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 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 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, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0189789) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US 2018/0373771).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches a land mobile radio (LMR) device comprising: wireless communications circuitry selectively operable over an LMR wireless communications network and a broadband (BB) wireless communications network (Paragraph [0017]….. Communication system 100 includes a number of communication devices, e.g., …… a land mobile radio 118. Communication devices 110-118 can be any type of communication devices with wired, wireless and near-field capabilities. Each of communication devices 111, 112, 114, 116, or 118 is configured to operate on a narrowband network or a broadband network……..Paragraph [0019]…… Two or more of the communication devices 110-118 may be operated by a user/subscriber. For example, the user may operate a land mobile radio (device 118) on a narrowband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the narrowband network and, at the same time, the user may operate a broadband-capable smartphone (device 112), on a broadband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the broadband network), but does not specifically teach a controller cooperating with the wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP).
However, in related art, Ashwood-Smith teaches a controller cooperating with the wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) (Paragraph [0032]……… The communication system of this diagram includes wireless communication access node (WCAN) devices 110, 120, 130, and 140, and electronic devices (EDs) configured to connect to and communicate with the WCAN device(s) (which obviously has a controller), such as wireless communication devices 151, 152, 153, and 154 (e.g., wireless stations (STAs), User Equipments (UEs), mobile wireless communication devices, stationary/fixed location wireless communication devices, etc.), and a cloud network 199. In some examples, the cloud network is implemented within a mobile backhaul communication system within a communication system that provides mobile communication services to the wireless communication devices 151-154. In other examples, the cloud network is implemented within an anchorless mobile backhaul communication system within a communication system that provides mobile communication services to the wireless communication devices 151-154…….. Such an example of anchorless mobile backhaul communication system may be implemented in various ways including based on a locator/identifier separation protocol (LISP)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Ashwood-Smith’s teaching about a controller cooperating with the wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) with Lewis’s invention in order to protect the source IP address.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, the combination of Lewis and Ashwood-Smith teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Ashwood-Smith teaches the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the LISP uses Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs) based on a Mapping Database (Paragraphs [0033-0034]).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combination of Lewis and Ashwood-Smith teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lewis teaches the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the wireless communications circuitry comprises one of WiFi communications circuitry and cellular communications circuitry operable over the BB wireless communications network (Paragraph [0019]…….. Two or more of the communication devices 110-118 may be operated by a user/subscriber…….at the same time, the user may operate a broadband-capable smartphone (device 112), on a broadband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the broadband network).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combination of Lewis and Ashwood-Smith teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lewis teaches the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the wireless communications circuitry comprises LMR circuitry operable over the LMR wireless communications network (Paragraph [0019]……. Two or more of the communication devices 110-118 may be operated by a user/subscriber. For example, the user may operate a land mobile radio (device 118) on a narrowband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the narrowband network (LMR wireless communication network)).
Regarding claim 10, Lewis teaches a communications system comprising: a land mobile radio (LMR) wireless communications network; a broadband (BB) wireless communications network; and a land mobile radio (LMR) device comprising wireless communications circuitry selectively operable over the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network (Paragraph [0017]….. Communication system 100 includes a number of communication devices, e.g., …… a land mobile radio 118. Communication devices 110-118 can be any type of communication devices with wired, wireless and near-field capabilities. Each of communication devices 111, 112, 114, 116, or 118 is configured to operate on a narrowband network or a broadband network……..Paragraph [0019]…… Two or more of the communication devices 110-118 may be operated by a user/subscriber. For example, the user may operate a land mobile radio (device 118) on a narrowband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the narrowband network and, at the same time, the user may operate a broadband-capable smartphone (device 112), on a broadband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the broadband network), but does not specifically teach a controller cooperating with the wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP).
However, in related art, Ashwood-Smith teaches a controller cooperating with the wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) (Paragraph [0032]……… The communication system of this diagram includes wireless communication access node (WCAN) devices 110, 120, 130, and 140, and electronic devices (EDs) configured to connect to and communicate with the WCAN device(s) (which obviously has a controller), such as wireless communication devices 151, 152, 153, and 154 (e.g., wireless stations (STAs), User Equipments (UEs), mobile wireless communication devices, stationary/fixed location wireless communication devices, etc.), and a cloud network 199. In some examples, the cloud network is implemented within a mobile backhaul communication system within a communication system that provides mobile communication services to the wireless communication devices 151-154. In other examples, the cloud network is implemented within an anchorless mobile backhaul communication system within a communication system that provides mobile communication services to the wireless communication devices 151-154…….. Such an example of anchorless mobile backhaul communication system may be implemented in various ways including based on a locator/identifier separation protocol (LISP)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Ashwood-Smith’s teaching about a controller cooperating with the wireless communications circuitry to wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) with Lewis’s invention in order to protect the source IP address.
Regarding claim 17, Lewis teaches a method of communicating using a land mobile radio (LMR) device, the method comprising: operating a controller to cooperate with wireless communications circuitry selectively operable over an LMR wireless communications network and a broadband (BB) wireless communications network (Paragraph [0017]….. Communication system 100 includes a number of communication devices, e.g., …… a land mobile radio 118. Communication devices 110-118 can be any type of communication devices with wired, wireless and near-field capabilities. Each of communication devices 111, 112, 114, 116, or 118 is configured to operate on a narrowband network or a broadband network……..Paragraph [0019]…… Two or more of the communication devices 110-118 may be operated by a user/subscriber. For example, the user may operate a land mobile radio (device 118) on a narrowband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the narrowband network and, at the same time, the user may operate a broadband-capable smartphone (device 112), on a broadband network to communicate with one or more other devices (not shown) on the broadband network), but does not specifically teach wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP).
However, in related art, Ashwood-Smith teaches wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) (Paragraph [0032]……… The communication system of this diagram includes wireless communication access node (WCAN) devices 110, 120, 130, and 140, and electronic devices (EDs) configured to connect to and communicate with the WCAN device(s) (which obviously has a controller), such as wireless communication devices 151, 152, 153, and 154 (e.g., wireless stations (STAs), User Equipments (UEs), mobile wireless communication devices, stationary/fixed location wireless communication devices, etc.), and a cloud network 199. In some examples, the cloud network is implemented within a mobile backhaul communication system within a communication system that provides mobile communication services to the wireless communication devices 151-154. In other examples, the cloud network is implemented within an anchorless mobile backhaul communication system within a communication system that provides mobile communication services to the wireless communication devices 151-154…….. Such an example of anchorless mobile backhaul communication system may be implemented in various ways including based on a locator/identifier separation protocol (LISP)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Ashwood-Smith’s teaching about wirelessly communicate via one of the LMR wireless communications network and the BB wireless communications network based upon a Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) with Lewis’s invention in order to protect the source IP address.
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0189789) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US 2018/0373771), and further in view of Chami et al. (US 2018/0249384).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 19, the combination of Lewis and Ashwood-Smith fail to teach the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to determine a respective communication cost associated with each of the LMR and BB wireless communications networks.
However, in related art, Chami teaches the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to determine a respective communication cost associated with each of the LMR and BB wireless communications networks (Paragraph [0002]…….. The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has been developing enhancements to cellular systems (BB wireless communication network) to allow their operation for public safety or emergency services (ES) communications. These are especially intended to work with the Long Term Evolution (LTE) architecture. Aims of this approach may include: reduced cost; improved functionality; and increased flexibility in comparison with existing public safety communication infrastructure, such as the Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) network (LMR wireless communications network)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Chami’s teaching about wherein the controller is configured to determine a respective communication cost associated with each of the LMR and BB wireless communications networks with Lewis’s and Ashwood-Smith’s invention in order to improved functionality and increased flexibility (See Chami, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 20, the combination of Lewis, Ashwood-Smith, and Chami teach all the claimed elements in claims 3, 12, and 19. In addition, Chami teaches the LMR device of Claim 3 wherein the controller is configured to selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon the respective communication costs (Paragraphs [0002]).
Claims 5, 14, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0189789) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US 2018/0373771) in view of Chami et al. (US 2018/0249384), and further in view of Sierecki et al. (US 2007/0053342).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lewis, Ashwood-Smith, and Chami fail to teach the LMR device of Claim 3 wherein the respective communications costs are based upon respective bandwidth availabilities associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks.
However, in related art, Sierecki teaches the LMR device of Claim 3 wherein the respective communications costs are based upon respective bandwidth availabilities associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks (Paragraphs [0002 and 0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Sierecki’s teaching about wherein the respective communications costs are based upon respective bandwidth availabilities associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks with Lewis’s, Ashwood-Smith’s, and Chami’s invention in order to provide the desired service for the user terminal.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, the combination of Lewis, Ashwood-Smith, and Chami fail to teach the communications system of Claim 12 wherein the respective communications costs are based upon at least one of respective bandwidth availabilities associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks and respective signal-to-noise ratios associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks.
However, in related art, Sierecki teaches the communications system of Claim 12 wherein the respective communications costs are based upon at least one of respective bandwidth availabilities associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks (Paragraphs [0002 and 0030]) and respective signal-to-noise ratios associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks.
(not selected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Sierecki’s teaching about wherein the respective communications costs are based upon at least one of respective bandwidth availabilities associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks with Lewis’s, Ashwood-Smith’s, and Chami’s invention in order to provide the desired service for the user terminal.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0189789) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US 2018/0373771) in view of Chami et al. (US 2018/0249384), and further in view of Manssour et al. (US 2012/0052894).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lewis, Ashwood-Smith, and Chami fail to teach the LMR device of Claim 3 wherein the respective communications costs are based upon respective signal-to-noise ratios associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks.
However, in related art, Manssour teaches the LMR device of Claim 3 wherein the respective communications costs are based upon respective signal-to-noise ratios associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks (Claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Manssour’s teaching about wherein the respective communications costs are based upon respective signal-to-noise ratios associated with the LMR and BB wireless communications networks with Lewis’s, Ashwood-Smith’s, and Chami’s invention in order to reduce the frequency interference.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0189789) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US 2018/0373771), and further in view of Nagaraj (US 2014/0247731).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lewis and Ashwood-Smith fail to teach the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to operate a plurality of applications and selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon a given one of the plurality of applications.
However, in related art, Nagaraj teaches the LMR device of Claim 1 wherein the controller is configured to operate a plurality of applications and selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon a given one of the plurality of applications (Paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Nagaraj’s teaching about wherein the controller is configured to operate a plurality of applications and selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon a given one of the plurality of applications with Lewis’s and Ashwood-Smith’s invention in order to reduce interference and achieve high throughput.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lewis and Ashwood-Smith fail to teach the method of Claim 17 wherein operating the controller comprises operating the controller to selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon a given one of a plurality of applications operated by the controller.
However, in related art, Nagaraj teaches the method of Claim 17 wherein operating the controller comprises operating the controller to selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon a given one of a plurality of applications operated by the controller (Paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Nagaraj’s teaching about wherein operating the controller comprises operating the controller to selectively switch wireless communications between the LMR and BB wireless communications networks based upon a given one of a plurality of applications operated by the controller with Lewis’s and Ashwood-Smith’s invention in order to reduce interference and achieve high throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Levy-Abegoli et al. (US 2026/0121944), Gundavelli et al. (US 2025/0323898), Venkatraman et al. (US 2025/0274993), Jain et al. (US 2025/0023807), Cuissard et al. (US 2024/0205793), Hu (US 2024/0015825), Jain et al. (US 2023/0421481), Kushwahn et al. (US 2023/0299979), Kumar et al. (US 2023/0074222), Janardanan et al. (US 2022/0345531), Lee et al. (US Patent #11,356,818), Chun (US Patent #11,212,721), Jain et al. (US Patent #11,165,702), Moreno et al. (US 2021/0044565), Chen et al. (US 2020/0413296), Allan et al. (US Patent #10,716,045), Clemm et al. (US 2019/0020628), Akhavain Mohammadi et al. (US 2018/0359151), Toothaker et al. (US 2018/0257221), Martin et al. (US 2018/0007495), Chami (US 2017/0223541), Nord et al. (US 2017/0079016), Oh et al. (US 2015/0201296), Inoue et al. (US Patent #8,055,255), Rager et al. (US Patent #7,920,869), Bichot et al. (US Patent #7,693,522), Buckley (US Patent #7,610,014), Tarkoma et al. (US 2008/0320497), and Khlat (US 2004/0019620).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
Prosecution Insights