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 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in Remarks of 01/30/2026 are fully considered, but they are moot in view of a new ground of rejections addressing the newly added limitation(s) of the assigning of identification values is by identifying a cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance and assigning an identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han Seon (KR 2013/0004656) in view of Garcia (US 2015/0319624).
As to claim 1:
Han Seon discloses:
A system (Page 2, PCI apparatus 300 with memory storing codes with processor and interfaces) comprising:
a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a distance between a current cell and a plurality of cells; (See Abstract, also page 2-3, PCI reuse distance calculation unit(302) calculates an distance between a specific cell, for example, base station 201, and at least one of the number(N) of adjacent cells, the distance can be defined as the distance between the base stations)
and assign an identification value to the current cell based on at least the distance. (See page 2, “calculate the PCI reuse distance (S) based on the average distance (D) between the calculated specific cell and the N adjacent cells. The PCI allocator 303 allocates PCI of a specific cell based on the PCI reuse distance S calculated by the PCI reuse distance calculator 302.”. See also further discussion in page 3, the allocation of PCI based on distance is such that cells that reuse PCI do not overlap)
While Han Seon does not expressively state the assigning of identification values is by identifying a cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance and assigning an identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell.
However in at least page 3’s discussion, Han Season gives a PCI to the specific cell based on distance such that cells of reuse PCI do not overlap.
In same field of endeavor, Garcia also discloses a PCI allocation for cells, wherein for each cell, a reuse scheme is followed based on distance. Specifically: In ¶0024, Garcia’s system gather geographical distances between cell site. Per ¶0038-0039, each cell is given a consideration for PCI allocation. Garcia discloses comparing the distance between two specific cells with the site-to-site threshold: if the distance between the two cells is above the site-to-site threshold, the same PCI may be allocated to the cells, which indicates the current cell and one other cell re specifically targeted for consideration, if their distance satisfies a condition, the same PCI is given to the cell under consideration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in Han Seon’s PCI allocation, the assigning is by identifying a cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance and assigning an identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell. Both Han Seon and Garcia specifically avoid cells of the same PCIs are not too closed to avoid interference (¶039 of Garcia, and page 3 of Han Seon. Han Seon specifically avoid giving the current cells the reused PCI within threshold distance of reuse. Thus, it is natural that Han Seon would give a same PCI to the current same as that of another cell outside of the threshold stance to avoid identity confusion during situations like handover (¶0039 of Garcia).
As to claim 11:
Han Seon discloses:
A method, comprising:
determine a distance between a current cell and a plurality of cells; (See Abstract, also page 2-3, PCI reuse distance calculation unit(302) calculates an distance between a specific cell, for example, base station 201, and at least one of the number(N) of adjacent cells, the distance can be defined as the distance between the base stations)
and assign an identification value to the current cell based on at least the distance. (See page 2, “calculate the PCI reuse distance (S) based on the average distance (D) between the calculated specific cell and the N adjacent cells. The PCI allocator 303 allocates PCI of a specific cell based on the PCI reuse distance S calculated by the PCI reuse distance calculator 302.”. See also further discussion in page 3, the allocation of PCI based on distance is such that cells that reuse PCI do not overlap)
While Han Seon does not expressively state the assigning of identification values is by identifying a cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance and assigning an identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell.
However in at least page 3’s discussion, Han Season gives a PCI to the specific cell based on distance such that cells of reuse PCI do not overlap.
In same field of endeavor, Garcia also discloses a PCI allocation for cells, wherein for each cell, a reuse scheme is followed based on distance. Specifically: In ¶0024, Garcia’s system gather geographical distances between cell site. Per ¶0038-0039, each cell is given a consideration for PCI allocation. Garcia discloses comparing the distance between two specific cells with the site-to-site threshold: if the distance between the two cells is above the site-to-site threshold, the same PCI may be allocated to the cells, which indicates the current cell and one other cell re specifically targeted for consideration, if their distance satisfies a condition, the same PCI is given to the cell under consideration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in Han Seon’s PCI allocation, the assigning is by identifying a cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance and assigning an identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell. Both Han Seon and Garcia specifically avoid cells of the same PCIs are not too closed to avoid interference (¶039 of Garcia, and page 3 of Han Seon. Han Seon specifically avoid giving the current cells the reused PCI within threshold distance of reuse. Thus, it is natural that Han Seon would give a same PCI to the current same as that of another cell outside of the threshold stance to avoid identity confusion during situations like handover (¶0039 of Garcia).
As to claims 2, 12:
Han Seon in view of Garcia discloses all limitations of claim 1/11, and while Han Seon does not explicitly mention grouping the plurality of cells into a plurality of groups based on the distance.
However, in PCI reuse scheme, such distance is a basis to group cells into groups wherein each member of a given group are given the same PCI.
Garcia, in a related field of endeavor, discloses such a PCI reuse scheme with cell grouping, see at least ¶0015, 0016, 0039 with a plurality of cells of a system are grouped into the same PCI mode group, wherein the distance is a basis to judge whether two given cells have the same PCI or not (therefore “reuse distance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in the PCI allotment system of Han Seon, such distance is a basis to group cells into groups wherein each member of a given group are given the same PCI. This implementation advantageously allows for reduction of interference by avoiding collisions of various signaling across the cellular system (¶0016 of Garcia).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han Seon (KR 2013/0004656) in view of Garcia (US 2015/0319624) in view of Sarkar (US 2019/0261198).
As to claim 3, 13:
Han Seon in view of Garcia discloses all limitations of claim 1/11, wherein Han Seon discloses assigning the identification value to the current cell based on at least the distance See page 2, “calculate the PCI reuse distance (S) based on the average distance (D) between the calculated specific cell and the N adjacent cells. The PCI allocator 303 allocates PCI of a specific cell based on the PCI reuse distance S calculated by the PCI reuse distance calculator 302.”. See also further discussion in page 3, namely a specific PCI is assigned to the current specific cell based on the PCI reuse distance deprived from the average distance), by identifying the cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance, and assigning the identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell (See Garcia, In ¶0024, Garcia’s system gather geographical distances between cell site. Per ¶0038-0039, each cell is given a consideration for PCI allocation. Garcia discloses comparing the distance between two specific cells with the site-to-site threshold: if the distance between the two cells is above the site-to-site threshold, the same PCI may be allocated to the cells, which indicates the current cell and one other cell re specifically targeted for consideration, if their distance satisfies a condition, the same PCI is given to the cell under consideration. )
However Han Seon/Garcia is silent on at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to assign the identification value by: determining, for each cell of the plurality of cells, a number of cells within the plurality of cells that have a same identification value as a corresponding cell; and assigning the identification value to the current cell based on also on the number of cells within the plurality of cells that have the same identification value.
Sarkar, in a related field of endeavor, discloses determining, for each cell of the plurality of cells, a number of cells within the plurality of cells that have a same identification value as a corresponding cell; and assigning the identification value to the current cell based on also on the number of cells within the plurality of cells that have the same identification value. (See at least ¶0057-0059 with algorithm for allocating PCI to a site/sector, “five PCI groups, then the first five sites to be allocated a PCI group can receive one of the five PCI groups without having to be concerned with any conflicts. Therefore, a determination is made 806 whether n is both less than or equal to the available number of PCI groups minus one and is also less than or equal to the number of sites, i.e., the site count, minus one. If the answer is yes, PCI group m is allocated 808 to site (n)”, namely the process keeps track of how many sites having the same PCI, for example, the first five sites can receive PCI without issues or constraint, however, subsequent PCI allocation takes in account of number of sites in same PCI group to avoid conflict)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in the PCI allotment system of Han Seon to be assigning the identification value to the current cell based on also on the number of cells within the plurality of cells that have the same identification value. This implementation advantageously allows for conflict management by avoiding overcrowding of cells with same PCI (¶0004-0005 of Sarkar).
As to claims 4, and 14:
Han Seon in view of Garcia and Sarkar discloses all limitations of claim 3/13, wherein Sarkar further discloses:
the current cell and each cell of the plurality of cells define a plurality of areas (See Fig. 10C, a plurality of areas); and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to assign the identification value by:
determining, for each cell of the plurality of cells, an amount of overlap between the plurality of areas of a corresponding cell of the plurality of cells and the plurality of areas of the current cell; and assigning the identification value to the current cell based on the distance, the number of cells within the plurality of cells that have the same identification value, and the amount of overlap, by identifying the cell among the plurality of cells based on the determined distance, and assigning the identification value of the identified cell as the identification value of the current cell (See at least ¶0051, 0052, Abstract consideration of overlap areas, ¶0057-0059 with algorithm for allocating PCI to a site/sector, “five PCI groups, then the first five sites to be allocated a PCI group can receive one of the five PCI groups without having to be concerned with any conflicts. Therefore, a determination is made 806 whether n is both less than or equal to the available number of PCI groups minus one and is also less than or equal to the number of sites, i.e., the site count, minus one. This implementation advantageously allows for conflict management by avoiding overcrowding of cells with same PCI (¶0051 of Sarkar). See also , Garcia, In ¶0024, Garcia’s system gather geographical distances between cell site. Per ¶0038-0039, each cell is given a consideration for PCI allocation. Garcia discloses comparing the distance between two specific cells with the site-to-site threshold: if the distance between the two cells is above the site-to-site threshold, the same PCI may be allocated to the cells, which indicates the current cell and one other cell re specifically targeted for consideration, if their distance satisfies a condition, the same PCI is given to the cell under consideration. )
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5 and 15:
Sarkar discloses the current cell defines a first distance away from the current cell, and a second distance away from the current cell, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance; each cell of the plurality of cells defines a third distance away from a corresponding cell;
the current cell defines a first distance away from the current cell, and a second distance away from the current cell, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance; each cell of the plurality of cells defines a third distance away from a corresponding cell;
(See Sarkar, ¶0065, Fig. 10C), however neither Sarkar nor Han Seon discloses:
and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: identify a first group of cells within the plurality of cells, wherein the first group of cells comprises cells that are at a distance away from the current cell that is greater than the first distance; identify a second group of cells within the plurality of cells, wherein the second group of cells comprises cells that are at a distance away from the current cell that is less than the first distance and that is greater than a combination of the second distance and the third distance; identify a third group of cells within the plurality of cells, wherein the third group of cells comprises cells that are at a distance away from the current cell that is less than the first distance and that is less than the combination of the second distance and the third distance; remove cells from the first group of cells, wherein the removed cells from the first group of cells have an identification value that is a same as an identification value of a cell within the second group of cells or the third group of cells; and remove cells from the second group of cells, wherein the removed cells from the second group of cells have an identification value that is a same as an identification value of a cell within the third group of cells. (Emphasis added)
Dependent claims 6-10, 16-20 inherit the allowable subject s from their respective base claims and thus are addressed by the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2011102172 - The objective of the invention is to efficiently and appropriately allocate IDs to communication areas of a base station. An identification information allocation device (1) is provided with group generation unit (3) for grouping communication areas of a base station, a group ID allocation unit (6) for allocating a group ID to a grouped group, and an ID allocation unit (9) for allocating an ID to a communication area of the base station on the basis of the group ID.
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 QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645