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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 28 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments that the cited references fail to disclose “calculating the load using … a factor based on a service plan associated with the devices …” are not persuasive.
Tanach explicitly teaches load balancing based on predefined SLA requirements (¶[0039]), which represent service-level parameters associated with devices/users. Such SLA-based parameters are used to influence load balancing, which corresponds to using a factor based on a service plan in determining system load.
Accordingly, the combination of Nakazato, Ross, Kostic, and Tanach teaches or renders obvious the claimed limitation.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazato et al (US Pub. 2024/0114410), hereinafter “Na”, in view of Ross et al (US Pub. 2022/0360972), and further in view of Kostić (US Pub. 2008/0316985) and Tanach et al. (US 2024/0184624).
Regarding claim 1, Na discloses a method performed by a network management system, the method comprising:
providing, to a base station, a request for base station device information regarding devices connected to the base station (para. 15, 24, base station receiving request from the network management apparatus),
the base station being identified by a fixed wireless access (FWA) device (fig. 1; para. 60);
receiving, based on the request, the base station device information from the base station (para. 24, the base station transmitting the number of user terminals connected to the base station to the network management apparatus),
the base station device information indicating a quantity of the devices connected to the base station … (para. 15, 24, the number of user terminals connected to the base station);
determining a load of the base station based on the quantity of the devices … (fig. 3, UE connection managing unit; para. 117; the UE connection managing unit 32 may respond with the number and status of UEs 2 in response to the polling from the slicing controller apparatus 1).
In the same embodiment, Na does not specifically disclose:
the base station device information indicating signal strengths of the devices connected to the base station;
determining a load of the base station based on the signal strengths of the devices;
determining a signal strength threshold associated with the base station based on the load of the base station; and
causing a connection to be established between the FWA device and the base station based on the signal strength threshold.
However in an alternate embodiment, Na discloses:
the base station device information indicating signal strengths of the devices connected to the base station (fig. 4, step S41; para. 119, processing sequence of base station change processing; para. 120, the UE 2 sends a radio wave quality report (i.e., MR), which indicates the strength of the received radio waves, to the eNodeB);
determining a load of the base station based on the signal strengths of the devices (fig. 4, step S42; para. 121, 122, eNodeB sends a message to the MME which manages mobility of the UE; para. 123, steps S41 and S42 may be alternately performed by gNodeB and AMF instead of eNodeB and MME);
determining a signal strength threshold associated with the base station based on the load of the base station (fig. 2, steps S43, S44; para. 124, 125, UE connecting to gNodeB and performing transmission of user data); and
causing a connection to be established between the FWA device and the base station based on the signal strength threshold (fig. 2, steps S43, S44; para. 124, 125, UE connecting to gNodeB and performing transmission of user data).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings in the alternate embodiment by considering signal strength in the connection setup and data transmission in order to provide optimal connectivity.
Na does not specifically disclose:
wherein the FWA device is configured to establish the connection with the base station to provide Internet access to mobile devices connected with the FWA device
However, Ross from an analogous art discloses this limitation (fig. 1, 5G macro cell 106, 110, 5G small cell 108, para. 105; fig. 3, 5G FW device 304, mobile device 302; para. 61, 83, 85, 86, a user may be able to switch between various devices when managing FWA device 302, other devices being PCs, tablets, …). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate connection of devices to the FWA device as taught by Ross in the system of Na in order to provide 5G broadband coverage (Ross, para. 86).
Na-Ross does not explicitly disclose that “determining the load comprises calculating the load using the quantity of the devices and the signal strengths of the devices.”
Kostić from an analogous art teaches calculating a load/cost metric using both (i) loading of the access point (number of associated stations) and (ii) measurement of the received signal power, stating:
“Exemplary parameters include loading of the access point (number of associated stations) … and the measurement of the received signal power…”
Kostić combines these parameters into a metric used to determine access point load. It would have been obvious to apply this same known load-calculation algorithm to Na’s network-management system because the calculation is not limited to UE-side execution and using it at a centralized controller provides predictable system-level coordination (KSR). Thus, the claimed calculation of load using both device count and signal strength would have been obvious.
Na, Ross, and Kostic do not disclose:“wherein determining the load comprises calculating the load using … a factor based on a service plan associated with the devices…”
Tanach discloses “wherein determining the load comprises calculating the load using … a factor based on a service plan associated with the devices …,” as Tanach teaches:
“maintaining high utilization and load balancing of the resources based on predefined SLA requirements for the service and resources” para. 39).
A service level agreement (SLA) represents service-level parameters associated with users/devices (i.e., service plans), and Tanach teaches that such service-level parameters are used in performing load balancing of network resources. Using SLA requirements to perform load balancing constitutes using a factor based on a service plan in determining system load.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Na in view of Ross and Kostic to incorporate Tanach’s teaching of using service-level (SLA-based) parameters in load determination in order to improve load balancing and resource allocation based on service requirements.
Regarding claim 2, Na further discloses wherein causing the connection to be established comprises:
causing the connection to be established between the FWA device and the base station based on the signal strength threshold and a signal strength of the FWA device (fig. 2; para. 124-125),
wherein the signal strength is based on one or more signals, from the base station, received by the FWA device (fig. 2; para. 124-125).
Regarding claim 3, Na further discloses wherein causing the connection to be established comprises:
determining that the signal strength of the FWA device satisfies the signal strength threshold (para. 127, determine whether or not to change the destination base station to which the UE 2 is connected to the eNodeB 4 to offload the UE 2 to the 4G mobile network); and
causing the connection to be established between the FWA device and the base station based on determining that the signal strength of the FWA device satisfies the signal strength threshold (para. 127, 128, determine to offload based on a predetermined threshold).
Regarding claim 4, Na further discloses
detecting a change in the load of the base station (para. 83); and
adjusting the signal strength threshold based on detecting the change in the load of the base station (para. 83, determining whether to handover),
wherein adjusting the signal strength threshold comprises:
increasing the signal strength threshold based on detecting that the load of the base station has increased (para. 86-87), or
decreasing the signal strength threshold based on detecting that the load of the base station has decreased (para. 86-87).
Regarding claim 5, Na further discloses wherein the FWA device is connected to a first base station (fig. 1, UE in cell 100),
wherein the base station is a second base station (fig. 1, gNodeB), and
wherein causing the connection to be established comprises:
providing threshold information, regarding the signal strength threshold, to the first base station (para. 124-125),
wherein the threshold information is provided to cause the first base station to establish the connection between the FWA device and the second base station (para. 124-125).
Regarding claim 6, Na further discloses wherein the first base station is a base station of a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless network (fig. 1, eNodeB; para. 84, 4G coverage area), and
wherein the second base station is a base station of a Fifth Generation (5G) wireless network (fig. 1, gNodeB; para. 84, 5G coverage area).
Regarding claim 7, Na further discloses wherein the devices include one or more FWA devices and one or more mobile devices (fig. 1), and
wherein the signal strengths of the devices include signal strengths of the FWA devices without including signal strengths of the mobile devices (para. 84-87).
Claim 8 recites a device, comprising: one or more processors configured to substantially perform a subset of the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Na further discloses wherein the device is a first base station, wherein the base station is a second base station, wherein the FWA device is connected to the first base station prior to the request being provided; and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the connection to be established, are configured to: cause a handover to be performed to disconnect the FWA device from the first base station and to connect the FWA device to the second base station (fig. 1; para. 124-125).
Regarding claim 10, Na further discloses wherein the FWA device is connected to a first base station, wherein the base station is a second base station, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the connection to be established, are configured to: provide threshold information, regarding the signal strength threshold, to the first base station, wherein the threshold information is provided to cause the first base station to establish the connection to be established between the FWA device and the second base station (fig. 1; para. 124-125).
Claims 11 and 13 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 16 and 4, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, Na further discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the connection to be established, are configured to: cause the connection to be established between the FWA device and the base station based on a signal strength, of the FWA device, satisfying the signal strength threshold, wherein the signal strength is based on one or more signals, from the base station, received by the FWA device (para. 84-87).
Regarding claim 14, Na further discloses wherein the base station device information indicates a quantity of mobile devices that are connected to the base station, and wherein the one or more processors, to determine the load, are configured to: determine a moving average of the quantity of the mobile devices; and determine the load based on the quantity of the FWA devices, the signal strengths of the FWA devices, and the moving average of the quantity of mobile devices (fig. 5, step S2 acquire number of UEs connecting to gNodeB, step S4-S5, destination change; para. 136-138).
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to substantially perform the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, Na further discloses wherein the base station is a base station of a Fifth Generation (5G) wireless network (para. 84).
Regarding claim 17, Na further discloses wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to cause the connection to be established, cause the device to: cause the connection to be established between the FWA device and the base station based on the signal strength threshold and a signal strength of the FWA device, wherein the signal strength is based on signals, from the base station, received by the FWA device (fig. 2; para. 124-125).
Regarding claim 18, Na further discloses wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: increase the signal strength threshold based on the load of the base station increasing; or decrease the signal strength threshold based on the load of the base station decreasing (para. 86-87).
Regarding claim 19, Na further discloses wherein the quantity of the devices includes a quantity of FWA devices and a quantity of mobile devices connected to the base station, wherein the signal strengths of the devices include signal strengths of the FWA devices, and wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to determine the load, cause the device to: determine a moving average of the quantity of the mobile devices; and determine the load based on the quantity of the FWA devices, the signal strengths of the FWA devices, and the moving average of the quantity of the mobile devices (fig. 5; para. 136-138).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468