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 .
Responsive to amendments filed on 01/30/2026.
Claims 1, 17, and 20-21 have been amended. Claims 1-15, and 17-21 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks have been fully considered.
Upon reconsideration of the applied art, it is believed the cited references teach the claims as amended. Namely, the independent claims have been amended to recite the limitation “wherein the second interference mitigation configuration differs from the first interference mitigation configuration based on a distance of the second set of cells to the first set of cells compared to a distance of the third set of cells to the first set of cells”. The cited reference to Centonza discloses the use of transmission power and SINR (called UE geometry in the reference) as part of the determination of interference levels which is used to determine the flexible subframe configuration (UL/DL) for the base stations (paragraphs 0130-0133). As is well known, a reduced signal power (low SINR) means a higher distance from the transmitting node. Thus, since the determination of differing configurations can be performed by using these power related calculations which related to the distance to a network node, it is believed the configurations are applied based on distance.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samdanis et al. (USPN 9,794,049; hereinafter Samdanis) in view of Centonza et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0113007; hereinafter Centonza).
Regarding claim 1 Samdanis discloses a method (fig. 3), comprising:
generating, by a device, a traffic demand prediction associated with a radio access network (RAN) (col. 7, lines 50-56; the traffic/resource demand is estimated for each eNB, wherein the estimation can be performed by an associated operation, administration and maintenance as seen in col. 5, lines 54-59);
determining, by the device and based on the traffic demand prediction, that a first set of cells of the RAN are to be configured with a first time-division duplexing (TDD) configuration that differs from a second TDD configuration configured for one or more other cells of the RAN (col. 5, lines 4-25, 60-65; col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, line 5; wherein base stations, each forming cells as seen in figures 1 and 2, that have the same resource demand are grouped together and assigned the same TDD UL/DL configuration);
identifying, by the device, a second set of cells of the RAN and a third set of cells of the RAN that are to be configured to mitigate interference in the first set of cells (cells A, B, C as seen in figure 2; col. 6, lines 5-15, 32-41; to align base stations with similar traffic demands by assigning to them the same UL/DL configuration providing synchronization to avoid interference, to avoid interference among neighbor base stations with different traffic demands); and
providing, by the device, a first interference mitigation configuration to the second set of cells to cause the second set of cells to mitigate interference in the first set of cells (col. 8, lines 1-14; a management mechanism that controls the operation of base stations in such a way that neighboring base stations with adjacent and/or overlapping coverage areas employ different UL/DL configuration modes, wherein interference between neighboring base stations is taken into account).
Samdanis does not explicitly disclose but Centonza, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic TDD, discloses wherein the first interference mitigation configuration indicates a format of one or more slots in the second set of cells that differs from a format indicated by the second TDD configuration (paragraphs 0090-0099, 0107-0115, 0117-0120, 0123; wherein interference mitigation is achieved by adapting the TDD configuration of each cell in response to configurations received from neighboring cells, each cell 10, 12, 14 will use a format that differs from its neighbors), and providing, by the device, a second interference mitigation configuration to the third set of cells to cause the third set of cells to mitigate interference in the first set of cells, wherein the second interference mitigation configuration differs from the first interference mitigation configuration (paragraphs 0090-0099, 0107-0115, 0117-0120, 0123; wherein interference mitigation is achieved by adapting the TDD configuration of each cell in response to configurations received from neighboring cells, each cell 10, 12, 14 will use a format that differs from its neighbors), based on a distance of the second set of cells to the first set of cells compared to a distance of the third set of cells to the first set of cells (paragraphs 0130-0133; the use of transmission power and SINR (called UE geometry in the reference) as part of the determination of interference levels which is used to determine the flexible subframe configuration (UL/DL) for the base stations (paragraphs 0130-0133). As is well known, a reduced signal power (low SINR) means a higher distance from the transmitting node). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Centonza, in order to minimize interference (Centonza: paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 5 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the traffic demand prediction indicates a start time for implementation of the first TDD configuration and an end time for implementation of the first TDD configuration (col. 5, lines 41-46; a hold down timer within each UL/DL configuration mode, which prohibits changes of UL/DL configuration modes for predefined time durations).
Regarding claim 6 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first TDD configuration has a higher uplink slot to downlink slot ratio than the second TDD configuration configured for the one or more other cells (col. 6, lines 24-28; a mode is selected with a higher ratio of UL-subframes).
Regarding claim 7 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a format of one or more slots in the first TDD configuration is different from a format of one or more corresponding slots in the second TDD configuration configured for the one or more other cells (see in figure 2 that different formats can be assigned in different TDD UL/DL configurations).
Regarding claim 8 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a cell in the second set of cells is identified based on a set of characteristics associated with the cell (col. 5, line 60 – col.6, line 4; col. 7, lines 12-18; base station/cell location).
Regarding claim 9 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the set of characteristics includes at least one of a location of the cell, a transmit power of the cell, an azimuth associated with the cell, an antenna pattern associated with the cell, a morphology associated with the cell, or a propagation model associated with the cell (col. 5, line 60 – col.6, line 4; col. 7, lines 12-18; base station/cell location).
Regarding claim 11 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interference mitigation configuration indicates one or more slots that are not to be scheduled (col. 7, lines 25-35; silent sub-frames).
Regarding claim 12 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interference mitigation configuration indicates one or more slots in which at least one of beamforming, antenna tilting, or transmit power reduction is to be applied (col. 4, lines 24-31; col. 7, lines 25-33; reduce the transmission power or do not transmit or receive in “silent” sub-frames without significantly affecting the user performance).
Regarding claim 13 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interference mitigation configuration indicates a start time for implementation of the interference mitigation configuration and an end time for implementation of the interference mitigation configuration (col. 5, lines 41-46; a hold down timer within each UL/DL configuration mode, which prohibits changes of UL/DL configuration modes for predefined time durations).
Regarding claim 14 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing the first TDD configuration to the first set of cells (col. 8, lines 1-17; assigning UL/DL to each base station cluster).
Regarding claim 15 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the first TDD configuration indicates a start time associated with the first TDD configuration and an end time associated with the first TDD configuration (col. 5, lines 41-46; a hold down timer within each UL/DL configuration mode, which prohibits changes of UL/DL configuration modes for predefined time durations).
Regarding claim 17 Samdanis discloses a device, comprising: one or more processors (col. 6, lines 20-22; OAM function) configured to:
generate a traffic demand prediction associated with a first set of cells (col. 7, lines 50-56; the traffic/resource demand is estimated for each eNB, wherein the estimation can be performed by an associated operation, administration and maintenance as seen in col. 5, lines 54-59);
determine, based on the traffic demand prediction, that the first set of cells are to be configured with a first time-division duplexing (TDD) configuration that differs from a second TDD configuration configured for one or more other cells (col. 5, lines 4-25, 60-65; col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, line 5; wherein base stations, each forming cells as seen in figures 1 and 2, that have the same resource demand are grouped together and assigned the same TDD UL/DL configuration);
identify a second set of cells and a third set of cells that are to be configured to mitigate interference in the first set of cells (cells A, B, C in figure 2; col. 6, lines 5-15, 32-41; to align base stations with similar traffic demands by assigning to them the same UL/DL configuration providing synchronization to avoid interference, to avoid interference among neighbor base stations with different traffic demands); and
provide an interference mitigation configuration to the second set of cells to cause the second set of cells to mitigate interference in the first set of cells (col. 8, lines 1-14; a management mechanism that controls the operation of base stations in such a way that neighboring base stations with adjacent and/or overlapping coverage areas employ different UL/DL configuration modes, wherein interference between neighboring base stations is taken into account).
Samdanis does not explicitly disclose but Centonza, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic TDD, discloses wherein the interference mitigation configuration indicates a format of one or more slots in the second set of cells that differs from a format indicated by the second TDD configuration (paragraphs 0090-0099, 0107-0115, 0117-0120, 0123; wherein interference mitigation is achieved by adapting the TDD configuration of each cell in response to configurations received from neighboring cells, each cell 10, 12, 14 will use a format that differs from its neighbors), and providing, by the device, a second interference mitigation configuration to the third set of cells to cause the third set of cells to mitigate interference in the first set of cells, wherein the second interference mitigation configuration differs from the first interference mitigation configuration (paragraphs 0090-0099, 0107-0115, 0117-0120, 0123; wherein interference mitigation is achieved by adapting the TDD configuration of each cell in response to configurations received from neighboring cells, each cell 10, 12, 14 will use a format that differs from its neighbors), based on a distance of the second set of cells to the first set of cells compared to a distance of the third set of cells to the first set of cells (paragraphs 0130-0133; the use of transmission power and SINR (called UE geometry in the reference) as part of the determination of interference levels which is used to determine the flexible subframe configuration (UL/DL) for the base stations (paragraphs 0130-0133). As is well known, a reduced signal power (low SINR) means a higher distance from the transmitting node). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Centonza, in order to minimize interference (Centonza: paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 18 Samdanis discloses the device of claim 17, wherein the traffic demand prediction indicates a start time for implementation of the first TDD configuration and an end time for implementation of the first TDD configuration (col. 5, lines 41-46; a hold down timer within each UL/DL configuration mode, which prohibits changes of UL/DL configuration modes for predefined time durations).
Regarding claim 20 Samdanis discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (col. 6, lines 20-22; OAM function), the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
generate a traffic demand prediction associated with a first set of cells (col. 7, lines 50-56; the traffic/resource demand is estimated for each eNB, wherein the estimation can be performed by an associated operation, administration and maintenance as seen in col. 5, lines 54-59);
determine, based on the traffic demand prediction, that the first set of cells are to be configured with a first time-division duplexing (TDD) configuration that differs from a second TDD configuration configured for one or more other cells (col. 5, lines 4-25, 60-65; col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, line 5; wherein base stations, each forming cells as seen in figures 1 and 2, that have the same resource demand are grouped together and assigned the same TDD UL/DL configuration);
identify a second set of cells and a third set of cells that are to be configured to mitigate interference in the first set of cells (cells A, B, C in figure 2; col. 6, lines 5-15, 32-41; to align base stations with similar traffic demands by assigning to them the same UL/DL configuration providing synchronization to avoid interference, to avoid interference among neighbor base stations with different traffic demands); and
provide an interference mitigation configuration to the second set of cells to cause the second set of cells to mitigate interference in the first set of cells (col. 8, lines 1-14; a management mechanism that controls the operation of base stations in such a way that neighboring base stations with adjacent and/or overlapping coverage areas employ different UL/DL configuration modes, wherein interference between neighboring base stations is taken into account).
Samdanis does not explicitly disclose but Centonza, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic TDD, discloses wherein the interference mitigation configuration indicates a format of one or more slots in the second set of cells that differs from a format indicated by the second TDD configuration (paragraphs 0090-0099, 0107-0115, 0117-0120, 0123; wherein interference mitigation is achieved by adapting the TDD configuration of each cell in response to configurations received from neighboring cells, each cell 10, 12, 14 will use a format that differs from its neighbors), and providing, by the device, a second interference mitigation configuration to the third set of cells to cause the third set of cells to mitigate interference in the first set of cells, wherein the second interference mitigation configuration differs from the first interference mitigation configuration (paragraphs 0090-0099, 0107-0115, 0117-0120, 0123; wherein interference mitigation is achieved by adapting the TDD configuration of each cell in response to configurations received from neighboring cells, each cell 10, 12, 14 will use a format that differs from its neighbors), based on a distance of the second set of cells to the first set of cells compared to a distance of the third set of cells to the first set of cells (paragraphs 0130-0133; the use of transmission power and SINR (called UE geometry in the reference) as part of the determination of interference levels which is used to determine the flexible subframe configuration (UL/DL) for the base stations (paragraphs 0130-0133). As is well known, a reduced signal power (low SINR) means a higher distance from the transmitting node). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Centonza, in order to minimize interference (Centonza: paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 21 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1. Samdanis does not explicitly disclose but Centonza, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic TDD, discloses wherein the distance of the second set of cells to the first set of cells is less than the distance of the third set of cells to the first set of cells (paragraphs 0130-0133; wherein power values can be used to measure the distance between aggressor and victim nodes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Centonza, in order to minimize interference (Centonza: paragraph 0016).
Claim(s) 2-4, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samdanis in view of Centonza and further in view of Liu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0327844; hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 2 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1. Samdanis fails to explicitly disclose but Liu, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic time division duplex pattern configuration, discloses wherein the traffic demand prediction is generated based on one or more historical performance metrics associated with cells of the RAN (paragraphs 0074, 0093; the downlink and uplink demand can be estimated for a next time epoch, based on the demand values calculated in previous epochs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Liu, in order to improve system performance (Liu: paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 3 the modified Samdanis discloses the method of claim 2. Samdanis fails to explicitly disclose but Liu, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic time division duplex pattern configuration, discloses wherein the one or more historical performance metrics include at least one of a downlink physical resource block (PRB) usage metric, an uplink PRB usage metric, a downlink data volume metric, or an uplink data volume metric (paragraphs 0091, 0095; PRB utilization). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Liu, in order to improve system performance (Liu: paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1. Samdanis fails to explicitly disclose but Liu, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic time division duplex pattern configuration, discloses wherein the traffic demand prediction is generated based on event information associated with an area corresponding to at least one cell (paragraph 0124; ad-hoc event). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Liu, in order to improve system performance (Liu: paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 10 Samdanis discloses the method of claim 1. Samdanis fails to explicitly disclose but Liu, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic time division duplex pattern configuration, discloses further comprising: identifying an interference threshold for the first set of cells (paragraphs 0071-0072, 0127, 0129; cross-link interference (CLI) levels, low or non-dominant); and determining the interference mitigation configuration based on the interference threshold, the interference mitigation configuration being determined so as to prevent interference to the first set of cells from exceeding the interference threshold (paragraphs 0071-0072, 0130; utilize the dynamic TDD pattern configuration feature in 5G networks to dynamically assign the TDD pattern in selected cells or in a whole cluster to mitigate CLI). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Liu, in order to improve system performance (Liu: paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 19 Samdanis discloses the device of claim 17. Samdanis fails to explicitly disclose but Liu, in the same field of endeavor related to dynamic time division duplex pattern configuration, discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify an interference threshold for the first set of cells (paragraphs 0071-0072, 0127, 0129; cross-link interference (CLI) levels, low or non-dominant); and determine the interference mitigation configuration based on the interference threshold, the interference mitigation configuration being determined so as to prevent interference caused to the first set of cells from exceeding the interference threshold (paragraphs 0071-0072, 0130; utilize the dynamic TDD pattern configuration feature in 5G networks to dynamically assign the TDD pattern in selected cells or in a whole cluster to mitigate CLI). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Samdanis with the teachings of Liu, in order to improve system performance (Liu: paragraph 0028).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2020/0313836 to Kang – which discloses low-overhead backhaul signaling for joint direction scheduling when a fully distributed dynamic mode switch between static TDD and flexible duplex is used.
USPN 11,240,715 to Marupaduga – that teaches determining whether the second access node has threshold high downlink load could be based on one or more factors such as (i) downlink physical resource block utilization of the second access node, (ii) downlink data usage of the second access node (iii) downlink buffer fullness of the second access node, and/or (iv) downlink packet discard rate of the second access node. And that determining could be predictive based on past downlink load of the second access node.
US PGPUB 2020/0145175 to Hassan et al. – which discloses a method to reduce congestion in TDD frame formatting if different cells have different UL/DL frame configurations.
US PGPUB 2015/0117348 to Takano et al. – that teaches a communication control device including a radio communication unit which communicates with one or more terminal devices in a cell over a channel in which a link direction is allowed to be dynamically set for each sub-frame which is a unit of time in radio communication, and a control unit which controls allocation of communication resources to the terminal device based on the setting of the link direction of the channel and a location of the terminal device in the cell.
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 Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on 571-272-7969. 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.
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/
Examiner
Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights