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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear and hence the claims are indefinite. The language of the claim was given a broadest reasonable interpretation. The boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Because claims delineate the patentee’s right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. (See MPEP 2173.02).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a best UE" in the claims, which makes the claims vague and indefinite. The limitation “a best UE” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard in sufficient detail to enable such a determination for ascertaining the requisite degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations are not taught by the applied reference of US 20110075556 A1 herein Li. Applicant argues “Li does not appear to teach at least "by representing the group of UEs as a plurality of multidimensional planes," as recited by claim 1. The Office Action cites to para. [0008] of Li, but the cited paragraph does not describe anything that appears to correspond to "by representing the group of UEs as a plurality of multidimensional planes."”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Li clearly discloses a load of the cell in paragraph 0008. Li further discloses by representing the group of UEs as a plurality of multidimensional planes by stating that a score (threshold) is provided to various parameters. The classification of mobile devices with different parameters are interpreted as the multidimensional planes (0008-0010). The score on the various parameters allows the determining of whether or not the devices will be offloaded from a current cell to another cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20110075556 A1 herein Li.
Claim 1, Li discloses A method (Title) of providing user level mobility load balancing, the method comprising:
classifying a group of User Equipments (UEs) in a cell by representing the group of UEs as a plurality of multidimensional planes based on metrics associated with the UEs (0008, creating a candidate list of mobile devices based predetermined criteria of mobile devices (parameters are interpreted as dimensions) which includes bandwidth utilization, distance to neighboring wireless access devices with credit to accept mobile devices, and utilization of exempt applications, since multiple criteria thus multidimensional planes);
defining thresholds for each dimension (0050, score can be calculated for multiple criteria and the score can be calculated for max bit rate and distance to neighbor wireless device, thus thresholds);
using the defined thresholds to determine whether to discard or select certain planes of a dimension and the UEs contained in the planes (0050, mobile devices are disassociated based on the score of the different criteria); and
identifying at least one UE of the UEs contained in selected planes for offload (0050-0053, mobile devices are disassociated, i.e. offloaded; mobile devices are purged and disassociated and the mobile device will reassociate with another wireless access device).
Claim 2, Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the metrics associated with the UEs comprise one or more of: GBR/N-GBR status, emergency/normal call status, speed of movement, relative neighbor power, and load on prospective target cells (0047, load based on mobile devices associated/within wireless access devices).
Claim 3, Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein each metric represents a dimension of data and different values of a metric represent different planes in that dimension (0050, multiple criteria including bit rate, classified between 0 and max bit rate, thus different values of a metric and different planes).
Claim 4, Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein defining thresholds for each dimension comprises setting dimension-specific thresholds that act simultaneously on each dimension (0050, scores calculated for different criteria and the criteria is monitored against the score, thus acting simultaneously).
Claim 5, Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein identifying at least one UE for offload comprises selecting a best UE from an N-dimensional space of the cell being load balanced (0050-0052, ranking mobile devices based on scores of multiple criteria).
Claim 6, Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the offload comprises one of: a handover to a target cell, redirection of the UE to air, or redirection to another RAT (reassociate with another wireless access device, i.e. handover).
Claim 9, Li discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the multidimensional planes enable selection of UEs for offload regardless of their physical distance from cell center or proximity to cell edge (0008-0010; 0050-0053, device selected based on multiple metrics and not just distance).
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Li discloses A system (Title) for providing user level mobility load balancing, the system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (0010, 0026, processor and memory).
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 12, Li discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the system to minimize user experience degradation by considering UE characteristics during UE selection (0028, checking to see if there is an exempt application used by the mobile device that may be in the candidate list and not disassociating the device, thus minimizing user experience degradation; improving capacity, i.e. load of wireless access device by disassociating device).
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Li discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method (0031, processor, memory (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and information stored in the memory).
Claim 15, Li discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14. wherein the method further comprises outputting a tuple comprising the identified UE and a target cell for the offload (candidate list including mobile devices, and wireless access device with credits for offloading, thus tuple).
Claim 16, Li discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the multidimensional planes are selected to optimize network capacity while minimizing compromise on end user experience (0028, checking to see if there is an exempt application used by the mobile device that may be in the candidate list and not disassociating the device, thus minimizing user experience degradation; improving capacity, i.e. load of wireless access device by disassociating mobile devices based on multiple criteria, e.g. bandwidth).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 20150312826 A1 herein Yiu.
Claim 7, Li discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising minimizing user experience degradation by considering UE characteristics during UE selection, the UE characteristics including services active on the UE (0028, checking to see if there is an exempt application used by the mobile device that may be in the candidate list and not disassociating the device, thus minimizing user experience degradation).
Li may not explicitly disclose the characteristics including speed of motion.
Yiu discloses the characteristics including speed of motion (0035, consideration of handover based on different speed designation). 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 Li to include speed designation in order to prioritize carrier frequencies as taught by Yiu so as to improve performance of the network (0036).
Claim 8, Li in view of Yiu discloses The method of claim 7. Liu discloses further comprising preventing repeated selection of a UE by prioritizing non-active UEs (0051-0052, low scoring devices are disassociated) and deprioritizing UEs that have failed in a previous offload attempt (0051-0052, high scoring active device using an exempt application, disassociation occurs after exempt application ends).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 9485704 B2 herein Frenger.
Claim 13, Li discloses The system of claim 10. Li may not explicitly disclose wherein the system is a Self-Organizing Network (SON) node.
Frenger discloses wherein the system is a Self-Organizing Network (SON) node (Col 9: 64 – Col 10: 6, Self-Optimizing Network). 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 Li to include SON capabilities as taught by Frenger so as to further improve the handover decision process (Col 10: 6).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9820188 B2 - A method, system and device load balancing in a telecommunications network is provided where the selection of the one or more User Equipment (UE) 150, to be relocated from a source cell 112 to a target cell 122, is based on a prediction value of the performance in the target cell. The prediction of the performance in the target cell is performed by mapping the current load of the target cell and a current detected signal of the target cell, into a perceived performance, perceived by UEs that have been relocated previously. After relocation of the UE the perceived performance in the target cell is measured actually and fed back 312 by the target cell RBS 120 to the source cell RBS 110, and used for updating the predicted performance value.
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached on (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468