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 Objections
Claims 5-9, 15-16, 18-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claim 5, please define the acronyms ‘ATG’ and ‘IMT’.
In independent claim 9, please define the acronyms ‘ATG’ and ‘IMT’.
Claims 15, 16, 21 and 24, and associated dependents are objected to as they incorporate the above noted claims 5 and 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a plurality of second ATG base stations " in line 14. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation in lines 3-4. [suggested amendment, ‘the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each second ATG base station" in line 20. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation in lines 3-4. [suggested amendment, ‘each of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 2 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in line 6. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 2 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in line 10. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 2 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in lines 5-6 and again in lines 9-10, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 2 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " for each second ATG base station [each respective second ATG base station of the plurality of second ATG base stations] within the communication range, obtain a width of a transmit beam of an ATG terminal antenna corresponding to the second ATG base station [each of the respective second ATG base stations]; calculate the coverage area of the uplink signal from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station [each of the respective second ATG base stations] according to the width of the transmit beam of the ATG terminal antenna;". There is again antecedent confusion created by the limitations referencing the second base stations, as highlighted. Suggested amendments are provided in the brackets.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " a plurality of second ATG base stations " in line 12. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation in lines 4-5. [suggested amendment, ‘the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 5 recites the limitation "each second ATG base station" in line 19. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation in lines 4-5. [suggested amendment, ‘each of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 6 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in line 8. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 6 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in line 12. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 6 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in lines 7-8 and again in lines 11-12, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 6 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " for each second ATG base station [each respective second ATG base station of the plurality of second ATG base stations] within the communication range, obtaining a width of a transmit beam of an ATG terminal antenna corresponding to the second ATG base station [each of the respective second ATG base stations]; calculating the coverage area of the uplink signal from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station [each of the respective second ATG base stations] according to the width of the transmit beam of the ATG terminal antenna;". There is again antecedent confusion created by the limitations referencing the second base stations, as highlighted. Suggested amendments are provided in the brackets.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " a plurality of second ATG base stations " in line 13. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation in lines 4-5. [suggested amendment, ‘the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each second ATG base station" in line 23-24. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation in lines 4-5. [suggested amendment, ‘each of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 15 incorporates claim 5 and is rejected for the above noted issues related to claim 5
Claim 16 incorporates claim 5 and is rejected for the above noted issues related to claim 5
Claim 21 incorporates claim 9 and is rejected for the above noted issues related to claim 9
Claim 24 incorporates claim 9 and is rejected for the above noted issues related to claim 9
Claim 19 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 4-5. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 19 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 7-8. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 19 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in line 4 and again in line 7, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 19 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 6-7. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 20 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 9-10. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 20 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in line 6 and again in line 9, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 20 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 4-5. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 22 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 7-8. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 22 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in line 4 and again in line 7, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 22 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 6-7. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 23 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 9-10. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 23 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in line 6 and again in line 9, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 23 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 4-5. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 25 recites the limitation "quantity of second ATG bases stations" in lines 7-8. This limitation creates antecedent confusion with the previously established ‘a plurality of second ATG base stations’ limitation. [suggested amendment, ‘quantity of the plurality of second ATG base stations’]
Claim 25 recites ‘a preset quantity’ in line 4 and again in line 7, which creates antecedent confusion. The second recitation should be ‘the preset quantity’ of the two values clearly defined as different values.
Claim 25 recites ‘from the ATG terminal to the second ATG base station’ in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second bases stations are referred to as a plurality so the recitation as singular creates antecedent confusion.
The term “a best signal quality” in claims 2, 6, 19-20, 22, 23 and 25; is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The concept of a ‘best’ quality is ambiguous in scope. The idea of ‘best’ is subjective and open to design interpretation. Specifically, the disclosure does not limit or equate ‘best’ to ‘highest’ (or another defined value), and as such the scope of this limitation is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 15-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 1, 5, 9, 15, 16, 21 and 24; the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specifics of the IMT base stations determinations and considerations given in the target station determinations for use in the handover processing.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art is relevant to the scope of the claimed limitations but fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims
Tang (US Pub 20200068423) and Hong (US Pub 20200169928)
The above noted references are relevant to designs in aviation related communication handover procedures but fail to disclose the specifics of the IMT base stations considerations given in the target station determinations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights