6 merely limits the type of regional traffic distribution of the BS information that is obtained and used in generating the scheduling instruction. Therefore, claim 6 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 8 recites “wherein: the first area comprises a traffic idle area; the second area comprises a traffic warning area; and the traffic idle area is an area in which a number of users accessing BS in the area is less than a first idle threshold or an area in which BS uplink and downlink traffic in the area is less than a second idle threshold; and the traffic warning area is an area in which the number of users accessing BS in the area is greater than a third warning threshold or an area in which the BS uplink and downlink traffic in the area is greater than a fourth warning threshold.”. The additional elements of claim 8 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 8 merely limits the types of areas of regional traffic distribution of the BS information that is obtained. Therefore, claim 8 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 9 recites “wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the traffic information of the first area and the traffic information of the second area comprises: obtaining first scheduling information according to the traffic information of the first area, and obtaining second scheduling information according to the traffic information of the second area; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the first scheduling information and the second scheduling information.”. The additional elements of claim 9 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 9 merely limits the type of information obtained in generating the scheduling instruction. Therefore, claim 9 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 10 recites “wherein: the first scheduling information comprises at least one of: quantity information of at least one idle BS; location information of the at least one idle BS; or idle time information of the at least one idle BS; and the second scheduling information comprises at least one of: quantity information of at least one immigrating BS; location information of the at least one immigrating BS; or time information of the at least one immigrating BS.”. The additional elements of claim 10 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 10 merely limits the type of scheduling information obtained. Therefore, claim 10 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 11 recites “wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information of the first area and traffic information of the second area comprises: obtaining BS scheduling matching information according to the traffic information of the first area and the traffic information of the second area; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS scheduling matching information.”. The additional elements of claim 11 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 11 merely limits the type of traffic information obtained in generating the scheduling instruction. Therefore, claim 11 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising: obtaining route information, wherein the route information comprises at least one of: building density information; transportation information; or weather information.”. The additional elements of claim 12 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 12 merely limits the type of information obtained. Therefore, claim 12 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 13 recites “wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining BS scheduling matching information according to the BS information and the route information; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS scheduling matching information.”. The additional elements of claim 13 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 13 merely limits the type of BS information obtained and used in generating the scheduling instruction. Therefore, claim 13 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the first scheduling information further comprises at least one of: idle degree information of idle BS; predicted traffic information of idle area; current uplink and downlink traffic of idle BS; or maximum uplink and downlink traffic of idle BS.”. The additional elements of claim 14 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 14 merely limits the type of scheduling information of the BS information is obtained. Therefore, claim 14 does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself and does not fall within a statutory category.
Claim 17 recites “A method for base station (BS) scheduling, applied to a BS, the method comprising: receiving a scheduling instruction, wherein the scheduling instruction is generated according to BS information, and the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information; and migrating from a first area to a second area according to the scheduling instruction.”
Analysis:
Step 1: the claim falls within the statutory categories of invention (i.e. process). (Step 1 = YES)
Step 2A Prong One which tests whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 17 falls within “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts which can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement): “…receiving a scheduling instruction, wherein the scheduling instruction is generated according to BS information; and migrating from a first area to a second area according to the scheduling instruction.”. This claim fails to disclose what is migrating and thus a scheduling comprising migrating from a first area to a second area falls within a “mental process” and is an abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 recites a “Judicial Exception” in regard to “Step 2A Prong One” test. (Step 2A Prong One = YES)
Step 2A Prong Two which tests whether the claim recited as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.”. It is seen that claim 17 does NOT pass “Step 2A Prong Two”. The judicial exception “…receiving a scheduling instruction, wherein the scheduling instruction is generated according to BS information; and migrating from a first area to a second area according to the scheduling instruction.” is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element of “wherein the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information” which amounts to no more than limiting the type of BS information that is acquired. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. (Step 2A Prong Two = NO)
Step 2B which tests whether additional elements amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception. The additional elements are “a method for a base station (BS) scheduling, applied to a base station”. The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because a method for base station (BS) scheduling, applied to a base station, wherein the BS scheduling is of movement of the BS from a first area to a second area, is no more than the abstract idea of “the scheduling instruction is generated according to BS information,”. Thus, the additional elements of claim 17 do not amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception. (Step 2B = NO)
Thus, claim 17 fails to fall within a statutory category because it is directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that claims 15 & 23 are held to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the recited limitations explicitly transform the underlying subject matter to a different state or thing. Specifically, claim 15 recites “the BS comprises a flight module, and the BS migrates by means of the flight module according to the scheduling instruction” and claim 23 recites “migrating, by the BS, from a first area to a second area according to the scheduling instruction” which transforms a BS to a different state (i.e. moves the BS from a first area to a second area) according to the method of scheduling, thus satisfying the requirements of 35 USC 101. Dependent claims 21 & 24 are therefore also patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 23, 24, 31 & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chechani et al. (US 2016/0373942)(herein after “Chechani”).
Regarding claim 1, Chechani discloses a method for base station (BS) scheduling, comprising: acquiring BS information, wherein the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information ([0018] discloses methods for an access point controller (AC) to send dispatch commands instructing (i.e. scheduling) an unmanned vehicle carrying a moveable AP (i.e. a BS) to move position. Fig 3 & [0035] disclose that fixed AP list 303, as part of AC 300, may register APs and record identification of each fixed AP and the physical position where each fixed AP is mounted. Fig 3 & [0038] disclose that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may monitor (i.e. acquire) load-balancing (i.e. traffic information) of multiple adjacent APs.); and
generating a scheduling instruction according to the BS information for migrating a BS from a first area to a second area (Fig 2 & [0029]-[0031] discloses that AC 230 determines and instructs (i.e. generates a scheduling instruction), based on the location of an AP experiencing an anomaly or congestion (i.e. traffic information), one or more moveable APs such as APs 250 or 260 to move from an area where moveable APs are maintained for quick deployment (i.e. a first area) to a location or particular area (i.e. a second area) where the issue (e.g. AP anomaly or congestion) is located.).
Regarding claim 2, Chechani discloses wherein the BS traffic information comprises at least one of:
a number of users accessing the BS ([0038] discloses that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may monitor the number of WiFi clients (i.e. number of users) connected to an AP.);
BS uplink and downlink traffic (optional);
BS traffic history information (Fig 3 & [0038] disclose that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may predict network congestion by watching the trend of network traffic going through APs.); or
BS traffic abnormality information (Fig 2 & [0029] disclose that AC 230 may detect an AP experiencing an anomaly such as traffic congestion.).
Regarding claim 3, Chechani discloses wherein the BS information further comprises: an administrator instruction (Fig 3 & [0034] disclose that the administrator of AC 300 may setup policies (i.e. instruct) to scan traffic going through APs (i.e. BS traffic information).).
Regarding claim 5, Chechani discloses wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining a BS traffic change trend in an area according to the BS traffic history information in the area (Fig 3 & [0038] discloses that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may monitor the trend of network traffic going through the APs of a wireless network (i.e. history information), and if the traffic is increasing fast (i.e. traffic trend is changing towards traffic increasing), then network status monitor 306 may predict that network congestion may occur.); and
generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS location information and the BS traffic change trend (Fig 3 & [0038] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may deploy (i.e. send a dispatch command to) a moveable AP to the location of a specific AP experiencing congestion, based on network status monitor 306 determining there is congestion at the location of the specific AP, to increase WiFi service at the location of the specific AP experiencing congestion.).
Regarding claim 12, Chechani discloses further comprising: obtaining route information, wherein the route information comprises at least one of: building density information (Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, calculates a route for a moveable AP from the moveable AP current location to the destination based on a map of the premises (i.e. building density information) in which the wireless network is deployed.);
transportation information (Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, calculates a route for a moveable AP from the moveable AP current location to the destination based on a map of the premises in which the wireless network is deployed and feedback from the moveable AP regarding the moveable AP’s ability to get to the destination (i.e. transportation information).); or
weather information (optional).
Regarding claim 15, Chechani discloses wherein: the scheduling instruction comprises at least one of: BS identification information (Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may send identifications of failed APs to a moveable AP so that the moveable AP can move to the destination of the failed APs.);
a migration time;
a migration route (Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may send the route to failed APs to a moveable AP so that the moveable AP can know how to move to the destination of the failed APs.); or
a migration destination (Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may send the destination of failed APs to a moveable AP so that the moveable AP can know how to move to the destination of the failed APs.); and
The BS comprises a flight module, and the BS migrates by means of the flight module according to the scheduling instruction (Fig 2 & [0030] disclose that a moveable AP 260 may be a drone integrated with the AP (i.e. the BS comprises a flight module) that may fly to the destination instructed by AC 230.).
Regarding claim 17, Chechani discloses a method for base station (BS) scheduling, applied to a BS, the method comprising: receiving a scheduling instruction, wherein the scheduling instruction is generated according to BS information, and the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information ([0018] discloses methods for an unmanned vehicle carrying a moveable AP (i.e. a BS) to receive dispatch commands from access point controller (AC) instructing (i.e. scheduling) the moveable AP to move position. Fig 3 & [0035] disclose that fixed AP list 303, as part of AC 300, may register APs and record identification of each fixed AP and the physical position where each fixed AP is mounted. Fig 3 & [0038] disclose that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may monitor (i.e. acquire) load-balancing (i.e. traffic information) of multiple adjacent APs. Fig 2 & [0029]-[0031] discloses that AC 230 determines and instructs (i.e. generates a scheduling instruction), based on the location of an AP experiencing an anomaly or congestion (i.e. traffic information), one or more moveable APs such as APs 250 or 260 to move from an area where moveable APs are maintained for quick deployment (i.e. a first area) to a location or particular area (i.e. a second area) where the issue (e.g. AP anomaly or congestion) is located.); and
migrating from a first area to a second area according to the scheduling instruction (Fig 2 & [0030] discloses that when moveable AP 250 receives an instruction from AC 230, moveable AP 250 may automatically drive itself to the instructed destination (i.e. migrate from a first area to a second area).).
Regarding claim 23, Chechani discloses a method for scheduling, comprising: sending, by a device for scheduling, a scheduling instruction ([0018] discloses methods for an access point controller (AC) (i.e. a device for scheduling) to send dispatch commands instructing (i.e. scheduling) an unmanned vehicle carrying a moveable AP (i.e. a BS) to move position. Fig 2 & [0029]-[0031] discloses an AC 230 determines and instructs (i.e. generates a scheduling instruction) one or more moveable APs such as APs 250 or 260 to move from an area where moveable APs are maintained for quick deployment (i.e. a first area) to a location or particular area (i.e. a second area) where the issue (e.g. AP anomaly or congestion) is located.);
receiving, by a base station (BS), the scheduling instruction (Fig 2 & [0029]-[0031] discloses one or more moveable APs such as APs 250 or 260 receiving an instruction from AC 230 to move from an area where moveable APs are maintained for quick deployment (i.e. a first area) to a location or particular area (i.e. a second area) where the issue (e.g. AP anomaly or congestion) is located.); and
migrating, by the BS, from a first area to a second area according to the scheduling instruction (Fig 2 & [0030] discloses that when moveable AP 250 receives an instruction from AC 230, moveable AP 250 may automatically drive itself to the instructed destination (i.e. migrate from a first area to a second area).).
Regarding claim 24, Chechani discloses wherein, before sending, by the device for scheduling, the scheduling instruction, the method comprises: acquiring, by the device for scheduling, BS information, wherein the BS information comprises BS location information and BS traffic information (Fig 3 & [0035] disclose that fixed AP list 303, as part of AC 300, may register APs and record identification of each fixed AP and the physical position where each fixed AP is mounted. Fig 3 & [0038] disclose that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may monitor (i.e. acquire) load-balancing (i.e. traffic information) of multiple adjacent APs.); and
generating, by the device for scheduling, the scheduling instruction according to the BS information (Fig 2 & [0029]-[0031] discloses that AC 230 determines and instructs (i.e. generates a scheduling instruction), based on the location of an AP experiencing an anomaly or congestion (i.e. traffic information), one or more moveable APs such as APs 250 or 260 to move from an area where moveable APs are maintained for quick deployment (i.e. a first area) to a location or particular area (i.e. a second area) where the issue (e.g. AP anomaly or congestion) is located.); or
before sending, by the device for scheduling, the scheduling instruction, the method comprises: acquiring, by the device for scheduling, an administrator instruction (Fig 3 & [0034] disclose that the administrator of AC 300 may setup policies (i.e. instruct) to scan traffic going through APs (i.e. BS traffic information).); and
generating, by the device for scheduling, the scheduling instruction according to the administrator instruction (Figs 2 & 3 and [0029]-[0031] & [0034] discloses that AC 230 determines and instructs (i.e. generates a scheduling instruction), based on the location of an AP experiencing an anomaly or congestion (i.e. traffic information) received based on the administrator of AC 300 policy to scan traffic going through APs, one or more moveable APs such as APs 250 or 260 to move from an area where moveable APs are maintained for quick deployment (i.e. a first area) to a location or particular area (i.e. a second area) where the issue (e.g. AP anomaly or congestion) is located.).
Regarding claim 31, Chechani discloses an apparatus for scheduling, comprising: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein: the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to carry out the method of claim 1 ([0020]-[0021] discloses a computer (i.e. an apparatus) including machine readable storage medium that may be flash memory, a general-purpose or special-purpose processor, and executable instructions such as computer programming code stored in the machine readable storage medium that can be executed by the processor to cause the processor to perform the embodiments of the inventions disclosed including the methods of claim 1 as disclosed above.).
Regarding claim 32, Chechani discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor of a computer, causes the processor to carry out the method of claim 1 ([0020]-[0021] discloses a machine readable storage medium and executable instructions such as computer programming code stored in the machine readable storage medium that can be executed by a processor, that may be part of a computer, to cause the processor to perform the embodiments of the inventions disclosed including the methods of claim 1 as disclosed above.).
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.
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 4, 6, 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chechani et al. (US 2016/0373942)(herein after “Chechani”), as applied to claim 1, in view of Zhuang et al. (US 2015/0208246)(herein after “Zhuang”).
Regarding claim 4, Chechani discloses the method of claim 1.
Chechani discloses generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic ([0048]-[0051] discloses that the AC may monitor traffic going through APs and determine there is congestion at a specific AP location and send a dispatch command to a moveable AP to instruct the moveable AP to deploy to the AP location experiencing congestion.).
Chechani fails to disclose but Zhuang teaches wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining a regional traffic distribution according to the BS information in an area ([0012] discloses a control device of a network obtaining service distribution in a first area and service distribution in a second area (i.e. regional traffic distribution) for each base station in the network.); and
wherein traffic for generating the scheduling instruction is a regional traffic distribution ([0012] discloses that service distribution (i.e. traffic distribution) in a network may be collected by a control device in a first area and separately in a second area (i.e. regional traffic distribution) for each base station in the network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, and generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic, as disclosed by Chechani, wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining a regional traffic distribution according to the BS information in an area; and wherein traffic for generating the scheduling instruction is a regional traffic distribution, as taught by Zhuang. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to monitor traffic distribution information in different regional areas covered by different access points (APs), and if congestion is detected in a specific regional area covered by a specific AP based on the traffic distribution in the specific regional area, then the AC can schedule a moveable base station to address the congestion issue by sending a dispatch command instructing the moveable base station to the regional area of the AP experiencing congestion in order to provide additional capacity to reduce congestion in the regional area of the AP experiencing congestion.
Regarding claim 6, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 4.
Chechani discloses wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic comprises: obtaining a traffic change trend according to history data of traffic, wherein the traffic change trend is predicted according to the history data of the traffic (Fig 3 & [0038] discloses that network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, may monitor the trend of network traffic going through the APs of a wireless network (i.e. history information), and if the traffic is increasing fast (i.e. traffic trend is changing towards traffic increasing), then network status monitor 306 may predict that network congestion may occur.); and
generating the scheduling instruction according to the traffic change trend (Fig 3 & [0038] disclose that dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may deploy (i.e. send a dispatch command to) a moveable AP to the location of a specific AP experiencing congestion, based on network status monitor 306 determining there is congestion at the location of the specific AP, to increase WiFi service at the location of the specific AP experiencing congestion.); or
generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information ([0048]-[0051] discloses that the AC may monitor traffic going through APs and determine there is congestion at a specific AP location and send a dispatch command to a moveable AP to instruct the moveable AP to deploy to the AP location experiencing congestion.).
Chechani fails to disclose but Zhuang teaches wherein traffic for obtaining a traffic change trend according to history data is a regional traffic distribution ([0012] discloses that service distribution (i.e. traffic distribution) in a network may be collected by a control device in a first area and separately in a second area (i.e. regional traffic distribution) for each base station in the network.); or
Generating the scheduling instruction according to the regional traffic distribution comprises:
obtaining the first area and the second area according to the regional traffic distribution ([0012] discloses a control device of a network obtaining service distribution in a first area and service distribution in a second area (i.e. regional traffic distribution) for each base station in the network.); and
wherein traffic information is of the first area and of the second area ([0012] discloses that service distribution (i.e. traffic information) in a network may be collected by a control device in a first area and separately in a second area (i.e. regional traffic distribution) for each base station in the network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 4, wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic comprises: obtaining a traffic change trend according to history data of traffic, wherein the traffic change trend is predicted according to the history data of the traffic; and generating the scheduling instruction according to the traffic change trend; or generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Zhuang, wherein traffic for obtaining a traffic change trend according to history data is a regional traffic distribution; or generating the scheduling instruction according to the regional traffic distribution comprises: obtaining the first area and the second area according to the regional traffic distribution; and wherein traffic information is of the first area and of the second area, as taught by Zhuang. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to: monitor traffic trend information based on traffic distribution information in different regional areas covered by different access points (APs), and if congestion is predicted in a specific regional area covered by a specific AP based on the traffic trend information in the specific regional area, then the AC can schedule a moveable base station to address the predicted congestion by sending a dispatch command instructing the moveable base station to the regional area of the AP predicted to experience congestion in order to provide additional capacity to reduce the predicted congestion in the regional area of the AP predicted to experience congestion; or monitor traffic distribution information in a first regional area covered by a moveable AP, and traffic distribution information in a second regional area covered by a second AP, and if congestion is detected in the second regional area covered by the second AP based on the traffic distribution in second regional area, and very little to no traffic is detected in the first regional area covered by the moveable AP based on the traffic distribution information in the first regional area, then the AC can schedule the moveable base station to address the congestion in the second regional area by sending a dispatch command instructing the moveable base station to move from the first regional area to the second regional area of the AP experiencing congestion in order to provide additional capacity to reduce congestion in the second regional area of the AP experiencing congestion.
Regarding claim 9, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 7.
Chechani discloses generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information ([0048]-[0051] discloses that the AC may monitor traffic going through APs and determine there is congestion at a specific AP location and send a dispatch command to a moveable AP to instruct the moveable AP to deploy to the AP location experiencing congestion.).
Chechani fails to disclose but Zhuang teaches wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the traffic information of the first area and the traffic information of the second area comprises: obtaining first scheduling information according to the traffic information of the first area, and obtaining second scheduling information according to the traffic information of the second area ([0012] discloses a control device of a network obtaining service distribution in a first area (i.e. first scheduling information) and service distribution in a second area (i.e. second scheduling information) for each base station in the network.); and
wherein traffic information is first scheduling information and the second scheduling information ([0012] discloses that service distribution (i.e. traffic information) in a network may be collected by a control device in a first area (i.e. first scheduling information) and separately in a second area (i.e. second scheduling information) for each base station in the network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 7, and generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Zhuang, wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the traffic information of the first area and the traffic information of the second area comprises: obtaining first scheduling information according to the traffic information of the first area, and obtaining second scheduling information according to the traffic information of the second area; and wherein traffic information is first scheduling information and the second scheduling information, as taught by Zhuang. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to obtain first scheduling information by monitoring traffic distribution information in a first regional area covered by a moveable AP, and obtain second scheduling information by monitoring traffic distribution information in a second regional area covered by a second AP, and if congestion is detected in the second regional area covered by the second AP based on the second scheduling information, and very little to no traffic is detected in the first regional area covered by the moveable AP based on the first scheduling information, then the AC can schedule the moveable base station to address the congestion in the second regional area by sending a dispatch command instructing the moveable base station to move from the first regional area to the second regional area of the AP experiencing congestion in order to provide additional capacity to reduce congestion in the second regional area of the AP experiencing congestion.
Regarding claim 10, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 9.
Chechani discloses wherein: the first scheduling information comprises at least one of:
quantity information of at least one idle BS (Fig 3 & [0035]-[0037] disclose a moveable AP list 305, as part of AC 300, that records the identification of each moveable AP and position of each moveable AP, and a moveable AP management module 304, as part of AC 300, that manages the moveable AP list 305 as moveable APs move around. Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that a dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may instruct a moveable AP to move from its location identified in moveable AP list 305. [0029] discloses that the AC may instruct one or more moveable APs to move from their locations identified in moveable AP list 305. Thus, a dispatch command from AC 300 may include instructions (i.e. first scheduling information) for multiple moveable APs (i.e. quantity information) to move from their locations identified in moveable AP list 305.);
location information of the at least one idle BS (Fig 3 & [0035]-[0039] disclose that the moveable AP list 305 records position of each moveable AP and that dispatch command module 307 may instruct a moveable AP to move from its location identified in moveable AP list 305. [0029] discloses that the AC may instruct one or more moveable APs to move from their locations identified in moveable AP list 305. Thus, a dispatch command from AC 300 may include instructions (i.e. first scheduling information) for multiple moveable APs to move from their locations (i.e. location information) identified in moveable AP list 305.); or
idle time information of the at least one idle BS (optional); and
the second scheduling information comprises at least one of:
quantity information of at least one immigrating BS (Fig 3 & [0038] disclose a network status monitor 306, as part of AC 300, that monitors network traffic for each fixed AP of a wireless network and predicts when congestion may occur at a fixed AP. Fig 3 & [0039] disclose that a dispatch command module 307, as part of AC 300, may instruct a moveable AP to move to a location identified by network status monitor 306 where an AP is experiencing congestion. [0029] discloses that the AC may instruct one or more moveable APs to move to the location of the AP experiencing congestion. Thus, a dispatch command from AC 300 may include instructions (i.e. second scheduling information) for multiple moveable APs (i.e. quantity information) to move to the location, identified by network status monitor 306, where the AP is experiencing congestion.);
location information of the at least one immigrating BS (Fig 3 & [0035]-[0037] disclose that the moveable AP list 305 records position of each moveable AP and that moveable AP management module 304, as part of AC 300, that manages the moveable AP list 305 as moveable APs move around (i.e. updates locations of moveable APs as they move). Fig 3 & [0037]-[0038] disclose that dispatch command module 307 may instruct a moveable AP to move to a location where a fixed AP is experiencing congestion. [0029] discloses that the AC may instruct one or more moveable APs to move to the location of the AP experiencing congestion. Thus, a dispatch command from AC 300 may include instructions (i.e. second scheduling information) for multiple moveable APs to move from their current locations (i.e. location information), identified in moveable AP list 305, to the location where the fixed AP is experiencing congestion.); or
time information of the at least one immigrating BS (optional).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chechani et al. (US 2016/0373942)(herein after “Chechani”) and Zhuang et al. (US 2015/0208246)(herein after “Zhuang”), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of He et al. (WO 2022/021349)(herein after “He”).
Regarding claim 8, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 7.
Chechani fails to disclose but He further teaches wherein:
the first area comprises a traffic idle area ([0013] discloses a power-constrained environment (i.e. a traffic idle area) where a number of users in a coverage area is less than a threshold.);
the second area comprises a traffic warning area ([0013] discloses an interference-restricted environment (i.e. a traffic warning area) where a number of users in a coverage area is greater than a threshold.); and
the traffic idle area is an area in which a number of users accessing BS in the area is less than a first idle threshold ([0013] discloses that a power-constrained environment (i.e. a traffic idle area) is an environment where a number of users in a coverage area is less than a threshold.) or an area in which BS uplink and downlink traffic in the area is less than a second idle threshold (optional); and
the traffic warning area is an area in which the number of users accessing BS in the area is greater than a third warning threshold ([0013] discloses that an interference-limited environment (i.e. a traffic warning area) is an environment where a number of users in a coverage area is greater than a threshold.) or an area in which the BS uplink and downlink traffic in the area is greater than a fourth warning threshold (optional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 7, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Zhuang, wherein the first area comprises a traffic idle area; the second area comprises a traffic warning area; and the traffic idle area is an area in which a number of users accessing BS in the area is less than a first idle threshold; and the traffic warning area is an area in which the number of users accessing BS in the area is greater than a third warning threshold, as further taught by He. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to identify a first area, covered by a moveable AP, as a power-constrained, idle traffic area, based on monitoring and determining that a number of users in the first area is below a threshold, and identify a second area, covered by a second AP, as an interference limited, warning traffic area, based on monitoring and determining that a number of users in the second area is above a threshold, so the AC can schedule the moveable base station to support more users in the second regional area by sending a dispatch command instructing the moveable base station to move from the first regional area to the second regional area in order to provide additional capacity for additional users in the second regional area.
Claims 11, 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chechani et al. (US 2016/0373942)(herein after “Chechani”) and Zhuang et al. (US 2015/0208246)(herein after “Zhuang”), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 112702713)(herein after “Li”).
Regarding claim 11, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 7.
Chechani discloses generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information ([0048]-[0051] discloses that the AC may monitor traffic going through APs and determine there is congestion at a specific AP location and send a dispatch command to a moveable AP to instruct the moveable AP to deploy to the AP location experiencing congestion.).
Chechani fails to disclose but Li further teaches wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information of the first area and traffic information of the second area comprises: obtaining BS scheduling matching information according to the traffic information of the first area and the traffic information of the second area ([n0008]-[n0011] & [n0018]-[n0019] discloses constructing a matching model between drones, acting as a mobile base station, and a user based on bandwidth requests (i.e. traffic information of the second area) by users and bandwidth available (i.e. traffic information of the first area) by the unmanned aerial vehicle.); and
wherein the BS information for generating the scheduling instruction is BS scheduling matching information ([n0057]-[n0069]] discloses drones, acting as a mobile base station, directed to move position and change velocity based on a matching model between the drones and users.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 7, and generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Zhuang, wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to traffic information of the first area and traffic information of the second area comprises: obtaining BS scheduling matching information according to the traffic information of the first area and the traffic information of the second area; and wherein the BS information for generating the scheduling instruction is BS scheduling matching information, as further taught by Li. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to monitor traffic distribution information in a first regional area covered by a moveable AP, and traffic distribution information in a second regional area covered by a second AP, and if congestion is detected in the second regional area covered by the second AP based on the traffic distribution in second regional area, and very little to no traffic is detected in the first regional area covered by the moveable AP based on the traffic distribution information in the first regional area, then the AC can schedule the moveable base station to address the congestion in the second regional area by sending a dispatch command based on a matching model instructing the moveable base station to move in a specific direction in order to jointly optimize the moveable base station’s movements with reducing congestion in the second region.
Regarding claim 13, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 12.
Chechani discloses generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information ([0048]-[0051] disclose that the AC may monitor traffic going through APs and determine there is congestion at a specific AP location and send a dispatch command to a moveable AP to instruct the moveable AP to deploy to the AP location experiencing congestion.).
Chechani fails to disclose but Li further teaches wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining BS scheduling matching information according to the BS information and the route information ([n0008]-[n0011], [n0018]-[n0019] & [n0106] disclose constructing a matching model between drones, acting as a mobile base station, and a user based on bandwidth requests by users and bandwidth available (i.e. BS information) by the unmanned aerial vehicle and urban environment parameters (i.e. route information).); and
wherein the BS information is BS scheduling matching information ([n0057]-[n0069]] discloses drones, acting as a mobile base station, directed to move position and change velocity based on a matching model between the drones and users.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 12, and generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Zhuang, wherein generating the scheduling instruction according to the BS information comprises: obtaining BS scheduling matching information according to the BS information and the route information; and wherein the BS information is BS scheduling matching information, as further taught by Li. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to monitor traffic distribution information in a first area covered by a moveable AP, and traffic distribution information in a second area covered by a second AP, and if congestion is detected in the second regional area covered by the second AP based on the traffic distribution in second regional area, and very little to no traffic is detected in the first regional area covered by the moveable AP based on the traffic distribution information in the first regional area, then the AC can schedule the moveable base station to address the congestion in the second regional area by sending a dispatch command based on a matching model that, using the traffic distribution information and environmental routing information, instructs the moveable base station to move in a specific direction in order to jointly optimize the moveable base station’s movements avoiding objects in the environment with reducing congestion in the second region.
Regarding claim 14, Chechani in view of Zhuang disclose the method of claim 9.
Chechani fails to disclose but Yu further teaches wherein the first scheduling information further comprises at least one of idle degree information of idle BS ([0048] discloses a scheduler management module 106 that determines a schedule to drive a passive mobile base station based on scheduler state information (i.e. scheduling information) that includes running speed and running direction (i.e. idle degree information).);
predicted traffic information of idle area ([0048] discloses that the scheduler state information includes load (i.e. predicted traffic information).);
current uplink and downlink traffic of idle BS (optional); or
maximum uplink and downlink traffic of idle BS (optional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 9, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Zhuang, wherein the first scheduling information further comprises at least one of idle degree information of idle BS; predicted traffic information of idle area; current uplink and downlink traffic of idle BS; or maximum uplink and downlink traffic of idle BS, as further taught by Yu. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for an access point controller (AC) to obtain first scheduling information by monitoring traffic distribution information in a first regional area covered by a moveable AP, and obtain second scheduling information by monitoring traffic distribution information in a second regional area covered by a second AP, and if congestion is detected in the second regional area covered by the second AP based on the second scheduling information, and very little to no traffic is predicted in the first regional area covered by the moveable AP that is at very low to zero running speed based on the first scheduling information, then the AC can schedule the moveable base station to address the congestion in the second regional area by sending a dispatch command instructing the moveable base station to move from the first regional area to the second regional area of the AP experiencing congestion in order to provide additional capacity to reduce congestion in the second regional area of the AP experiencing congestion without sacrificing significant traffic in the first regional area.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chechani et al. (US 2016/0373942)(herein after “Chechani”), as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Clarke et al. (US 7286503)(herein after “Clarke”) and Yong et al. (US 2019/0031346)(herein after “Yong”) and Mildh et al. (US 2023/0292204)(herein after “Mildh”).
Regarding claim 21, Chechani discloses the method of claim 17.
Chechani discloses after receiving the scheduling instruction, the method further comprising: activating a flight module (Fig 2 & [0030] disclose that moveable AP 260 may be a drone that activates auto-pilot and flies an integrated AP to the destination instructed by AC 230.); and
migrating from the first area to the second area according to the scheduling instruction further comprises: enabling a wireless access service (Fig 2 & [0030] disclose that when moveable AP 260 arrives at the destination, moveable AP 260 may begin to provide WiFi services to clients.).
Chechani fails to disclose but Clarke teaches disabling a wireless access service (Col 2, lines 17-34 disclose disabling a moveable base station transceiver (i.e. disabling wireless access service) in order to avoid interference with fixed base transceiver stations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 17, and after receiving the scheduling instruction, the method further comprising: activating a flight module; and migrating from the first area to the second area according to the scheduling instruction further comprises: enabling a wireless access service, as disclosed by Chechani, and disabling a wireless access service, as taught by Clarke. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for disabling a transceiver and wireless service of a moveable AP, prior to having the moveable AP move to a destination so that the moveable AP does not interfere with fixed APs enroute to the moveable APs destination.
Chechani fails to disclose but Yong further teaches sending an alert ([0141] discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sending an alert to a UAV pilot and agent when the UAV is in the vicinity of a target (i.e. arrived at its destination).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 17, and after receiving the scheduling instruction, the method further comprising: activating a flight module; and migrating from the first area to the second area according to the scheduling instruction further comprises: enabling a wireless access service, as disclosed by Chechani, and sending an alert, as taught by Yong. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for a moveable AP to send an alert to an Access Controller (AC) indicating that the moveable AP is in the vicinity of its destination so that the AC knows that the moveable AP has completed its mission to move to an area near where there is a congested fixed AP so that the AC can instruct the moveable AP to begin providing wireless service to relieve the congestion in the area of the congested fixed AP.
Chechani fails to disclose but Mildh further teaches wherein an alert is a migration complete message ([0031] discloses an IAB node sending a migration complete message indicating (i.e. alerting) that a control plane connection has been migrated to a second radio network equipment.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 17, and after receiving the scheduling instruction, the method further comprising: activating a flight module; and migrating from the first area to the second area according to the scheduling instruction further comprises: enabling a wireless access service, and sending an alert, as disclosed by Chechani in view of Yong, wherein an alert is a migration complete message, as taught by Mildh. The motivation to do so would have been to have a method for a moveable AP to send an alert in the form of a migration complete message to an Access Controller (AC) indicating that the moveable AP is in the vicinity of its destination so that the AC knows that the moveable AP has completed its mission to move to an area near where there is a congested fixed AP so that the AC can instruct the moveable AP to begin providing wireless service to relieve the congestion in the area of the congested fixed AP.
Conclusion
The prior following art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ramamurthy et al. (US 10178643) discloses Signal Power Pattern-Based Location Detection and Cell Placement.
Wang et al. (US 2016/0007232) discloses a Flexible Configuration of Uplink and Downlink Ratio by Exchanging Information Using an X2 Interface. (related to optional limitations of claims 2 & 14)
Ko et al. (US 2023/0370939) discloses a Method for Configuring UAV Network by Utilizing Multimodal Sensor Information. (related to optional limitations of claim 12)
Song et al. (CN 105027605) discloses Alien System Measuring Method, Terminal and Network Equipment. (related to optional limitations of claim 10)
Anthony et al. (US 2013/0070619) discloses Maintenance of High-Speed Channels by Inserting Channel Maintenance Data in a Mobile Data Network to Avoid Channel Type Switching. (related to optional limitations of claim 8)
Liu et al. (US 2025/0024309) discloses Application Assisted Uplink Data Stall Detection and Mitigation. (related to optional limitations of claim 8)
Ankel et al. (US 2010/0240383) discloses Enhanced UL Rate Violation Detection. (related to optional limitations of claim 14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights