DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new reference, Guo, that is relied on in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mysore Annaiah et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0112899 (hereinafter Mysore Annaiah), in view of Gopal et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0119043 (hereinafter Gopal), further in view of Guo et al., CN 114727348 A (hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 1, Mysore Annaiah discloses a network device (disclosed is a network entity, according to [0041], Fig. 1 [element 100]), comprising:
at least one processor (the network entity comprises a processor, according to [0041], Fig. 1 [element 108]); and
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations (the network entity comprises a memory unit that comprises instructions that are executed by the network entity’s processor, according to [0041], [0048], Fig. 1 [element 104]), comprising:
configuring a user equipment that is served via a serving cell device to report signal data representative of signal measurements comprising respective signal metric values associated with signaling with a group of neighbor cell devices, comprising a neighbor cell device (a handover engine of the network entity configures a user equipment, that is served by a serving cell, to perform measurements on specific neighbor cells and report these measurements, according to [0059]);
in response receiving the signal data from the user equipment, determining, from among the group of neighbor cell devices, potential handover target cell devices, comprising the neighbor cell device (once measurement results about the specific neighbor cells are received from the user equipment, handover preparation procedures are triggered as part of proactive handover execution by the handover engine, for specific candidate target cells, according to [0059]); and
selecting, from among the potential handover target cell devices, the neighbor cell device as a target device for a handover operation from the serving cell device as a result of performing a handover selection procedure (the network entity calculates the handover target probability for each of the neighbor cells to which the user equipment may handover to, and ranks them according to these calculated probabilities, with the highest ranked neighbor cell being the neighbor cell that is chosen as the handover target, according to [0050], [0053]-[0055]), the handover selection procedure comprising:
determining that the neighbor cell device has a handover score that is highest among handover scores of the potential handover target cell devices, wherein the handover score is a composite (the handover engine assigns scores to candidate serving cells, which are based on various data, according to [0053]-[0055]) comprising:
a signal score determined as a function of the signal metric value (the score for each candidate cell is modified according to the corresponding signal strength of that cell, according to [0054]).
Mysore Annaiah does not expressly disclose that determining potential handover target cell devices is based on a signal metric value, of the respective signal metric values, being determined to be above a defined threshold, whereby all potential handover target cell devices have been determined to have a respective signal metric value above the defined threshold, nor that the handover score is a configurable, weighted composite, nor that the handover score comprises a success rate score indicative of past success rates of handovers to the neighbor cell device, nor that the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
Gopal discloses that determining potential handover target cell devices is based on a signal metric value, of the respective signal metric values, being determined to be above a defined threshold, whereby all potential handover target cell devices have been determined to have a respective signal metric value above the defined threshold (a cell is considered to be a handover candidate if its signal strength is greater than a threshold, according to [0036]), and
that the handover score comprises a success rate score indicative of past success rates of handovers to the neighbor cell device (a cell is considered to be a handover candidate based on an observed success rate of previous IRAT handovers to target cells that are not the strongest cells among the candidate cells, according to [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah with Gopal such that determining potential handover target cell devices is based on a signal metric value, of the respective signal metric values, being determined to be above a defined threshold, whereby all potential handover target cell devices have been determined to have a respective signal metric value above the defined threshold, and such that the handover score comprises a success rate score indicative of past success rates of handovers to the neighbor cell device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the size of a handover candidate list (Gopal: Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]).
Neither Mysore Annaiah nor Gopal expressly discloses that the handover score is a configurable, weighted composite, nor that the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
Guo discloses that the handover score is a configurable, weighted composite (cell handover is performed according to a handover priority that takes into account various scores that have corresponding configurable weights, according to page 11 line 44 to page 12 line 2); the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score (a signal intensity score can have a corresponding weight of 60%, and a switching success rate score can have a corresponding weight of 40%, according to page 11 lines 44-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal with Guo such that the handover score is a configurable, weighted composite, and the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent call drops by taking into account factors beyond signal strength (Guo: page 2 lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 12, Mysore Annaiah discloses a network device (disclosed is a network entity, according to [0041], Fig. 1 [element 100]), comprising:
at least one processor (the network entity comprises a processor, according to [0041], Fig. 1 [element 108]); and
at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations (the network entity comprises a memory unit that comprises instructions that are executed by the network entity’s processor, according to [0041], [0048], Fig. 1 [element 104]), comprising:
configuring a user equipment that is served by a serving cell device to report signal data representative of signal measurements of signals communicated between the user equipment and neighbor cell devices (a handover engine of the network entity configures a user equipment, that is served by a serving cell, to perform measurements on specific neighbor cells and report these measurements, according to [0059]);
in response receiving the signal data from the user equipment, determining, from among the neighbor cell devices, potential handover target cell devices (once measurement results about the specific neighbor cells are received from the user equipment, handover preparation procedures are triggered as part of proactive handover execution by the handover engine, for specific candidate target cells, according to [0059]); and
selecting, from among the potential handover target cell devices, a neighbor cell device as a target of a handover procedure from the serving cell device in response to performing a handover selection procedure (the network entity calculates the handover target probability for each of the neighbor cells to which the user equipment may handover to, and ranks them according to these calculated probabilities, with the highest ranked neighbor cell being the neighbor cell that is chosen as the handover target, according to [0050], [0053]-[0055]), the handover selection procedure comprising:
determining that the neighbor cell device has a handover score that is highest among handover scores of the potential handover target cell devices, wherein the handover score is a combination of multiple scores (the handover engine assigns scores to candidate serving cells, which are based on various data, according to [0053]-[0055]) comprising:
a signal score determined as a function of the signal measurements (the score for each candidate cell is modified according to the corresponding signal strength of that cell, according to [0054]); and
a load score indicative of resource load data of a neighbor node device that comprises the neighbor cell device, wherein the resource load data is retrieved via a Xn interface defined according to third generation partnership project communication protocol (the handover engine determines the respective loads of the neighbor cells, according to [0057], whereby the base stations of the cellular network communicate via Xn interfaces, according to [0059], whereby the network entity to which the handover engine belongs is a base station (the network entity therefore necessarily receives information from neighboring base stations via Xn interfaces), according to [0039], whereby the cellular network is a 3GPP network, according to [0045]).
Mysore Annaiah does not expressly disclose that determining potential handover target cell devices is based on a respective signal strength value of the signal data being above a defined threshold, nor that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, nor that the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
Gopal discloses that determining potential handover target cell devices is based on a respective signal strength value of the signal data being above a defined threshold (a cell is considered to be a handover candidate if its signal strength is greater than a threshold, according to [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah with Gopal such that determining potential handover target cell devices is based on a respective signal strength value of the signal data being above a defined threshold.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the size of a handover candidate list (Gopal: Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]).
Neither Mysore Annaiah nor Gopal expressly discloses that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, nor that the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
Guo discloses that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, and the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score (cell handover is performed according to a handover priority that takes into account various scores that have corresponding configurable weights, whereby a signal intensity score can have a corresponding weight of 60%, and a switching success rate score can have a corresponding weight of 40%, according to page 11 line 44 to page 12 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal with Guo such that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, and the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent call drops by taking into account factors beyond signal strength (Guo: page 2 lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 17, Mysore Annaiah discloses a method (disclosed is a method for performing proactive handover in a wireless network, according to Abstract, [0035]), comprising:
in response to a handover trigger condition being satisfied, receiving, by a device comprising a processor, signal data indicative of signal characteristics of neighbor cell devices as measured by a user equipment (based on detecting a condition for preparation of proactive handover, a handover engine (which belongs to a network entity [“a device”] that comprises a processor, according to [0041], Fig. 1 [elements 106 and 108]) configures a user equipment to report signal measurements of specific neighbor cells, according to [0059]);
receiving, by the device, resource load data from the neighbor cell devices (the handover engine determines the respective loads of the neighbor cells, according to [0057]);
determining, by the device, a signal score based on the signal data (the score for each candidate cell is modified by the handover engine according to the corresponding signal strength of that cell, according to [0053]-[0055]);
determining, by the device, a load score based on the resource load data (the handover engine determines the respective loads of the neighbor cells, according to [0057]); and
selecting, by the device, a target cell device from among the neighbor cell devices based on a combined score comprising a combination of the signal score and the load score (the handover engine selects, based on the modified scores of each neighbor cell, a neighbor cell as the next serving cell, according to [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Mysore Annaiah does not expressly disclose determining, by the device, a success rate score indicative of a success rate of past handover attempts to respective members of the neighbor cell devices, nor selecting, by the device, a target cell device based on the success rate score, nor that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, nor that the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
Gopal discloses determining, by the device, a success rate score indicative of a success rate of past handover attempts to respective members of the neighbor cell devices (a cell is considered to be a handover candidate based on an observed success rate of previous IRAT handovers to target cells that are not the strongest cells among the candidate cells, according to [0042]), and
selecting, by the device, a target cell device based on the success rate score (cell candidate selection is made based on the record of previous IRAT handover events, according to [0042], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah with Gopal by determining, by the device, a success rate score indicative of a success rate of past handover attempts to respective members of the neighbor cell devices, and selecting, by the device, a target cell device based on the success rate score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the size of a handover candidate list (Gopal: Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]).
Neither Mysore Annaiah nor Gopal expressly discloses that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, not that the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
Guo discloses that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, and the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score (cell handover is performed according to a handover priority that takes into account various scores that have corresponding configurable weights, whereby a signal intensity score can have a corresponding weight of 60%, and a switching success rate score can have a corresponding weight of 40%, according to page 11 line 44 to page 12 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal with Guo such that the handover score is a weighted combination of multiple scores, and the signal score is weighted higher than the success rate score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent call drops by taking into account factors beyond signal strength (Guo: page 2 lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the network device is a centralized unit control plane device of a disaggregated gNodeB that enables network access for the user equipment (the network entity may exist as part of a hybrid architecture, that combines a distributed gNB implementation with a centralized implementation, according to [0033], [0039], [0091]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the configuring comprises defining a trigger condition that triggers the signal measurements of the group of neighbor cells by the user equipment, and further triggers reporting of the signal data by the user equipment to the network device (based on detecting a condition for preparation of proactive handover, the handover engine configures a user equipment to report signal measurements of specific neighbor cells, according to [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Mysore Annaiah does not expressly disclose that the signal metric value of the respective signal metric values of the signal data comprises at least one value of a group of values comprising: a reference signal received power value of the neighbor cell device, a reference signal received quality value of the neighbor cell device, a signal to interference plus noise ratio value of the neighbor cell device, or a received signal strength indicator value of the neighbor cell device.
Gopal discloses that the signal metric value of the respective signal metric values of the signal data comprises at least one value of a group of values comprising: a reference signal received power value of the neighbor cell device, a reference signal received quality value of the neighbor cell device, a signal to interference plus noise ratio value of the neighbor cell device, or a received signal strength indicator value of the neighbor cell device (the measurement quantity is a LTE neighbor cell received signal strength indicator (RSSI) [“a received signal strength indicator value of the neighbor cell device”], according to [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Gopal such that the signal metric value of the respective signal metric values of the signal data comprises at least one value of a group of values comprising: a reference signal received power value of the neighbor cell device, a reference signal received quality value of the neighbor cell device, a signal to interference plus noise ratio value of the neighbor cell device, or a received signal strength indicator value of the neighbor cell device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the size of a handover candidate list (Gopal: Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Mysore Annaiah does not expressly disclose that the success rate score is specific to first ones of the handovers that occurred between the serving cell device and the neighbor cell device.
Gopal discloses that the success rate score is specific to first ones of the handovers that occurred between the serving cell device and the neighbor cell device (the success rate metric for a given cell relates to IRAT handovers between that candidate cell and neighbor cells, according to [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Gopal such that the success rate score is specific to first ones of the handovers that occurred between the serving cell device and the neighbor cell device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the size of a handover candidate list (Gopal: Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the multiple scores further comprise a load score indicative of resource load data of a neighbor node device that comprises the neighbor cell device that is determined prior to a handover operation (the handover engine determines the respective loads of the neighbor cells, according to [0057]).
Neither Mysore Annaiah nor Gopal expressly discloses that the multiples scores are combined with the signal score and the success rate score according to configurable weighting factors.
Guo discloses that the multiples scores are combined with the signal score and the success rate score according to configurable weighting factors (cell handover is performed according to a handover priority that takes into account various scores, including a signal intensity score and a switching success rate score, that have corresponding configurable weights, according to page 11 line 44 to page 12 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Guo such that the multiples scores are combined with the signal score and the success rate score according to configurable weighting factors.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent call drops by taking into account factors beyond signal strength (Guo: page 2 lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the operations further comprise requesting the resource load data from the neighbor node device via an Xn interface defined by a third generation partnership project communication protocol and using the load data to update a neighbor load score prior to final target cell selection (the base stations of the cellular network communicate via Xn interfaces, according to [0059], whereby the network entity to which the handover engine belongs is a base station (the network entity therefore necessarily receives information from neighboring base stations via Xn interfaces), according to [0039], whereby the cellular network is a 3GPP network, according to [0045], whereby the initial score is updated by the handover engine based on conditions such as cell load, according to [0053]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the resource load data comprises at least one member of a group comprising: first data indicative of a processor load, second data indicative of a transport network layer load, third data indicative of physical resource block usage, fourth data indicative of a connected user count, or fifth data indicative of an inactive user count (the neighbor cell load information comprises physical resource block (PRB) usage, according to [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the resource load data relates to at least one of: a distributed unit of the neighbor node device or a centralized unit control plane device of the neighbor node device (the network may use a distributed (DSON) or centralized (CSON) architecture, according to [0091]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses that the multiple scores comprise the signal score and the load score (the score for each candidate cell is modified according to the corresponding signal strength of that cell, according to [0054], whereby the handover engine determines the respective loads of the neighbor cells, according to [0057]).
Mysore Annaiah does not expressly disclose that the multiple scores further comprise a success rate score indicative of previous success rates of handovers to the neighbor device.
Gopal discloses that the multiple scores further comprise a success rate score indicative of previous success rates of handovers to the neighbor device (a cell is considered to be a handover candidate based on an observed success rate of previous IRAT handovers to target cells that are not the strongest cells among the candidate cells, according to [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Gopal such that the multiple scores further comprise a success rate score indicative of previous success rates of handovers to the neighbor device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the size of a handover candidate list (Gopal: Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]).
Claim 14 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Mysore Annaiah discloses requesting, by the device, the resource load data from the neighbor cell device via a third generation partnership project Xn interface (the base stations of the cellular network communicate via Xn interfaces, according to [0059], whereby the network entity to which the handover engine belongs is a base station (the network entity therefore necessarily receives information from neighboring base stations via Xn interfaces), according to [0039], whereby the cellular network is a 3GPP network, according to [0045]).
8. Claims 6-7, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mysore Annaiah in view of Gopal in view of Guo as applied to claims 1, 13, and 17 above, further in view of Levine et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0365954 (hereinafter Levine).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, nor Guo expressly discloses that the operations further comprise determining the success rate score as a function of a recent handover success rate relating to first ones of the handovers that occurred after a defined time and an older handover success rate relating to second ones of the handovers that occurred before the defined time, wherein the defined time is configurable and respective portions of the handover history are weighted according to configurable temporal weighting coefficients applied within a computation of the handover score.
Levine discloses that the operations further comprise determining the success rate score as a function of a recent handover success rate relating to first ones of the handovers that occurred after a defined time and an older handover success rate relating to second ones of the handovers that occurred before the defined time, wherein the defined time is configurable and respective portions of the handover history are
weighted according to configurable temporal weighting coefficients applied within a
computation of the handover score (a SON server waits for a period of time, that is specified by a feedback timer, to receive and process feedback KPI (key performance indicator) information, including successful handover rate, whereby this step is performed iteratively (therefore, any given iteration “occurred before the defined time” and the following iteration “occurred after a defined time”), according to [0053]-[0054], Fig. 5 [step 515]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal with Levine such that the operations further comprise determining the success rate score as a function of a recent handover success rate relating to first ones of the handovers that occurred after a defined time and an older handover success rate relating to second ones of the handovers that occurred before the defined time, wherein the defined time is configurable and respective portions of the handover history are weighted according to configurable temporal weighting coefficients applied within a computation of the handover score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the quick identification and remedying of mobile wireless network infrastructure that are unable to adequately support subscriber needs (Levine: [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, Guo, and Levine discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Neither Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, nor Guo expressly discloses that determining the success rate score comprises determining the success rate score as a function of a first weight metric value applied to the recent handover success rate and a second weight metric value applied to the older handover success rate, and wherein the first weight metric value and the second weight metric value are configurable and stored as operator-defined coefficients enabling real-time adjustment of temporal influence within a computation of the handover score.
Levine discloses that determining the success rate score comprises determining the success rate score as a function of a first weight metric value applied to the recent handover success rate and a second weight metric value applied to the older handover success rate, and wherein the first weight metric value and the second weight metric value are configurable and stored as operator-defined coefficients enabling real-time
adjustment of temporal influence within a computation of the handover score (for each iteration, the successful handover rate is multiplied by a configured weight, in order to arrive at a resulting value, according to [0019], [0055], Figs. 5 and 6 [step 520 and KPI variable D, respectively]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Levine with Levine such that determining the success rate score comprises determining the success rate score as a function of a first weight metric value applied to the recent handover success rate and a second weight metric value applied to the older handover success rate, and wherein the first weight metric value and the second weight metric value are configurable and stored as operator-defined coefficients enabling real-time adjustment of temporal influence within a computation of the handover score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the quick identification and remedying of mobile wireless network infrastructure that are unable to adequately support subscriber needs (Levine: [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Neither Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, nor Guo expressly discloses that the operations further comprise determining the handover score in response to applying a first weight factor to the signal score, applying a second weight factor to the load score, and applying a third weight factor to the success rate score.
Levine discloses that the operations further comprise determining the handover score in response to applying a first weight factor to the signal score, applying a second weight factor to the load score, and applying a third weight factor to the success rate score (weighting factors are applied to a dropped call rate [“signal score”], a number of PRBs per user [“load score”], and the handover success rate [“success rate score”] to arrive at a resulting value, according to [0019], [0055], Fig. 6 [KPI variables A, D, and E]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Levine such that the operations further comprise determining the handover score in response to applying a first weight factor to the signal score, applying a second weight factor to the load score, and applying a third weight factor to the success rate score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the quick identification and remedying of mobile wireless network infrastructure that are unable to adequately support subscriber needs (Levine: [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, Guo, and Levine discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Neither Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, nor Guo expressly discloses that the first weight factor, the second weight factor, and the third weight factor are configurable.
Levine discloses that the first weight factor, the second weight factor, and the third weight factor are configurable (the weight factors are configurable, according to [0019], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo as modified by Levine with Levine such that the first weight factor, the second weight factor, and the third weight factor are configurable.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the quick identification and remedying of mobile wireless network infrastructure that are unable to adequately support subscriber needs (Levine: [0004]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Neither Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, nor Guo expressly discloses applying, by the device, a weight factor to a recent portion of the handover attempts prior to determining the success rate score, the recent portion being specified according to a defined recency criterion.
Levine discloses applying, by the device, a weight factor to a recent portion of the handover attempts prior to determining the success rate score, the recent portion being specified according to a defined recency criterion (the SON server applies, to the successful handover rate for a specified period of time, a corresponding weight factor, as part of arriving at a resulting value, according to [0053]-[0055], Figs. 5 and 6 [step 520 and KPI variable D, respectively]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Levine by applying, by the device, a weight factor to a recent portion of the handover attempts prior to determining the success rate score, the recent portion being specified according to a defined recency criterion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the quick identification and remedying of mobile wireless network infrastructure that are unable to adequately support subscriber needs (Levine: [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, and Guo discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Neither Mysore Annaiah, Gopal, nor Guo expressly discloses determining, by the device, the combined score by applying a first weight factor to the signal score, a second weight factor to the load score, and a third weight factor to the success rate score.
Levine discloses determining, by the device, the combined score by applying a first weight factor to the signal score, a second weight factor to the load score, and a third weight factor to the success rate score (weighting factors are applied to a dropped call rate [“signal score”], a number of PRBs per user [“load score”], and the handover success rate [“success rate score”] to arrive at a resulting value, according to [0019], [0055], Fig. 6 [KPI variables A, D, and E]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mysore Annaiah as modified by Gopal as modified by Guo with Levine by determining, by the device, the combined score by applying a first weight factor to the signal score, a second weight factor to the load score, and a third weight factor to the success rate score.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the quick identification and remedying of mobile wireless network infrastructure that are unable to adequately support subscriber needs (Levine: [0004]).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights