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 .
Claims 1-5,8-18 and 21-26 are pending.
Claims 6,7,19, and 20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5,8-18 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1,2,4,5,14,15,17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Gormley et al, US 20200344619 A1, in view of Somashekar et al, US 10470055 B1, and in further view of Kakinada et al, US 20140094181 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Gormley discloses a system for mitigating tropospheric interference in a communication network([0044] a system for detecting and handling tropospheric ducting interference in a wireless network.), the system comprising:
a processor([0145] a processor.);
receive a set of data packets from a first cell and a second cell in the communication network from a database([0081] The data collected at S402 may include configuration management data 130 and topology data 132 for a plurality of cells in the network.);
extract a first set of attributes, a second set of attributes, and a third set of attributes of the first cell and the second cell from the received set of data packets from the database([0081] The data collected at S402 may include configuration management data 130 and topology data 132for a plurality of cells in the network. The data may include physical and geometric data such as a geographic location and elevation of a cell, and antenna configuration information such as an azimuth and tilt, as well as a number of antennas, half-power beam width for each antenna, etc.);
identify one or more pairs of first cells and second cells affected by the tropospheric interference based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes{[0015-0016] While tropospheric ducting is a natural phenomenon resulting from specific weather conditions, the interference problems caused by tropospheric ducting can be mitigated by taking appropriate actions such as: frequency re-planning, dynamic antenna down tilt optimization. The plurality of tropospheric ducting factors may include an interference directionality factor that indicates a dominant interference direction for the interference received in the at least one channel.);
Gormley does not disclose a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, causes the processor to: and mitigate the tropospheric interference of the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells by configuring a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Somashekar does disclose a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, causes the processor to ((pg. 13 col.4 lines. 42-43) The device is a base station or a server having a processor coupled to a memory.):
and mitigate the tropospheric interference of the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells by configuring a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ( pg. 14 col.6 line. 9-14, pg. 14, col. 8, line 27-34) As one can imagine, antenna 230 can be a cell site that transmits and receives RF signals to wireless devices operating in the coverage area. The coverage area is illustrated by lobes 240A, 240B, and 240C. Although not shown, a number of devices can receive and transmit signals to the cell site via antenna 230. In a step 470, the set of base stations send instructive signals to their respective antennas to move into a down-tilt position by a pre-programmed amount. This movement of the antennas to the down-tilt position is done through a RET mechanism with RET values. In a step 480, with the antennas in a down-tilt position, UL interference, CFR, and CDR are reduced, mitigating the tropospheric ducting or tropospheric refraction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley with a processor (202); a memory (204) coupled to the processor (202), wherein the memory (204) comprises processor-executable instructions. which on execution, causes the processor to; and mitigate the tropospheric interference of the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells by configuring a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells as taught by Somashekar. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce or remove tropospheric propagation when it occurs. (Somashekar, [pg. 12 col.2 line. 46]).
Gormley and Somashekar does not disclose compute a first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes, wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells indicates a likelihood of the tropospheric interference between the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Kakinada does disclose compute a first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes, wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells indicates a likelihood of the tropospheric interference between the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells( . [0027] [0031]The calculation of the weights may be done in response to interference received by the capacity booster cell from the coverage cells. For example, factors other than interference may be used in determining how the various aspects are used, such as loading, the utilization of various data and control channels, the mobility of the users, the throughput or spectral efficiency, the amount of spectrum available at the different cells, or even the relative number of antennas available at the different cells. The examiner interprets the attributes as the factors such as “loading, the utilization of various data and control channels, the mobility of the users, the throughput or spectral efficiency, the amount of spectrum available at the different cell”. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley and Somashekar with compute a first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes, wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells indicates a likelihood of the tropospheric interference between the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells as taught by Kakinada. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal level of interference protection to the capacity booster cell taking various factors into account.. (Kakinada, [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Gormley does disclose the system as wherein the set of data packets comprises any or a combination of a tropospheric interference data of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ( [0186] The interference management tool may combine the cell reuse code or cell identifier data and distance information with data from ducting prediction maps to aid in identifying the aggressor cells during times of tropospheric ducting.),
a strength of the tropospheric interference indicating strength of a first cell signal being received at a second cell, a date of the tropospheric interference, and a time of the tropospheric interference ([0108] Another embodiment to determine if an interference event is correlated to a tropospheric ducting event is to monitor variations in interference power at S710for the event over time in the region and analyze if the variations in signal strength correlate to variations in intensities of the ducting forecasts in the same region over the same time.).
Regarding claim 4, Gormley does not disclose the system wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell on a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair.
However, Somashekar does discloses the system wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell on a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair (pg. 14, col. 5, line 31-41)By selecting nearby identical wireless markets within a range of25 to 200 miles, locations can be identified where an RF signal from one location may manifest as interference and noise. Database techniques can be used to identify a set of affected cell towers. The uplink (UL) interference and call failure rate (CFR) can be monitored at the cell towers to provide a candidate list of cell towers for different markets. An increase in UL interference and CFR in reciprocal markets when suitable meteorological conditions exist for tropo-ducting or tropo-refraction will provide a good trigger point to begin antenna down-tilt.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley with the system wherein the second set of attributes correspond to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell on a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair as taught by Somashekar. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce or remove tropospheric propagation when it occurs. (Somashekar, [pg. 12 col.2 line. 46]).
Regarding claim 5, Gormley does disclose the system wherein the third set of attributes corresponds to weather data ([0078] Tropospheric ducting is related to weather, the presence of ducting in an area may be predicted with some accuracy based on weather data.).
Regarding claim 14, Gormley does disclose a method for mitigating tropospheric interference in a communication network ([0044] a system for detecting and handling tropospheric ducting interference in a wireless network.), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor a set of data packets from a first cell and a second cell in the communication network from a database ([0081] The data collected at a S402 may include configuration management data 130 and topology data 132for a plurality of cells in the network.).);
extracting, by the processor, a first set of attributes, a second set of attributes, and a third set of attributes of the first cell and the second cell from the received set of data packets from the database([0081] The data collected at S402 may include configuration management data 130and topology data 132for a plurality of cells in the network. The data may include physical and geometric data such as a geographic location and elevation of a cell, and antenna configuration information such as an azimuth and tilt, as well as a number of antennas, half-power beam width for each antenna, etc.);
identifying, by the processor, one or more pairs of first cells and second cells affected by the tropospheric interference based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes {[0015-0016] [0089] While tropospheric ducting is a natural phenomenon resulting from specific weather conditions, the interference problems caused by tropospheric ducting can be mitigated by taking appropriate actions such as: frequency re-planning, dynamic antenna down tilt optimization. The plurality of tropospheric ducting factors may include an interference directionality factor that indicates a dominant interference direction for the interference received in the at least one channel. Cells 504 that received interference with highly correlated interference characteristics are shaded, while cells 502 with uncorrelated interference characteristics are shown in white.).
Gormley does not disclose and mitigating, by the processor, the tropospheric interference of the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells by configuring a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second.
However, Somashekar does disclose and mitigating, by the processor, the tropospheric interference of the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells by configuring a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second ((pg. 14, col. 8, line 27-34)In a step 470, the set of base stations send instructive signals to their respective antennas to move into a down-tilt position by a pre-programmed amount. This movement of the antennas to the down-tilt position is done through a RET mechanism with RET values. In a step 480, with the antennas in a down tilt position, UL interference, CFR, and CDR are reduced, mitigating the tropospheric ducting or tropospheric refraction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley with mitigating, by the processor(202). the tropospheric interference of the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells by configuring a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second as taught by Somashekar. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to reduce or remove tropospheric propagation when it occurs. (Somashekar, [pg. 12 col.2 line. 46]).
Gormley and Somashekar do not disclose computing, by the processor, a first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes, wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells indicates a likelihood of the tropospheric interference between the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells;
However, Amirijoo does disclose computing, by the processor, a first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes, wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells indicates a likelihood of the tropospheric interference between the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells([0027] [0031]The calculation of the weights may be done in response to interference received by the capacity booster cell from the coverage cells. For example, factors other than interference may be used in determining how the various aspects are used, such as loading, the utilization of various data and control channels, the mobility of the users, the throughput or spectral efficiency, the amount of spectrum available at the different cells, or even the relative number of antennas available at the different cells. The examiner interprets the attributes as the factors such as “loading, the utilization of various data and control channels, the mobility of the users, the throughput or spectral efficiency, the amount of spectrum available at the different cell”. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley and Somashekar with compute a first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the extracted first set of attributes, the extracted second set of attributes, and the extracted third set of attributes, wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells indicates a likelihood of the tropospheric interference between the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells as taught by Kakinada. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal level of interference protection to the capacity booster cell taking various factors into account.. (Kakinada, [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Gormley does disclose the method wherein the set of data packets comprises any or a combination of a tropospheric interference data of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ( [0186] The interference management tool may combine the cell reuse code or cell identifier data and distance information with data from ducting prediction maps to aid in identifying the aggressor cells during times of tropospheric ducting.),
a strength of the tropospheric interference indicating strength of a first cell signal being received at a second cell, a date of the tropospheric interference, and a time of the tropospheric interference ([0108] Another embodiment to determine if an interference event is correlated to a tropospheric ducting event is to monitor variations in interference power at S710for the event over time in the region and analyze if the variations in signal strength correlate to variations in intensities of the ducting forecasts in the same region over the same time).
Regarding claim 17, Gormley does not disclose the method wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell at a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair.
However, Somashekar does disclose the method wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell at a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair ((pg. 14, col. 5, line 31-41)By selecting nearby identical wireless markets within a range of25 to 200 miles, locations can be identified where an RF signal from one location may manifest as interference and noise. Database techniques can be used to identify a set of affected cell towers. The uplink (UL) interference and call failure rate (CFR) can be monitored at the cell towers to provide a candidate list of cell towers for different markets. An increase in UL interference and CFR in reciprocal markets when suitable meteorological conditions exist for tropo-ducting or tropo-refraction will provide a good trigger point to begin antenna down-tilt.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley with the method wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell at a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair as taught by Somashekar. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to reduce or remove tropospheric propagation when it occurs. (Somashekar, [pg. 12 col.2 line. 46]).
Regarding claim 18, Gormley does disclose the method wherein the third set of attributes corresponds to a weather data ([0078] Tropospheric ducting is related to weather, the presence of ducting in an area may be predicted with some accuracy based on weather data.).
Claim 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Gormley et al, US 20200344619 A1, in view of Somashekar et al, US 10470055 B1, in view of Kakinada et al, US 20140094181 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wilson et al, US 20150350940A1.
Regarding claim 3, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the system wherein the first set of attributes correspond to cell configuration data that comprises a total tilt, a remote electrical tilt (RET), a height of a cell tower, a mechanical tilt, a transmission power, and a location of a cell tower.
However, Wilson does disclose the system wherein the first set of attributes correspond to cell configuration data that comprises a total tilt, a remote electrical tilt (RET), a height of a cell tower, a mechanical tilt, a transmission power, and a location of a cell tower ([0090] with data relating to a condition ofa cell site or an environment of the cell site, which may include but is not limited to the following data: meteorological data; geographic data; data relating to installers; inventory data: equipment manufacturer, type, batch; equipment age; other equipment at a cell site, e.g. on a tower; deployment type (height above rooftop, cluttered rooftop); tower type (building, pole, mast mounted); cell traffic loading and transmit power; and use of remote electrical tilt (RET) at a cell site; network key performance indicators (KPI) (e.g. Call drops, noise rise, data rate distribution).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with a strength of the tropospheric interference indicating strength of a first cell signal being received at a second cell, a date of the tropospheric interference, and a time of the tropospheric interference as taught by Wilson. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to increase extremes of temperature cycling or prolonged monsoon rain. (Wilson, [0020])
Regarding claim 16, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the method the first set of attributes corresponds to a cell configuration data that comprises a total tilt, a remote electrical tilt (RET), a height of a cell tower, a mechanical tilt, a transmission power, and a location of a cell tower.
However, Wilson does disclose the method the first set of attributes corresponds to a cell configuration data that comprises a total tilt, a remote electrical tilt (RET), a height of a cell tower, a mechanical tilt, a transmission power, and a location of a cell tower ([0090] with data relating to a condition of a cell site or an environment of the cell site, which may include but is not limited to the following data: meteorological data; geographic data; data relating to installers; inventory data: equipment manufacturer, type, batch; equipment age; other equipment at a cell site, e.g. on a tower; deployment type (height above rooftop, cluttered rooftop); tower type (building, pole, mast mounted); cell traffic loading and transmit power; and use of remote electrical tilt (RET) at a cell site; network key performance indicators (KPI) (e.g. Call drops, noise rise, data rate distribution).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with a strength of the tropospheric interference indicating strength of a first cell signal being received at a second cell, a date of the tropospheric interference, and a time of the tropospheric interference as taught by Wilson. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to increase extremes of temperature cycling or prolonged monsoon rain. (Wilson, [0020])
Claims 8-13 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Gormley et al, US 20200344619 A1, in view of Somashekar et al, US 10470055 B1, in view of Kakinada et al, US 20140094181 A1as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sundberg et al, US 20210400520 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the system wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is computed by using a feature vector obtained by concatenating the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Sundberg does disclose the system wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is computed by using a feature vector obtained by concatenating the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ([0090] [0130] [0132] [0133] Each network node 16a, 16b, 16c is connectable to the core network 14 over a wired or wireless connection 20. In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Remote interference mitigation techniques that an aggressor node (e.g., network node 16a) can apply in order to reduce the interference caused to one or more victim nodes (e.g., network node 16b) include the following: Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is computed by using a feature vector obtained by concatenating the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028])
Regarding claim 9, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further causes the processor to assign an action to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score.
However, Sundberg does disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further causes the processor to assign an action to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score ([0130] [0133] In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system as claimed in wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further causes the processor (202) to assign an action to the one or mor pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028])
Regarding claim 10, Gormley, Kakinada, and Sundberg do not disclose the system wherein the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells comprises a modification in a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Somashekar does disclose the system wherein the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells comprises a modification in a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ((pg. 15, col. 8, line 27-31,pg.16,col.9,line 17 21)In a step 470, the set of base stations send instructive signals to their respective antennas to move into a down-tilt position by a pre-programmed amount. This movement of the antennas to the down-tilt position is done through a RET mechanism with RET values. In a step 650, the first set of base stations act on the instructions to change the position of the antennas at the first set of base stations. In a step 660, the antennas a teach respective base station down-tilt by a pre-programmed amount to reduce UL interference, CFR, or CDR.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Kakinada, and Sundberg with the method wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell at a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair as taught by Somashekar. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to reduce or remove tropospheric propagation when it occurs. (Somashekar, [pg. 12 col.2 line. 46]).
Regarding claim 11, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further cause the processor to compute a second edge score based on the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Sundberg does disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further cause the processor to compute a second edge score based on the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ([0130] [0132] [0133] In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Remote interference mitigation techniques that an aggressor node (e.g., network node 16a) can apply in order to reduce the interference caused to one or more victim nodes (e.g., network node 16b) include the following: Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system as claimed in wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further causes the processor to assign an action to the one or mor pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further cause the processor to calculate an impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score and a second edge score.
However, Sundberg does disclose the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further cause the processor to calculate an impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score and a second edge score ([0130] [0133] In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Somashekar, Gormley, and Kakinada with the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further cause the processor to calculate an impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score and a second edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the system wherein the impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is the difference between the first edge score and the second edge score.
However, Sundberg does disclose the system wherein the impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is the difference between the first edge score and the second edge score ([0132] [0157] Remote interference mitigation techniques that an aggressor node (e.g., network node 16a) can apply in order to reduce the interference caused to one or more victim nodes (e.g., network node 16b) include the following: Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell. A given node is simultaneously involved in closed-loop interactions with several other nodes (e.g., gNBs) and receives contradictory feedbacks from different peers (e.g., several messages indicate "apply less mitigation" and several messages indicate "apply more mitigation").).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system as claimed wherein the impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is the difference between the first edge score and the second edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 21, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the method the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is computed by using a feature vector obtained by concatenating the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Sundberg does disclose the method the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is computed by using a feature vector obtained by concatenating the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ([0090] [0130] [0132] [0133] Each network node 16a, 16b, 16c is connectable to the core network 14 over a wired or wireless connection 20. In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Remote interference mitigation techniques that an aggressor node (e.g., network node 16a) can apply in order to reduce the interference caused to one or more victim nodes (e.g., network node 16b) include the following: Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system wherein the first edge score for the identified one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is computed by using a feature vector obtained by concatenating the first set of attributes, the second set of attributes, and the third set of attributes of the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 22, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the method wherein the processor assigns an action to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score.
However, Sundberg does disclose the method wherein the processor assigns an action to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score ([0130] [0133] In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the method wherein the processor assigns an action to the one or more pairs of first cell; and second cells based on the first edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 23, Gormley, Kakinada, and Sundberg do not disclose the method wherein the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells comprises a modification in a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Somashekar does disclose the method wherein the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells comprises a modification in a total tilt and a remote electrical tilt (RET) for the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ((pg. 15, col. 8, line 27 Page 24 31,pg.16,col.9,line 17-21)In a step 470, the set of base stations send instructive signals to their respective antennas to move into a down-tilt position by a pre-programmed amount. This movement of the antennas to the down-tilt position is done through a RET mechanism with RET values. In a step 650, the first set of base stations act on the instructions to change the position of the antennas at the first set of base stations. In a step 660, the antennas at each respective base station down-tilt by a pre programmed amount to reduce UL interference, CFR, or CDR.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Kakinada, and Sundberg with the method wherein the second set of attributes corresponds to Hepburn data that comprises a weather data index at a location of a cell tower for a given cell at a given date and a given time and Hepburn indices on the area joining first cell and second cell in a pair as taught by Somashekar. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to reduce or remove tropospheric propagation when it occurs. (Somashekar, [pg. 12 col.2 line. 46]).
Regarding claim 24, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the method the processor computes a second edge score based on the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells.
However, Sundberg does disclose the method the processor computes a second edge score based on the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells ([0130] [0132] [0133] In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Remote interference mitigation techniques that an aggressor node (e.g., network node 16a) can apply in order to reduce the interference caused to one or more victim nodes (e.g., network node 16b) include the following: Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system as claimed in wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further causes the processor to assign an action to the one or mor pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 25, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the method wherein the processor calculates an impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score and a second edge score.
However, Sundberg does disclose the method wherein the processor calculates an impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score and a second edge score ([0130] [0133] In some embodiments, taking a mitigation action includes determining which mitigation technique to apply, such as for example via RI mitigation unit 34, if a plurality of contradictory messages are received, the determination based at least in part on at least one of a majority rule, a weighted message, and an interference level indicated in the at least one received message. Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system wherein the processor-executable instructions, on execution, further cause the processor to calculate an impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells based on the first edge score and a second edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028]).
Regarding claim 26, Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada do not disclose the method wherein the impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is the difference between the first edge score and the second edge score.
However, Sundberg does disclose the method wherein the impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is the difference between the first edge score and the second edge score ([0132] [0157] Remote interference mitigation techniques that an aggress or node (e.g., network node 16a) can apply in order to reduce the interference caused to one or more victim nodes (e.g., network node 16b) include the following: Spatial domain techniques, by for instance down tilting the transmit antenna radiation pattern so that less interference can be transmitted in the direction of the victims, at the cost of reducing cell edge performance and/or coverage in the aggressor cell. A given node is simultaneously involved in closed-loop interactions with several other nodes (e.g., gNBs) and receives contradictory feedbacks from different peers (e.g., several messages indicate "apply less mitigation" and several messages indicate "apply more mitigation").).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gormley, Somashekar, and Kakinada with the system as claimed wherein the impact of the action assigned to the one or more pairs of first cells and second cells is the difference between the first edge score and the second edge score as taught by Sundberg. The motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility to improve remote interference (RI) mitigation schemes, particularly in environments such as those with ducting, or other environments with high remote interference levels. (Sundberg, [0028].)
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 RYA TEON NELSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1942. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30.
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 at 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.
/RYA TEON NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights