DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 12/9/2024. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of PCT/JP2022/025629, filed 6/27/2022. The assignee of record is NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION. The listed inventor(s) is/are: FUKUSHIMA, Takeru; SASAKI, Motoharu; NAKAHIRA, Toshiro; MURAYAMA, Daisuke; MORIYAMA, Takatsune.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note- regarding “close” position and moving speed
Applicant Specification ¶ 0055 The "close position" means that, for example, a distance between the position of the new contract UE (position measured in S101) and the position of the another UE (position at the time of making a contract acquired from the distributed management ledger) is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold.
Applicant Specification ¶ 0057 The "close moving direction" means that, for example, an absolute value of a difference between the moving direction of the new contract UE (moving direction measured in S101) and the moving direction of the another UE (moving direction at the time of making a contract acquired from the distributed management ledger) is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims provided that all other rejections under 35 USC 101/112 (if any) are obviated upon upcoming amendments/arguments without raising new issues that necessitate further consideration/search.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (Practical Modeling and Analysis of Blockchain Radio Access Network, Xintong Ling, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 69, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2021; hereinafter Lin) in view of Otaka et al. (US 20210176721 A1, published 6/10/2021; hereinafter Ota).
For Claim 1, Lin teaches a wireless communication system configured to perform connection control using a blockchain, the wireless communication system comprising (Please see screenshot of Lin Fig. 1 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
574
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); a base station apparatus (Lin Fig. 1-2); and a device configured to establish a contract for connection to the base station apparatus, wherein the base station apparatus includes circuitry configured to (Lin Section II the user equipment and service provider enter a service level agreement recorded in a smart contract. Please see screenshot of Lin section II followed by Lin Fig. 2 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image2.png
652
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
):
Lin does not explicitly teach calculate a predicted value of communication quality that is to be provided to the device, based on information obtained by measurement of the device, and present the predicted value to the device.
However, Ota teaches calculate a predicted value of communication quality that is to be provided to the device, based on information obtained by measurement of the device (Ota ¶ 0042 when the terminal apparatus is connected to and communicating with the base station, the base station notifies the terminal apparatus of the amount of a predicted communication delay that is “predicted” based on past actual measured values), and
present the predicted value to the device (Ota ¶ 0044 BS transmits numerical delay information to the device).
Ota and Lin are analogous art because they are both related to selecting/providing wireless connections.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the prediction tecnhiques of Ota with the system of Lin because by notifying the terminal apparatus of the information on the actual measured communication delay in this way, in one example, the terminal apparatus may not establish a connection with the base station having a large value of actual measured communication delay. In other words, the terminal apparatus narrows the base stations which are candidates for a handover destination to the base stations notifying the value of the actual measured communication delay to the extent that remote operation can be carried out, for example, based on information regularly broadcast from surrounding base stations. Then, a base station of sufficient wireless quality and easy to secure wireless resources, for example, is selected from the narrowed base stations, as the base station of the handover destination of the terminal apparatus (Ota ¶ 0047).
For Claim(s) 5-6, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20200008044 A1, MULTI-ACCESS EDGE COMPUTING SERVICE FOR MOBILE USER EQUIPMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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 A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights