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 Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-5, claim limitations “ non-terrestrial link control means, terrestrial resource control means, non-terrestrial link control means, non-terrestrial link control unit, , terrestrial resource control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” or “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-5 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: (see Figs. 2-4, specification para [0048]-[0085]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the communication terminal” in line 11. It is unclear as to whether “the communication terminal” in lines 11 is related to the “one or more communication terminals” in line 6. Similar issues exist in claims 5 and 6.
Claim 3, recites “determines a priority order of controlling communication of the communication terminal”. It is unclear what is being placed in priority order. Applicant specification ([0090] indicates priory order among a plurality of communication terminals based on the priority associated with each terminal. The claim, however, does not require a plurality of terminals and does not clearly state that the terminals are being prioritized.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC§ 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (US 2022/0039026 A1) in view of Kang et al(US 2015/0188644 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 6, Sharma ‘026 teaches, a communication control system ([0028], [0033], [0034] and Fig. 3, telecommunication system configured to support communicans between terminal devices and network access nodes) comprising:
non-terrestrial link control means that controls non-terrestrial communication between a non-terrestrial node group including a non-terrestrial communication station and a terrestrial node group including a terrestrial communication station([0028], [0033], [0053] and Fig. 3, the system 500 includes a non-terrestrial network(NTN) access node equipped with controller circuitry that manage non-terrestrial radio communications via spot beams. This node communicates directly with ground-based entities such as terminal devices and terrestrial network access nodes); and terrestrial resource control means that controls terrestrial communication between the terrestrial node group and one or more communication terminals ([0028]. [0033]. [0051] and Fig. 3, a terrestrial network access node containing a dedicated controller is disclosed to connect to the core network and serve terminal devices, which functions as the terrestrial resource control means managing terrestrial-level radio communications),
wherein: the non-terrestrial link control means calculates a non-terrestrial link parameter for controlling the non-terrestrial communication based on monitoring information relating to at least one communication environment among the non-terrestrial node group, the terrestrial node group, and the communication terminal([0053],[0058] [0077], [0078] and Figs. 4-5, the non-terrestrial base station and terminal device model the channel state by estimating environmental conditions like path loss and SINR which constitutes monitoring information. Based on this model, a link adaptation procedure calculates and selects revised communications parameters such as transmission power and modulation schemes, for the space to ground link).
Sharma ‘026 does not explicitly teach, the terrestrial resource control means calculates a terrestrial link parameter for controlling the terrestrial communication based on the monitoring information and the non-terrestrial link parameter calculated by the non-terrestrial link control means.
Kang ‘644 teaches, the terrestrial resource control means calculates a terrestrial link parameter for controlling the terrestrial communication based on the monitoring information and the non-terrestrial link parameter calculated by the non-terrestrial link control means([0018], [0066], [0068] and Figs. 7-8, terrestrial base station determines eh frequency resource allocated to an adjacent satellite beam and allocates different or lower priory frequency resources to terrestrial terminal based on that satellite allocation , location relative to the satellite-beam boundary, interference considerations and terrestrial resource demand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Sharma ‘026, by incorporating the teaching of Kang ‘644, since such modification would provide a method/apparatus for mitigating satellite downlink interference in a satellite and terrestrial integrated network, as suggested by Kang ‘644([0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sharma ‘026 and Kang ‘644 teaches all of the claim limitations above, Kang ‘644 further teaches, wherein the non-terrestrial link control means calculates the non-terrestrial link parameter based on request information relating to a request for communication and the monitoring information([0059]-[0061] and Fig. 6, the satellite monitors a communication request from satellite terminal 101, detects the terminal’s location identifies its satellite-beam sector, and allocates a frequency resource block accordingly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Sharma ‘026, by incorporating the teaching of Kang ‘644, since such modification would provide a method/apparatus for mitigating satellite downlink interference in a satellite and terrestrial integrated network, as suggested by Kang ‘644([0003]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma ‘026 and Kang ‘644 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Matsuda(US 2024/0349141 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sharma ‘026 and Kang ‘644 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the non-terrestrial link control means determines a priority order of controlling communication of the communication terminal based on the request information, and calculates the non-terrestrial link parameter based on the determined priority order and the monitoring information.
Matsuda ‘141 teaches, wherein the non-terrestrial link control means determines a priority order of controlling communication of the communication terminal based on the request information ([0276], [0278] and Fig. 13, the satellite base station receives determination information (request information), such as terminal attributes or the type of data to be transmitted, directly from the terminal device. Using this information, the base station determines whether the terminal or data is classified as important(high-priority) or unimportant (low priority)), and calculates the non-terrestrial link parameter based on the determined priority order and the monitoring information ([0154], [0275], [0276] and Fig. 12, the satellite base station evaluates measurement reports (monitoring information) and the assigned priory level to calculate and allocate handover link parameters. It allocates contention free handover parameters for high-priory terminal and contention-based parameters for low priority terminals to control how the space-to-ground link is established).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Sharma ‘026, by incorporating the teaching of Matsuda ‘141, since such modification would provide a configuration capable of more efficiently performing communication in a short time, as suggested by Matsuda ‘141([0007]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma ‘026 and Kang ‘644 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Natarajan et al(US 2012/0263042 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sharma ‘026 and Kang ‘644 teaches all of the claim limitations except, further comprising; non-terrestrial network control means that controls non-terrestrial network communication between the non-terrestrial node groups, wherein: the non-terrestrial network control means calculates a network link parameter for controlling non-terrestrial network communication based on the monitoring information and the non-terrestrial link control means calculates the non-terrestrial link parameter based on the monitoring information and the network link parameter calculated by the non-terrestrial network control means.
Natarajan ‘042 teaches, non-terrestrial network control means that controls non-terrestrial network communication between the non-terrestrial node groups([0004], [0028], [0035]-[0041] and Fig. 1, a system where a LEO satellites are interconnected via inter-satellite links(crosslinks) to route traffic over multiple satellites. A network operations center and distributed satellite payloads act as the network control means by managing resources and dynamically routing packets across these intersatellite connections), wherein: the non-terrestrial network control means calculates a network link parameter for controlling non-terrestrial network communication based on the monitoring information( [0031], [0014], [0033]-[0042] and Fig. 2, the system calculates data forwarding rules that specify an ordered sequence of preferred output ports network link parameters to route traffic across the satellite crosslink. The satellite payloads dynamically reroute packets across these ports based on real-time monitoring information regarding the failure or congestion status of those crosslinks), and
the non-terrestrial link control means calculates the non-terrestrial link parameter based on the monitoring information and the network link parameter calculated by the non-terrestrial network control means([0033]-[0042] and Figs. 1-2, 7, a forwarding rule controls how a packet received on a crosslink or uplink is forwarded to another crosslink or downlink the rule contains an ordered sequence of preferred crosslink/downlink output ports selected according to failure and congestion. Thus, the calculated end-to-end satellite route directly determines which downlink/output port is used to reach the ground terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Sharma ‘026, by incorporating the teaching of Natarajan ‘042, since such modification would enable a network operations center on the ground that receives requests from users of the satellite network to establish communication sessions between two or more ground terminals with specific bandwidth, priority, and duration and generates network routes for the requested sessions, as suggested by Natarajan ‘042 ([0010]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights