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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 15, 26, 29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 12 and 26, the claim states determining that the determined probability exceeded a probability threshold, which was not described in the original specification. The specification never mentions a threshold. Para [0071] states the AI can predict next signals to be requested by the CPE, such as a high probability the next filed requested is the next episode in a TV series being watched. The probability is not compared to a threshold but is just a high probability.
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, 3, 4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 26, 29, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (IEEE paper “Weighted network traffic offloading in cache-enabled heterogeneous networks”, May 2016, hereinafter Li, as disclosed in the IDS), in view of Moberg et al (US 2011/0275381, hereinafter Moberg) and in view of Li (US 2016/0066191, hereinafter Li2).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a access point in a wireless communication system (base station, Fig. 1), the first AP comprising: memory and processing circuitry coupled to the memory (processor and memory inherent), wherein the first AP is configured to: predict information to be requested to the second pico AP (users request content from the pico BS, where popular content can be predicted by the system from learning and analysis of user’s behavior and preference and macro BS decides what content to cache in the pico BSs, Section 2A); after predicting the information to be requested by second pico AP, transmit the predicted information to second pico AP using a direct channel between first AP and the second pico AP (macro BS transmits the content to the pico BSs, pico BSs cache content to satisfy users requests, Section 2A); the second AP is not a macro base station (base station is connected to dispersed pico base stations, Section 2A); but does not disclose the first AP is a pico AP and not a macro base station. Moberg discloses pico eNBs or base stations have the same functionality as macro eNBs but use lower output power than marco eNBs, Para [0003], meaning a pico base station or AP can have the same functionality, as the macro-BS described in Li, in terms of predicting content to cache in the other pico BS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Moberg in the system of Li in order to reduce interference in heterogenous networks that contain macro, micro and pico eNBs; nor discloses the first pico AP and second pico AP communicate using a direct channel. Li2 discloses enodeBs communicate over X2 interface, Para [0005] and pico cells can have direct communication with each other, as the cells overlap, Para [0074]/Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Li2 in the system of Li in view of Moberg in order to further reduce interference with inter-cell interference coordination methods.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Li discloses the first type node/method of claim 1/17, wherein the second node is adapted to communicate with a group of one or more devices of a second type via a corresponding access channel (radio access network/link, Section I, pico BSs are connected to multiple users, Fig. 1), where information to be requested via at least one of said other first type nodes corresponds to information to be requested by at least one device included in the group of one or more devices (user requests content from pico BS and the pico BS satisfies the request if the content is cached there, Section 2A, where the macro predicts the content to be requested and sends it to be cached at the pico BS).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Li discloses the first type node/method of claim 1/17, but not fully wherein the first node is configured to perform backhaul communication with second and/or third node and first node is configured to perform access communication with a group of one or more devices of a second type (macro BS communicates with pico BSs over backhaul links, Section 2A and Liu discloses backhaul and access connections to other eNBs and UEs, Figs. 2a-e); but does not disclose where the backhaul communication and the access communication both are performed by means of common equipment at each one of the first type nodes (the macro and pico are both base stations, obvious to one of ordinary skill they would both have common components/equipment).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the first type node of claim 1, receive a request for particular information from second node, in response to the request, determine if request of that information has already been transmitted to the second node and inform the second node the information has be transmitted to second node (if the content is not cached in the cell, the macro BS handles the user request and the macro BS is aware of the content cached at their connected pico BSs, Section 2A, therefore the macro should know the information was transmitted, as it would then be cached at the pico BS, sending the indication would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses a first AP in a wireless communication system (base station, Fig. 1), the first type node comprising: memory and processing circuitry coupled to the memory (memory and processor, inherent), wherein the first AP is configured to: communicate with at least one other first type node in the wireless communication system over a corresponding backhaul channel (macro BS communicates with pico BSs over backhaul links, Section 2A); and receive and buffer and/or relay predicted information from at least one of said other APs, where the predicted information has been predicted to be requested via at least one second type node that is served by a first type node (users request content from the pico BS, where popular content can be predicted by the system from learning and analysis of user’s behavior and preference and macro BS decides what content to cache in the pico BSs, Section 2A, macro BS transmits the content to the pico BSs, pico BSs cache content to satisfy users requests, Section 2A); the second AP determined a probability that the first pico AP would require predicted information (this limitation is not performed by claimed first AP and carries no patentable weight) as result of determining that the determined probability exceeded a threshold (making the prediction based on high probability of an event occurring is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art); but does not disclose the first AP is a pico AP and not a macro base station. Moberg discloses pico eNBs or base stations have the same functionality as macro eNBs but use lower output power than marco eNBs, Para [0003], meaning a pico base station or AP can have the same functionality, as the macro-BS described in Li, in terms of predicting content to cache in the other pico BS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Moberg in the system of Li in order to reduce interference in heterogenous networks that contain macro, micro and pico eNBs; nor discloses the first pico AP and second pico AP communicate using a direct channel. Li2 discloses enodeBs communicate over X2 interface, Para [0005] and pico cells can have direct communication with each other, as the cells overlap, Para [0074]/Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Li2 in the system of Li in view of Moberg in order to further reduce interference with inter-cell interference coordination methods.
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Li discloses the first type node/method of claim 12/26, wherein the first type node is adapted to: serve a corresponding group of second type nodes via a corresponding access channel, each group of second type nodes comprising at least one second type node (radio access network/link, Section I, pico BSs are connected to multiple users, Fig. 1); receive request for information from at least one of the second type nodes and determine if the requested information already has been buffered and if that is the case, directly forward the requested information to said second type nodes from the present buffer storage, otherwise request the information from one other first type node (user requests content from pico BS and the pico BS satisfies the request if the content is cached there, Section 2A, where the macro predicts the content to be requested and sends it to be cached at the pico BS, otherwise the macro BS helps deliver the content to the pico BS as requested, Section 2A).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses a method in a first AP in a wireless communication system, wherein the method comprises: predict information to be requested to the second pico AP (users request content from the pico BS, where popular content can be predicted by the system from learning and analysis of user’s behavior and preference and macro BS decides what content to cache in the pico BSs, Section 2A); after predicting the information to be requested by second pico AP, transmit the predicted information to second pico AP using a direct channel between first AP and the second pico AP (macro BS transmits the content to the pico BSs, pico BSs cache content to satisfy users requests, Section 2A); the second AP is not a macro base station (base station is connected to dispersed pico base stations, Section 2A); but does not disclose the first AP is a pico AP and not a macro base station. Moberg discloses pico eNBs or base stations have the same functionality as macro eNBs but use lower output power than marco eNBs, Para [0003], meaning a pico base station or AP can have the same functionality, as the macro-BS described in Li, in terms of predicting content to cache in the other pico BS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Moberg in the system of Li in order to reduce interference in heterogenous networks that contain macro, micro and pico eNBs; nor discloses the first pico AP and second pico AP communicate using a direct channel. Li2 discloses enodeBs communicate over X2 interface, Para [0005] and pico cells can have direct communication with each other, as the cells overlap, Para [0074]/Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Li2 in the system of Li in view of Moberg in order to further reduce interference with inter-cell interference coordination methods.
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses a method performed by a first pico AP in a wireless communication system, wherein the method comprises: receiving, buffering and/or relaying predicted information from second AP, where the first AP receiving predicted information from second AP, where the second AP determined probability that the first PA would require the predicted information and transmit information to the first AP (users request content from the pico BS, where popular content can be predicted by the system from learning and analysis of user’s behavior and preference and macro BS decides what content to cache in the pico BSs, Section 2A, macro BS transmits the content to the pico BSs, pico BSs cache content to satisfy users requests, Section 2A); where the second AP predicted based on result of determining that the determined probability exceed a probability threshold (making the prediction based on high probability of an event occurring is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art); but does not disclose the first AP is a pico AP and not a macro base station. Moberg discloses pico eNBs or base stations have the same functionality as macro eNBs but use lower output power than marco eNBs, Para [0003], meaning a pico base station or AP can have the same functionality, as the macro-BS described in Li, in terms of predicting content to cache in the other pico BS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Moberg in the system of Li in order to reduce interference in heterogenous networks that contain macro, micro and pico eNBs; nor discloses the first pico AP and second pico AP communicate using a direct channel. Li2 discloses enodeBs communicate over X2 interface, Para [0005] and pico cells can have direct communication with each other, as the cells overlap, Para [0074]/Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Li2 in the system of Li in view of Moberg in order to further reduce interference with inter-cell interference coordination methods.
Regarding claims 33 and 35, Li discloses the first node of claim 1/12, wherein the first node is configured to, during an idle time, directly connect to the second node via the third backhaul channel and transmit/receive the predicted information to the second node via the third backhaul channel (obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for first node to transmit/receive data during idle period, as this would increase spectrum efficiency by not allowing time/frequency resources to remain unused while they are available).
Claims 11 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Moberg, in view of Li2 and in view of Barker et al (US 2014/0280702, hereinafter Barker).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the first type node of claim 1, but not wherein the first type node is connected to a core network by means of a fiber connection. Barker discloses links may be implemented with fiber-optic cables, Para [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Barker in the system of Li in view of Moberg and Li2 in order to improve user experience by delivering data in a proactive manner.
Regarding claim 31, Li discloses a wireless communication system comprising but not an integrated access and backhaul network comprising at least the first type node of claim 1 (IAB network is known in the art, would be obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Moberg in view of Li2 and in view of Khoshnevisan et al (US 2020/0136770, hereinafter Khoshnevisan).
Regarding claim 32, Li discloses the first node of claim 1, wherein the firs tnode is configured to transmit data during a time slot, the time slot includes a first sub-slot, a second sub-slot and a third sub-slot, during the first sub-slot, the first node is configured to transmit data to at least one device of a second type via an access channel, the first and second types are different, during the second sub-slot, the first node is configured to transmit data to the third node via the first backhaul channel, and during the third sub-slot, the first node is configured to transmit the predicted information to the second node via the third backhaul channel. Khoshnevisan discloses there is a first mini-slot, second mini-slot and third mini-slot in a single slot, Para [0096], in this case different transmissions are transmitted by the first eNB to either a UE or the other eNBs in each of the mini-slots in view with Li and Liu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Khoshnevisan in the system of Li in view of Moberg and Li2 in order to conserve network resources when transmitting TB repetitions.
Regarding claim 34, Li discloses the first node of claim 1, wherein the first node is configured to transmit and receive data during a time slot, the time slot includes a first sub-slot, a second sub-slot and a third sub-slot, during the first sub-slot, the first node is configured to transmit data to the third node via the first backhaul channel, during the second sub-slot, the first node is configured to transmit data to the fourth node via the fourth backhaul channel, the fourth node of the first type and during the third sub-slot, the first node is configured to receive the predicted information to the second node via the third backhaul channel. Khoshnevisan discloses there is a first mini-slot, second mini-slot and third mini-slot in a single slot, Para [0096], in this case different transmissions are transmitted by the first eNB to either a UE or the other eNBs in each of the mini-slots in view with Li and Liu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Khoshnevisan in the system of Li in view of Moberg and Li2 in order to conserve network resources when transmitting TB repetitions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues against the 112 rejection. Applicant argues even though the specification never mentions comparing a probability to a threshold but one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the inventors had possession of determining the probability exceeded a probability threshold. In response, the specification never mentions the term “pico” yet uses the term pico AP in the claims anyway. The specification mentions small cells or small AP. It is not the same phraseology but they are fairly equivalent terms. This is an example, where the specification does not use the term but no 112 rejection was given. However, the specification does not mention a specific step of comparing probability to a threshold and if the 112 rejection was withdrawn, the Applicant would just argue against the references based on a specific step never mentioned in the specification. A prediction is inherently based on a “high” probability of something happening and Applicant admits if a probability is high or not, a comparison is made to a threshold/standard. Applicant argues over impermissible hindsight because there is no motivation to combine Li and Moberg. Applicant argues the motivation was conclusory and pico BS reducing interference is not supported by evidence. Applicant argues hindsight was used because there is no motivation. In response, the motivation to use the techniques taught by Moberg in the system of Li is to reduce interference in heterogenous networks that contain macro, micro and pico eNBs. Moberg’s disclosure is dedicated to reducing interference. Further pico eNBs are small cells and cause less interference because it is a smaller cell than a macro cell. Applicant’s specification never mentions pico APs and barely mentions small cells/APs. No impermissible hindsight was used. Applicant also argues over dependent claim 10. The claim is for a second pico AP sending a request to the first pico AP, where the first pico AP determines if the requested information has already been transmitted to the second pico AP and if so, sending an indication to the second pico AP that the requested information was already transmitted. Applicant argues the references do not disclose this limitation. In response, the limitation is obvious to one of ordinary skill. Li discloses user requests content from pico BS and the pico BS satisfies the request if the content is cached there, Section 2A, where the macro predicts the content to be requested and sends it to be cached at the pico BS, otherwise the macro BS helps deliver the content to the pico BS as requested, Section 2A. If the macro BS already sent the content to the pico BS, before receiving the request, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill for the macro BS to just respond with a message that the content was already transmitted to the pico.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:30-18:00 (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached on (571) 272-3155. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN M CUNNINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights