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 Office Action is in response to the submission filed --- (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) --- are pending for consideration.
35 USC §101 - Claim Rejections
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) Click here to enter text. is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) ---
The claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of
---
The claimed subject matter is directed to similar subject matter having established precedence of being directed to an abstract idea:
---
See MPEP 2106.04.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ---
In regards to the apparatus embodiment(s) of the claim(s), the addition of components that are well-known in the art (e.g., general computer components such as a user equipment) alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, performing a well-known operation) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. Merely using generic components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, even though such operations could be performed faster than without a computer. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Contrast this with claim(s) --- where --- . That is, said claims include subject matter that is significantly more than an abstract idea because said claims requires an utilization of the information.
Dependent claims are also rejected for similar reasons.
35 USC §112(a) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim(s) Click here to enter text. is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claim(s) ---
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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim(s) recite variants of:
---
However, the Specification describes (using citation of the corresponding US Publication)
---
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) Click here to enter text. is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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) Click here to enter text. is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over [REF A] (US ---)
Claim(s) ---
[REF A] teaches
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) Click here to enter text. is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [REF A] (US --- ) in view of [REF B] (US --- )
Claim(s) ---
[REF A] teaches
[REF A] does not explicitly teach
However in a similar endeavor, [REF B] teaches
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by [REF A] with the embodiment(s) disclosed by [REF B]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ---. See [REF B] at para. ---.
Examiner’s Notes
Relevant Cited References
The following references disclose matter of a similar endeavor of which is/are relevant to one or more claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
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 Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-02-10 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15 are pending for consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on identified above has been entered.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15
can be
The claim(s) recites phrases that are directed to indefinite language (e.g., “for example,” “or the like,” “such as,” or “maybe”) because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOPAL_043 (US20150119043) in view of CHOI_670 (US20140098670), in view of LINDOFF_220 (US20110305220), and further view of MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 (US20200112899)
Claim(s) 1, 9
GOPAL_043 teaches
collecting,
generating, not resource deprived at present and can be selected for a handover or not resource deprived at a future point in time and can be selected at the future point in time for the handover; UE performs analytics on each candidate in a list of potential handover candidates, which includes pruning the list of potential handover candidates based on the analytics/algorithm (e.g., calculating handover threshold values) that determines the best handover candidates. <FIG(s). 5; para. 0035-0060>.
transmitting,
GOPAL_043 does not explicitly teach
wherein the data comprises at least one of
information on a consumed virtual resource of the at least one target base station and
information on a consumed radio resource of the at least one target base station;
receiving, from a source base station, a message for requesting the analytics output of the at least one target base station for the handover;
an entity that is an MDAS producer
However in a similar endeavor, CHOI_670 teaches
receiving, from a source base station, a message for requesting the analytics output of the at least one target base station for the handover; Base station requests reports of received signal strength of the selected candidate target cells and receives a report message representing the received signal strength from the selected terminals. <para. 0094>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by GOPAL_043 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by CHOI_670. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a method and an apparatus for classifying multi-carriers to a plurality of groups and distributing a load based on the classified group in a wireless communication system supporting the multi-carriers. <para. 0007>.
However in a similar endeavor, LINDOFF_220 teaches
wherein collected data from the at least one target base station comprises at least one of
information on a consumed radio resource of the at least one target base station, or A report of reserved radio resources of a radio base station of the target radio access network. <FIG(s). 3, 4, 5; para. 0051-0052, 0056>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by GOPAL_043, CHOI_670 and MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LINDOFF_220. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide methods and devices for managing simultaneous use of more than one radio <para. 0016, Summary>.
However in a similar endeavor, MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 teaches
the operations being performed by an entity of the MDAS producer MDAS can obtain user equipment, serving cell and candidate cell data and perform analysis to determine the best possible handover for the user equipment based on said data <FIG(s). 5; para. 0051-0053>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by GOPAL_043 and CHOI_670 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by MYSORE ANNAIA H_899. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide automatic novel method for proactively predicting the routes of mobility users in wireless network for handover based upon proactive measures <para. 0009-0011>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOPAL_043 (US20150119043) in view of CHOI_670 (US20140098670), in view of LINDOFF_220 (US20110305220), in view of MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 (US20200112899), and further view of LI_812 (US20190268812)
Claim(s) 3, 11
GOPAL_043 does not explicitly teach
wherein the information indicating whether each of the at least one target base station is not resource deprived at the future point in time and can be selected at the future point in time for the handover comprises at least one of
information on a time during which the at least one target base station is not resource deprived for the handover,
information on a projected virtual resource consumption of the at least one target base station, or
information on projected radio resource consumption of the at least one target base station.
However in a similar endeavor, LI_812 teaches
wherein the information indicating whether each of the at least one target base station is not resource deprived at the future point in time and can be selected at the future point in time for the handover comprises at least one of
information on a time during which the at least one target base station is not resource deprived for the handover, Handover information about a target base station includes an optimal (which implicitly assumes not resource deprovied) time point from T2 to be a handover time point predictor (for example, a subframe or a slot in a frame) of the handover terminal. <para. 0117-0123>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by GOPAL_043, CHOI_670, LINDOFF_220 and MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LI_812. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve a success rate of the cell handover <para. 0116>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOPAL_043 (US20150119043) in view of CHOI_670 (US20140098670), in view of LINDOFF_220 (US20110305220), in view of MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 (US20200112899), and further view of VITTHALADEVUNI_455 (US20140029455)
Claim(s) 4, 12
GOPAL_043 does not explicitly teach
wherein the analytics output further comprises information indicating a recommended action to optimize the at least one target base station for the handover, and wherein the recommended action to optimize the at least one target base station for the handover comprises adjusting resources before performing the handover.
However in a similar endeavor, VITTHALADEVUNI_455 teaches
wherein the analytics output further comprises information indicating a recommended action to optimize the at least one target base station for the handover, and wherein the recommended action to optimize the at least one target base station for the handover comprises adjusting resources before performing the handover. Handover component can determine whether to handover from serving node 14 based on the available T2P (e.g., as modified by one or more factors, or otherwise). For example determining whether to recommend handover of UE to serving node increasing a signal strength of one or more neighboring nodes reported in a measurement report for handover, such as neighboring node. <FIG(s). 7; para. 0118>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by GOPAL_043, CHOI_670, LINDOFF_220 and MYSORE ANNAIA H_899 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by VITTHALADEVUNI_455. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow a UE to select the better network as between different networks at a given point in time. <para. 0010>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter over the prior art but rejected to herein.
Claim(s) 2, 10
The claim(s) include allowable subject matter with respect to the prior art and would be allowable if:
(i) Rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(ii) Amended to overcome other non-prior art rejections and/or objections presented herein (e.g., 35 USC 112 and 101 rejections), including rejections/objections directed to base and intervening claims.
(iii) In cases where claim limitations were unclear/indefinite and the Examiner indicated what he/she thought what the limitations attempted to convey, any clarifying amendments would need to be commensurate with the Examiner’s interpretation.
In conjunction with the base claims, the claims require data comprises:
information on a consumed virtual or radio resource of target base station(s)
information on storage of the target base station(s)
The Examiners views 1 and 2 above to be distinct elements (i.e., the radio resource cannot be the storage) and consequently the data comprises at least two pieces of information about the target base stations.
Closest art is LEE - WO2014200242 teaches “requesting information on a storage device to store the video segment to the handover target base station” but the information of the storage device is not of a target base station.
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Response to Arguments
The following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
With regards to each individual prior art used to reject the independent claims, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regards to the independent claims, the Examiner’s sentiment is that the invention is directed to well known principles applied to performed by a different actor (MDAS) and is therefore obvious. In other words, it is well known that an entity such as UE collects data, upon request, about target candidates and determine one or more ideal target for the handover and transmits corresponding information. The Applicant’s invention and argument for novelty hinges upon the fact that now an MDAS producer can perform this instead of an UE, which the Examiner believes is obvious variant. If the Applicant adamantly opposes the Examiner’s opinion with this regards, and does not wish to amendment the claims to overcome the Examiner’s sentiment, the Examiner recommends filing an appeal to expedite prosecution.
The Reply’s arguments with respect to the other matters have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights