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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
No claim is amended, cancelled, or newly added.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 2/27/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 34-53 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 34, 40, 46, and 52 (pages 10-13) in a reply filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 34, 40, 46, and 52:
Applicant contends, in page 12, that “Applicant submits that Ericsson's RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE/FAILURE indicates whether requested measurements can be provided, but it is part of the X2 resource status procedure and is not described as a generic yes/no decision about providing feedback information for a prediction-driven framework.” (Emphasis added by the Examiner).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ericsson specifically teaches receiving an acknowledgement, from the target network node, indicating whether the target network node will provide the feedback information (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.1., “If the target eNB can provide all or some of the requested resource status information, it shall initiate the measurements as requested by the source eNB and respond with a RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE message whether all or only parts of the measurements can be provided.”). The RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE of Ericsson indicates whether the target network node will provide the feedback information (equivalent to a generic yes/no decision about providing feedback information) as recited in claim 1. If the target eNB will provide the requested feedback, the target eNB transmits the feedback information, in a separate and subsequent step, in the RESOURCE STATUS UPDATE message (periodically or not) containing the requested measurements, such as its load per cell (see, Ericsson: Section 2.1.1 and Fig. 1). Therefore, the disclosure of Ericsson reads on the limitations as claimed.
Applicant further contends, in page 12, that “Further, Applicant submits that Liu discloses that a resource status request may specify various types of requested load information (e.g., GBR/Non-GBR PRB utilization, beam utilization, per-service type usage, hardware/TNL load, composite available capacity, numbers of UEs, etc.). Thus, Applicant submits that neither Ericsson nor Liu describes this set of requested information as a "list of feature information" selected because it resides on the target node and is particularly suitable for improving prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information, as recited in independent Claim 34. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that combination of Ericsson and Liu does not disclose or suggest the feature of "receiving an acknowledgement, from the target network node, indicating whether the target network node will provide the feedback information" of independent Claim 34. (Emphasis added.)”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not recite a specific list of feature information that reside on the target network node to improve prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information. During examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation consistent with the specification. Liu teaches transmitting a Resource Status Request (i.e., feedback request), to a target network node, comprising a list of feature information that resides on the target network node to improve prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information (see, Liu: Fig. 7A and para. [0098], “The resource status request 716 may include request for measurements of load information. The requested load information may include radio resource usage information, such as GBR PRB/Non-GBR PRB utilization information and/or beam utilization information, per service type radio resource usage information, load per carrier information including SUL load, hardware load information including CU and per DU hardware load, TNL load information including N2, N3, and/or F1 TNL load, composite available capacity, numbers of UE's in connected mode, and/or numbers of UE's in RRC_INACTIVE state.”). The measurements of load, radio resource usage, PRB utilization, beam utilization, per service type radio resource usage, load per carrier, hardware load, TNL load, available capacity, numbers of UE, etc. are examples of features that resides on the target network node suitable for improving prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information (e.g., such as load per cell in Ericsson, Section 2.1.1) (Also, see Liu: para. [0006] [0094] about the example list of additional features in the NR network node, such as, mmWave beam utilization, supplemental uplink, additional RRC states, CU-DU split feature, etc.).
Therefore, the disclosure of Ericsson in view of Liu reads on the limitations as claimed in the independent claims 34, 40, 46, and 52.
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 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.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 34-38, 40-50, 52, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (“Load sharing and load balancing optimization”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 #103bis, R3-191812, April 8-12, 2019, hereinafter Ericsson) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0322175 A1, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 34:
Ericsson teaches a method performed by a network node configured to operate as a source network node (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1, eNB1) of a reconfiguration procedure (see, Ericsson: Section 2.1.1, Load state reporting), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a target network node (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1, eNB2) of the reconfiguration procedure, signaling that indicates at least one of (i) whether or not the target network node is to provide feedback information to the source network node and (ii) which one or more types of feedback information (e.g., cell-specific resource status and load status) the target network node is to provide to the source network node (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.1., “The load status reporting function is executed by exchanging cell-specific load information between neighbor enhanced NodeBs (eNBs) over the X2 … interfaces. … the source eNB (e.g., eNB1 in Figure 1) may trigger a RESOURCE STATUS REQUEST message to potential target eNBs (e.g., eNB2 in Figure 1) at any point in time, for example when the load is above a pre-defined value.”); and
receiving an acknowledgement, from the target network node, indicating whether the target network node will provide the feedback information (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.1., “If the target eNB can provide all or some of the requested resource status information, it shall initiate the measurements as requested by the source eNB and respond with a RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE message whether all or only parts of the measurements can be provided.”; “If none of the requested measurements can be initiated, eNB2 shall send a RESOURCE STATUS FAILURE message specifying whether the measurements are temporarily not available or not supported for each requested measurement object”, wherein the RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE message and the RESOURCE STATUS FAILURE message are equivalent to the “acknowledgment indicating the target node will provide the feedback information” of the instant application. As shown in Fig. 1, upon successful initialization of resource status reports from target to source, the target eNB can respond (periodically or not) in the subsequent step of “RESOURCE STATUS UPDATE” message to the source eNB containing the requested measurements, such as its load per cell.).
Ericsson does not explicitly teach wherein the signaling comprises a feedback request, to the target network node, comprising a list of feature information that resides on the target network node to improve prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the signaling comprises a feedback request (e.g., resource status request), to the target network node, comprising a list of feature information that resides on the target network node to improve prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information (see, Liu: Fig. 7A and para. [0098], “The resource status request 716 may include request for measurements of load information. The requested load information may include radio resource usage information, such as GBR PRB/Non-GBR PRB utilization information and/or beam utilization information, per service type radio resource usage information, load per carrier information including SUL load, hardware load information including CU and per DU hardware load, TNL load information including N2, N3, and/or F1 TNL load, composite available capacity, numbers of UE's in connected mode, and/or numbers of UE's in RRC_INACTIVE state.” The measurements of load, radio resource usage, PRB utilization, beam utilization, per service type radio resource usage, load per carrier, hardware load, TNL load, available capacity, numbers of UE, etc. are examples of features that resides on the target network node suitable for improving prediction of one or more values related to the feedback information. Also, see para. [0006] [0094] about the example list of additional features in the NR network node, such as, mmWave beam utilization, supplemental uplink, additional RRC states, CU-DU split feature, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ericsson in combination of the teachings of Liu in order for the source base station to use the load information to perform various load balancing procedures including adjusting parameters for handover procedures, cell reselection procedures, SN addition/modification procedures, and/or bearer offloading procedures, based on the load information received from the target base station to implement load balancing between base stations and to prevent one base station from being overloaded while improving the overall operating efficiency of the wireless network (see, Liu: Abstract and para. [0099].).
Regarding claim 35:
As discussed above, Ericsson in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 34.
Ericsson further teaches wherein the feedback information includes at least one of any one or more of the following types of feedback information: information about the reconfiguration procedure; information about a wireless device that performs the reconfiguration procedure; information about the target network node or a target cell during or after the reconfiguration procedure; one or more measurements performed by the target network node during or after the reconfiguration procedure (see, Ericsson: Section 2.1.1., “the target eNB can respond (periodically or not) with a RESOURCE STATUS UPDATE message containing the requested measurements, such as its load per cell”); and one or more measurements performed by the wireless device during or after the reconfiguration procedure (see, Ericsson: Section 2.1.2., “An eNB can thus perform UE selection and cell selection based on, for instance, the resource status information report of neighbouring eNBs’ cells and potentially available radio measurements (e.g., RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported by the candidate UEs for the source’s and target’s cells”).
Regarding claim 36:
As discussed above, Ericsson in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 34.
Ericsson further teaches wherein the feedback information includes at least one of: information about a configuration adopted for a wireless device after the wireless device performs the reconfiguration procedure; and information about a configuration at the target network node during or after the reconfiguration procedure (see, Ericsson: Section 2.1.2., “If the procedure is successful, the HO offset has the effect of effectively shrinking the coverage area of the congested cells and extending the border of neighbouring cells. The agreed HO trigger settings is signalled to the UEs in the served cell by the source eNB and no specific UE is selected by the source eNB for HO, namely HO will be triggered when the configured HO conditions are met according to the new HO trigger.”).
Regarding claim 37:
As discussed above, Ericsson in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 36.
Ericsson further teaches wherein the information about the configuration adopted for the wireless device includes information about at least one of any one or more of: a dual connectivity configuration adopted for the wireless device after the wireless device performs the reconfiguration procedure; a carrier aggregation configuration adopted for the wireless device after the wireless device performs the reconfiguration procedure; and a feature set and/or band combination adopted for the wireless device after the wireless device performs the reconfiguration procedure; and
wherein the information about the configuration at the target network node during or after the reconfiguration procedure includes information about at least one of any one or more of: overall capacity utilized by a wireless device at the target network node; overall percentage of physical resource blocks used by a wireless device at a target cell of the reconfiguration procedure; and overall throughput achieved via a configuration applied at a wireless device after the wireless device performs the reconfiguration procedure (see, Ericsson: Proposal 1, “To consider MLB solutions for NR based on introducing resource status information reporting on a per SSB beam basis.”).
Regarding claim 38:
As discussed above, Ericsson in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 34.
Ericsson further teaches wherein the signaling indicates at least one of: a time window within which the feedback information is requested from the target network node after execution of the reconfiguration procedure; and a criterion that is to trigger the target network node to transmit a type of feedback information to the source network node, wherein the criterion is that a value of the type of feedback information is below a threshold, is above a threshold, is outside of a range, or is inside of a range, and wherein the signaling indicates the threshold or the range (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.1., “the source eNB (e.g., eNB1 in Figure 1) may trigger a RESOURCE STATUS REQUEST message to potential target eNBs (e.g., eNB2 in Figure 1) at any point in time, for example when the load is above a pre-defined value. … the target eNB can respond (periodically or not) with a RESOURCE STATUS UPDATE message containing the requested measurements, such as its load per cell”).
Regarding claim 40:
Claim 41 is directed towards the method from the perspective of a network node configured to operate as a target network node of the reconfiguration procedure which corresponds to the method of claim 34, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 34 above.
Regarding claim 41:
Claim 41 is directed towards the method of claim 40 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 35. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 35 above.
Regarding claim 42:
Claim 42 is directed towards the method of claim 40 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 36. Therefore, claim 42 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 36 above.
Regarding claim 43:
Claim 43 is directed towards the method of claim 42 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 37. Therefore, claim 43 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 37 above.
Regarding claim 44:
Claim 44 is directed towards the method of claim 40 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 38. Therefore, claim 44 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 38 above.
Regarding claim 45:
As discussed above, Ericsson in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 40.
Ericsson further teaches wherein deciding, based on the received signaling, whether to transmit feedback information to the source network node or which one or more types of feedback information to transmit to the source network node; and transmitting, to the source network node, the feedback information indicated by the signaling (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.1., “If the target eNB can provide all or some of the requested resource status information, it shall initiate the measurements as requested by the source eNB and respond with a RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE message whether all or only parts of the measurements can be provided.”).
Regarding claim 46:
Claim 46 is directed towards a network node configured to operate as a source network node (see, Ericsson Fig. 1, the source eNB1) of a reconfiguration procedure, the network node comprising: communication circuitry (see, Ericsson: Transceiver of the source eNB1, not shown); and processing circuitry (see, Ericsson: Processor of the source eNB1, not shown) configured to perform the method of claim 34. Therefore, claim 46 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 34 above.
Regarding claim 47:
Claim 47 is directed towards the network node of claim 46 that is further limited to similar features to claim 35. Therefore, claim 47 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 35 above.
Regarding claim 48:
Claim 48 is directed towards the network node of claim 46 that is further limited to similar features to claim 36. Therefore, claim 48 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 36 above.
Regarding claim 49:
Claim 49 is directed towards the network node of claim 48 that is further limited to similar features to claim 37. Therefore, claim 49 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 37 above.
Regarding claim 50:
Claim 50 is directed towards the network node of claim 46 that is further limited to similar features to claim 38. Therefore, claim 50 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 38 above.
Regarding claim 52:
Claim 52 is directed towards a network node configured to operate as a target network node (see, Ericsson Fig. 1, the target eNB2) of a reconfiguration procedure, the network node comprising: communication circuitry (see, Ericsson: Transceiver of the target eNB2, not shown); and processing circuitry (see, Ericsson: Processor of the target eNB2, not shown) configured to perform the method of claim 40. Therefore, claim 52 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 40 and claim 34 above.
Regarding claim 53:
Claim 53 is directed towards the network node of claim 52 that is further limited to similar features to claim 35. Therefore, claim 53 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 41 and claim 35 above.
Claims 39 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of Liu further in view of Kwan (US 2017/0026888 A1, hereinafter Kwan).
Regarding claim 39:
As discussed above, Ericsson in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 34.
Ericsson further teaches wherein receiving the feedback information indicated by the signaling (see, Ericsson: Fig. 1 and Section 2.1.1., “If the target eNB can provide all or some of the requested resource status information, it shall initiate the measurements as requested by the source eNB and respond with a RESOURCE STATUS RESPONSE message whether all or only parts of the measurements can be provided.”).
Ericsson in view of Liu does not explicitly teach wherein training, based on the received feedback information, a model to predict predicted information; predicting the predicted information using the model; and making a decision based on the predicted information, wherein the decision is a decision about: whether a wireless device is to perform a reconfiguration procedure to the target network node; which wireless device is to perform a reconfiguration procedure to the target network node; or which network node is to be a target of a reconfiguration procedure to be performed by a wireless device.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwan teaches wherein training, based on the received feedback information, a model to predict predicted information (see, Kwan: Fig. 2 and para. [0102], “Following training of the statistical model, the statistical model can be used to predict network behavior beginning at 204 in which the operations can include determining whether a prediction for the network behavior is needed. For example, in some embodiments, central management system 118 may determine that loading, congestion, UE admission, etc. for RAN 116 should be managed, optimized, etc. through one or more UE handovers among radio access points 114a-114c.”); predicting the predicted information using the model (see, Kwan: Fig. 2 and para. [0105], “the prediction of network behavior can be calculated at 208”); and making a decision based on the predicted information (see, Kwan: Fig. 2 and para. [0112], “a determination can be made at 212 whether or not to initiate one or more UE handovers based on the result of the network behavior prediction.”), wherein the decision is a decision about: whether a wireless device is to perform a reconfiguration procedure to the target network node; which wireless device is to perform a reconfiguration procedure to the target network node (see, Kwan: Fig. 2 and para. [0105], “if it is determined that one or more UE handovers are to be initiated, the operations continue to 214 in which the one or more UE handovers can be initiated to handover the one or more UE to the target radio access point.”); or which network node is to be a target of a reconfiguration procedure to be performed by a wireless device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ericsson in view of Liu in combination of the teachings of Kwan in order to train a statistical model representing radio access point loads or load changes for radio access points and to support redistribution of load from a source cell to a target cell in a wireless network (see, Kwan: Abstract and para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 51:
Claim 51 is directed towards the network node of claim 46 that is further limited to similar features to claim 39. Therefore, claim 51 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 39 above.
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 JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471