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 § 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 1-8, 11-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parulkar (US 20210168027) in view of Murakami (US 20110211452).
Regarding claim 1, Parulkar discloses a communication control device comprising a processor configured to control switching of a partner of communication with a mobile terminal for first traffic from a first edge server to a second edge server in a cellular network ([0024], figs. 8, 14),
when a switching condition for the first traffic based on a reduction in quality of communication related to the first traffic at present or in future is met ([0109-111], the detection of such mobility events in a CSP network 801, for example, may be based on a certain signal measured by the electronic device 890 that is periodically reported to the CSP network 801 or when other conditions are satisfied; the electronic device 890 is moving such that its connection to the CSP network 801 is or will be better via access point 889 than access point 888) and the second edge server capable of taking over the communication related to the first traffic is discovered ([01117][0119], identify which edge locations satisfy those requirements. Based on the candidate edge locations, if any, returned by the edge location placement service 820, the hardware virtualization service 806 can select one of the candidates; a compute instance 815 launched at an edge location 810-2 responsive to a mobility event associated with an electronic device 890) in a state in which the mobile terminal is performing communication related to the first traffic and second traffic with the first edge server via the cellular network, an allowable delay for the second traffic being longer than an allowable delay for the first traffic ([0021][0048], the limited capacity of the outpost may be shared amongst a number of applications (e.g., games, virtual reality applications, healthcare applications) that send data to users of the telecommunications network; the next generation of applications for game streaming, virtual reality, real-time rendering, industrial automation, and autonomous vehicles).
Parulkar discloses various customer’s latency requirements, latency profile and user specific latency requirements. Normally, some application (such as game streaming) requires shorter latency than the other application (such as non-real time healthcare). To further clarify or support this feature, Murakami discloses an allowable delay for the second traffic being longer than an allowable delay for the first traffic (Murakami, [0075], a non-voice (other than voice) real-time application in which lower delay than data application is requested, and a voice real-time application in which lower delay than that in the non-voice real-time application is requested).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Parulkar with the teachings given by Murakami. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a radio base station and a radio communication method capable of avoiding a failure which may occur (Murakami, [0009]).
Claims 11, 19 are rejected similarly as claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 20, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform control so as to switch a partner of communication with the mobile terminal for the second traffic from the first edge server to an edge server other than the second edge server or to a cloud server when the switching condition is met but the second edge server is not discovered (Parulkar, [01117][0119], identify which edge locations satisfy those requirements. Based on the candidate edge locations, if any, returned by the edge location placement service 820, the hardware virtualization service 806 can select one of the candidates. Here, if the second device does not reply, the second device will not be selected).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform control so as to stop communication related to third traffic when the switching condition is met when the mobile terminal and the first edge server are performing communication related to the first traffic, the second traffic, and the third traffic via the cellular network, an allowable delay for the third traffic being longer than the allowable delay for the second traffic (Murakami, [0075], a non-voice (other than voice) real-time application in which lower delay than data application is requested, and a voice real-time application in which lower delay than that in the non-voice real-time application is requested. Note, during handover, it is a common practice to handover traffic with low latency traffic first, stop transmitting traffic with longest latency requirement).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the switching condition for the first traffic is at least one selected from among a network delay exceeding a threshold, a load on the first edge server exceeding a threshold, jitter exceeding an allowable range, a throughput exceeding a threshold, a packet error rate exceeding a threshold, a demand forecast amount exceeding a threshold, and a moving speed of the mobile terminal exceeding a threshold (Parulkar, [0113], a communications delay between the electronic device 890 and a first compute instance 813 via the second access point 889 would not satisfy a latency constraint). It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Regarding claim 5, 15, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the first traffic is traffic of real-time data related to a metaverse (Parulkar, [0021], Murakami, [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the second traffic is traffic of data transmitted on a best effort basis (Parulkar, [0021], Murakami, [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the communication control device constitutes the cellular network (Parulkar, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the communication control device is connected to the cellular network (Parulkar, fig. 8).
Claims 9-10, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parulkar in view of Murakami further in view of Bogineni (US 20080013533).
Regarding claim 9, 17, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein
Parulkar and Murakami do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to control switching of the first traffic in a make-before-break manner.
Bogineni discloses the processor is configured to control switching of the first traffic in a make-before-break manner (Bogineni, [0079], support mobility of real-time services through the use of paradigms like `make-before-break` connections. Here, the first traffic can be real-time voice traffic as disclosed in Murakami [0019].
Bogineni also discloses deciding which services can be dropped when bandwidth congestion occurs on various parts of the network (Bogineni, [0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Parulkar with the teachings given by Bogineni. The motivation for doing so would have been to meets various needs of the network operator/service provider (Bogineni, [0001]).
Regarding claim 10, 18, Parulkar and Murakami disclose the communication control device according to claim 2, wherein
Parulkar and Murakami do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to control switching of the second traffic in a break-before-make manner.
Bogineni discloses the processor is configured to control switching of the second traffic in a break-before-make manner (Bogineni, [0079], support mobility of real-time services through the use of paradigms like `make-before-break` connections; ) Here, the second traffic can be real-time non-voice traffic as disclosed in Murakami [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Parulkar with the teachings given by Bogineni. The motivation for doing so would have been to meets various needs of the network operator/service provider (Bogineni, [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENSHENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, 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.
/ZHENSHENG ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights