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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/878763. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the copending application (18/878763) with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing claim 1 of pending application and claim 1 of copending application 18/878763:
Instant application claim 1
Copending Application No. 18/878763 claim 1
A radio communication system comprising:
A wireless communication system comprising:
one or more mobile wireless station devices configured to communicate with one or more terminal devices; and
a control apparatus including circuitry configured to:
one or more mobile wireless station devices that communicate with one or more terminal devices; and
a control device,
calculate, based on a position of each of the terminal devices, a plurality of candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices where communication with the terminal devices satisfies a required quality, and
from among the plurality of the candidate destination positions, select, as a destination position for movement control, either:
…calculates , on a basis of a prediction value of a position of each of the terminal devices, a movement destination position candidate of each of the mobile wireless station devices of which communication with the terminal device satisfies a required quality for each of a plurality of movements,
and selects, as a combination of movement destination positions for movement control,
(i) a first candidate destination position where a total sum of movement costs for the mobile wireless station devices to move from respective home positions to destinations is minimized, or
a combination that minimizes a sum of movement costs for the plurality of movements from an original position of each of the mobile wireless station devices from among a plurality of the combinations of the movement destination position candidates in the plurality of movements.
(ii) a second candidate destination position where a maximum value among movement costs for at least one of the one or more mobile wireless station devices to move from a home position to a destination is minimized.
*this limitation is not disclose in the co pending application claim 1, but is recited in the alternative and the other alternative has been shown.
Claim 2 is similarly rejected with claim 2 of copending application # 18/878763.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected with claim 3 of copending application # 18/878763.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected with claim 4 of copending application # 18/878763.
Claim 5 is similarly rejected with claim 5 of copending application # 18/878763.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected with claim 6 of copending application # 18/878763.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/571902 in view of Bhattarai et al. (Optimizing the Location Deployment of Dynamic Mobile Base Stations, Feb. 16, 2015, cited by applicant on IDS submitted 12/24/24, hereinafter Bhattarai). Take an example of claim 1 of pending application and claim 1 of copending application 18/571902:
Instant application claim 1
Copending Application No. 18/571902 claim 3 (i.e. Claims 1+3 as 3 is dependent on 1)
A radio communication system comprising:
(Claim 1) A communication system comprising:
one or more mobile wireless station devices configured to communicate with one or more terminal devices; and
a control apparatus including circuitry configured to:
(Claim 1) a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to work as a control server apparatus and a movable base station device, wherein the processor is configured, as the control server apparatus, to:
calculate, based on a position of each of the terminal devices, a plurality of candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices where communication with the terminal devices satisfies a required quality.
from among the plurality of the candidate destination positions, select, as a destination position for movement control, either:
(Claim 3) calculate a movement destination position of the movable base station device
(Claim 1) select, as a movement destination position of the movable base station device,
(i) a first candidate destination position where a total sum of movement costs for the mobile wireless station devices to move from respective home positions to destinations is minimized, or
(Claim 1) a position at which a movement distance from a current position of the movable base station device is minimum, among positions at which a base station position evaluation index is equal to or larger than a threshold
(ii) a second candidate destination position where a maximum value among movement costs for at least one of the one or more mobile wireless station devices to move from a home position to a destination is minimized.
*this limitation is not disclosed in the co pending application claim 1, but is recited in the alternative and the other alternative has been shown.
However, although copending application # 18/571902 claim 1 and 3 do not specifically recite calculating a plurality of candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices where communication with the terminal devices satisfies a required quality.
Bhattarai specifically teaches calculating a plurality of candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices where communication with the terminal devices satisfies a required quality (abstract and page 2, section 3.2, step 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the calculating a plurality of positions of Bhattarai into the system of copending application # 18/571902 claim 1 and 3. The motivation for doing so would have been to find low cost optimal relocation of mobile stations that reduces delay, jitter, etc. and improves quality. (Bhattarai abstract)
Claim 2 is similarly rejected with claim 3 of copending application # 18/571902.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected with claim 1+3 of copending application # 18/571902.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected with claim 3 of copending application # 18/571902.
Claim 5 is similarly rejected with claims 6+7 of copending application # 18/571902.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected with claim 8 of copending application # 18/571902.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhattarai et al. (Optimizing the Location Deployment of Dynamic Mobile Base Stations, Feb. 16, 2015, cited by applicant on IDS submitted 12/24/24, hereinafter Bhattarai).
Regarding claim 1, 3, 5, and 6. Bhatttarai teaches a radio communication system, apparatus, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (section 1, par. 1-2, dynamic deployable mobile base station. This inherently includes a system (i.e. controller and devices), an apparatus (i.e. controller or base station), method (i.e. dynamic deployment method), and CRM (i.e. required to store the disclosed algorithm and steps) comprising:
one or more mobile wireless station devices (section 1, 2nd paragraph; mobile base stations) configured to communicate with one or more terminal devices (section 3.2, section 4, Table 1, “users”); and
a control apparatus including circuitry (abstract) configured to:
calculate, based on a position of each of the terminal devices (abstract: optimizing location deployment of dynamic mobile base stations; section 1: optimize mobile base station locations…minimize distance traveled (i.e. moved from current position); section 4, 2nd paragraph: generate locations for placing the base stations relative to the users (i.e. terminal devices)), a plurality of candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices where communication with the terminal devices satisfies a required quality (abstract: optimizing location deployment of dynamic mobile base stations to meet quality of service requirements (QoS); section 3.2, par. 2 through 6 on 2nd page: steps 2 and 3 recite the calculation steps. Specifically, in step 2, generating candidate schedules for base station deployment that satisfies user demand…In all likelihood, we will generate multiple candidate schedules…Hence, we need a scheme to select the best available; section 4: see the QoS metrics used to determine deployment), and
from among the plurality of the candidate destination positions, select, as a destination position for movement control (section 3.2, step 4: selecting a schedule and moving the base stations), either:
(i) a first candidate destination position where a total sum of movement costs for the mobile wireless station devices to move from respective home positions to destinations is minimized (section 3.2, 2nd to last paragraph: method uses cost matrix and computes…optimal mapping…In this way, cost can be minimized; step 4: selecting a schedule and moving the base stations…we select the schedule where the total distance to move the base stations is minimized), or
(ii) a second candidate destination position where a maximum value among movement costs for at least one of the one or more mobile wireless station devices to move from a home position to a destination is minimized. (Examiners note: This claim limitation uses alternative language, “or”, and thus only one of the alternatives (i.e. first candidate OR second candidate limitation) need to be shown for the purposes of this rejection. Please see limitation above. It is suggested that applicant remove the alternative language to ensure all limitations are positively recited)
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattarai in view of Tomoki et al. (JP2019033435, cited by applicant on IDS and citations below are from applicant provided translation, hereinafter Tomoki).
Regarding claims 2 and 4. Bhattarai teaches the limitations of the previous claims 1 and 3 above.
However, although Bhattarai teaches relocating mobile base stations to optimize QoS and reduce delay, jitter, etc. for users (abstract). He does not specifically disclose wherein the circuitry of the control apparatus is configured to calculate the candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices by performing clustering of the terminal devices. Tomoki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus, method, and system that improves throughput by optimizing the arrangement of moveable base stations (page 3: abstract/problem). Tomoki specifically teaches wherein the circuitry of the control apparatus is configured to calculate the candidate destination positions of each of the mobile wireless station devices by performing clustering of the terminal devices (page 3: means of solving; controls arrangement positions of the plurality of moveable base stations clustering means for collecting terminal information including position information of each terminal station, clustering each terminal station based on the position information of each terminal station, and setting a scenter of gravity of each cluster as an arrangement position of each movable base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the use of clustering the wireless devices as in Tomoki, with the method/system of Bhattarai. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve throughput of the system by optimizing arrangement of base stations. (Tomoki, page 3 of translation, problem section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached notice of references cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference discusses a similar field of endeavor revolving around moveable base stations to optimize coverage/quality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Thier whose telephone number is (571)272-2832. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM, Fri 7:00 AM-10:00 AM.
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.
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 Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Michael Thier
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights