DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takekawa et al (2025/0097807).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Takekawa discloses a method and a communication device (see terminal 10 in figures 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10) comprising: circuitry configured to use a first radio communication scheme for a radio communication (see a communication scheme for the first wireless network in paragraph 0052); and in a case where a quality of the radio communication using the first radio communication scheme satisfies a condition (see a period during which the communication quality of the first wireless network deteriorates in paragraph 0049), use a prediction model of an application's action related to the radio communication to predict a second radio communication scheme desired by the application (see The switching means 105 switches the wireless network being connected, based on the predicted period during which the communication quality of the first wireless network deteriorates. Specifically, the switching means 105 performs an operation of switching the first wireless network to the second wireless network in a case where the degree of deterioration in the communication quality of the first wireless network is larger than a predetermined threshold and the deterioration period is longer than a predetermined threshold in paragraph 0046), wherein the prediction model is a learning model generated based on at least one of an action parameter related to the radio communication of the application and an environmental parameter related to the radio communication, and wherein the second radio communication scheme desired by the application is predicted at a time interval after the quality of the radio communication using the first radio communication scheme satisfies the condition (see quality model, prediction, learning, a time interval (period) in paragraphs 0002, 0004-0005, 0026, 0030-0031, 0046, 0049-0052, 0054). Note that all the limitations after “in a case” is optional. It is suggested to include the limitation such as: “determine a quality of the communication…” so that all limitations after “in a case” can be considered. However, the examiner still addresses these limitations for this office action.
Regarding claim 2, Takekawa discloses the application is a user (see The predicted change in the communication quality of the first wireless network can also be used to control an application program used in the moving body (vehicle V1) in paragraph 0031. Note that the vehicle is operated by a user).
Regarding claim 3, Takekawa discloses the application is software executing on the communication device and used by a user (see an application program in paragraph 0031 and a computer program product in paragraph 0008. Note that an application program is a software).
Regarding claim 4, Takekawa discloses the prediction model is a learning model generated based on both the action parameter and the environmental parameter (see a communication quality model generated by learning a relationship between the communication quality of the wireless communication and the terminal information in paragraph 0002; threshold in paragraphs 0046, 0050-0051. Note that a threshold is parameter).
Regarding claim 6, Takekawa discloses wherein the environmental parameter comprises at least one of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI); a parameter indicating the number of packets staying in the communication device; a parameter indicating a theoretical communication speed value and a frequency band that is used (see the moving speed of the moving body (vehicle V1) in paragraph 0029; the frequency band in paragraph 0052); a parameter related to battery consumption of the communication device; a parameter related to an importance of current traffic; and a parameter related to information related to a current location of the communication device.
Regarding claim 7, Takekawa discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: switch the radio communication from the first radio communication scheme to the second radio communication scheme based on a result of the prediction (see the switching means 105 performs an operation of switching the first wireless network to the second wireless network in paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 9, Takekawa discloses wherein the action parameter comprises at least one of: a parameter indicating a walking state of the user (see using the moving speed of the moving body in paragraph 0029), a parameter indicating an acceleration applied to the communication device, and a parameter indicating whether or not reconnection is implemented within a most recent predetermined time.
Regarding claim 12, Takekawa discloses the environmental parameter comprises a parameter indicating a communication speed of the radio communication (see the communication quality of the first wireless network continues to deteriorate may vary depending on the speed of the vehicle V1, the size of the blocking object, and the like in paragraph 0045).
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.
Claims 5, 8, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekawa in view of KARAPANTELAKIS et al (2024/0406776).
Regarding claim 5, Takekawa doesn't specifically disclose wherein the prediction model is a learning model generated by aggregating, by federated learning, a plurality of models generated based on at least one of the action parameter and the environmental parameter. However, KARAPANTELAKIS discloses these features (see using distributed ML such as for e.g., Federated Learning (FL) along with secure aggregation of the ML models in paragraph 0009; parameters like environmental in paragraph 0003; action in paragraphs 0068-0070). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 8, KARAPANTELAKIS discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: acquire at least one of the action parameter and the environmental parameter; and store data obtained by performing processing on the parameter in a storage unit as data for training for the learning model (see storing the operational parameters in paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 13, Takekawa discloses an information processing device comprising: circuitry configured to use a communication quality prediction to performs an operation of switching the first wireless network to the second wireless network in a case where the degree of deterioration in the communication quality of the first wireless network is larger than a predetermined threshold and the deterioration period is longer than a predetermined threshold (see paragraph 0046 and communication scheme in paragraph 0052). Takekawa doesn't specifically disclose the use of action parameter and the environmental parameter. However, these parameters are well known in the art. KARAPANTELAKIS discloses these features (see There are multiple affecting factors or parameters like environmental or climatic parameters in paragraphs 0003, 0046-0047, 0068-0070). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Note that all the limitations after “in a case” is optional. It is suggested to include the limitation such as: “determine a quality of the communication…” so that all limitations after “in a case” can be considered. However, the examiner still addresses these limitations for this office action.
Regarding claim 14, KARAPANTELAKIS discloses train the prediction model based on both the action parameter related to the radio communication of the application and the environmental parameter related to the radio communication (see train the prediction model in paragraphs 0048, 0056, 0063, 0068-0070).
Regarding claim 15, Takekawa discloses the circuitry is further configured to: train the prediction model at a time when the application expresses a preference to continue or not to continue with communication using the first radio communication scheme (see The predicting means 12 predicts a change in communication quality of a first wireless network used by the moving body for communication with the outside, based on the detected position and size of the blocking object. The change in communication quality predicted by the predicting means may be disconnection or instantaneous interruption of a radio link, or may be deterioration of a communication throughput, or deterioration of a delay time or a response time of communication in paragraphs 0026, 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 16, Takekawa discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: train the prediction model at a time when the application reconnects the radio communication using the first radio communication scheme after disconnection of the radio communication using the first radio communication scheme and continues to use the first radio communication scheme for a predetermined time or longer after the reconnection (see disconnection in paragraphs 0026, 0033, 0053 and use the first radio communication scheme for a predetermined time or longer in figure 7, steps S004-S006).
Regarding claim 17, Takekawa discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: after disconnection of the radio communication to an access point using the first radio communication scheme, train the prediction model at a time when the application reconnects to the access point and continues with the connection to the access point for a predetermined time or longer using the first radio communication scheme (see disconnection in paragraphs 0026, 0033, 0053 and use the first radio communication scheme for a predetermined time or longer in figure 7, steps S004-S006).
Regarding claim 18, Takekawa discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: train the prediction model at a time when the application turns off the radio communication using the first radio communication scheme (see the switching means 105 performs an operation of switching the first wireless network to the second wireless network in a case where the degree of deterioration in the communication quality of the first wireless network is larger than a predetermined threshold and the deterioration period is longer than a predetermined threshold in paragraph 0046. Note that when the communication is switch to the second network, the first network will be off).
Regarding claim 19, Takekawa discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: train the prediction model at a time when the application switches the radio communication from a first access point to a second access point (see network switching in paragraph 0046).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekawa in view of BENKREIRA et al (2023/0046813).
Regarding claim 10, Takekawa doesn't specifically disclose the action parameter comprises a parameter indicating the user's monthly cumulative data usage. However, BENKREIRA dis closes this feature (see the historical data 105 may include one or more sets of entries respectively associated with one or more series of recurring events. A recurring event may be an event that occurred on a recurring basis (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, semiannually, or annually, among other examples) in paragraph 0021). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 11, Takekawa doesn't specifically disclose the action parameter comprises at least one of: a name of the application; a throughput of communication used by the application; a communication volume of the communication used by the application; time of use of the application; communication quality information that the application requires in relation to the first radio communication scheme; presence or absence of playback of media comprised in the application; a right required by the application; the number of taps input by the user within a predetermined time in the application; a status of use of the application that is used by the user; information indicating whether the first radio communication scheme has been switched by the user or the application while the application is used; and a parameter based on classification of the application. However, BENKREIRA discloses this feature (see a communication volume of the communication used by the application; time of use of the application (a transaction time indicator, a transaction amount indicator in paragraphs 0029, 0033-0035, 0051)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights