DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 1/12/26.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 17, 19, 23-24 was/were amended.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 14, 16-19, 23-24 is/are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 19, 23 & 24 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “sending, to a distributed unit of the base station, via an interface for connecting the central unit and distributed unit, a first message for configuring the distributed unit to send current measurement data for at least one of a cell or a beam, wherein the distributed unit is configured to serve a user equipment (UE)”? The claim languages are not clear what exactly being or needed to configuring to “send current measurement data”? Please clarify
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 19, 23 & 24 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “receiving from the distributed unit, via the interface, a second message sent based on the first message, wherein the second message includes the current measurement data for the at least one of the cell or the beam”? The claim languages are not clear what exactly does it mean by “a second message sent based on the first message”? what is in the first message that second message to based on? If the system already sent the current measurement data from the first message, then why sending it again in second message? Please clarify
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 19, 23 & 24 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “sending to the distributed unit, via the interface, a configuration update message including at least a list of at least one cell which is affected by interference, and a list of at least one beam which is affected by interference”? The claim languages are not clear what are the connection between the first, second messages? What about the current measurement data? How does it related to “affected cell by the interference”? Please clarify
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, 16-19, 23 & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, US 2021/0314783 Al, in view of Singh, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2019/0386759 A1.
As to claim 1, Yoo teaches a method performed by a central unit of a base station, the method comprising:
sending, to a distributed unit of the base station, via an interface for connecting the central unit and distributed unit, a first message for configuring the distributed unit to send current measurement data for at least one of a cell or a beam, wherein the distributed unit is configured to serve a user equipment (UE) (Yoo, page 5, paragraph 130; page 7, paragraph 155; i.e., [0030] The user plane 651 of the CU 650 may be connected to the LTE base station (e.g., the DU 605) through an X2-U interface. The control plane 652 of the CU 650 may be connected to the LTE base station (e.g., the DU 605) through an X2-C interface. [0155] the base station may receive a measurement report on the carrier. The base station may select an SpCell and an S Cell based on the measurement report);
receiving from the distributed unit, via the interface, a second message sent based on the first message, wherein the second message includes the current measurement data for the at least one of the cell or the beam (Yoo, page 10, paragraph 171 & 173; i.e., [0171] As described in the above example, the cell deployment information may be transmitted to the CU by the DU through an Fl interface between the CU and the DU. According to various embodiments, the IE relating to the cell deployment information may be included in the Fl SETUP REQUEST message and transmitted. a DU configuration update message and transmitted. The DU configuration update message may include configuration information (e.g., a served cell information IE) relating to a cell in the DU; [0173] the base station may receive a measurement report. The base station may select a PCell or a PSCell based on the measurement report).
But Yoo failed to teach the claim limitation wherein sending to the distributed unit, via the interface, a configuration update message including at least a list of at least one cell which is affected by interference, and a list of at least one beam which is affected by interference.
However, Singh teaches the limitation wherein sending to the distributed unit, via the interface, a configuration update message including at least a list of at least one cell which is affected by interference, and a list of at least one beam which is affected by interference (Singh, page 1, paragraph 22; page 5, paragraph 50; i.e., [0022] determining one or more root causes for detected interference, determining a prioritization of detected interference with respect to service degradation of a subscriber, and determining interference location probabilities within an area of the mobile network. [0050] Returning to FIG. 1, the prioritization engine 150 functions to determine a prioritization of detected interference with respect to service degradation of subscribers. In some variations, determining the prioritization includes measuring the impact of detected interference on service level metrics. In some variations, the service-level metrics are Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). In some variations, the operator sends or generates an operator policy that provides information to the interference analysis system (e.g., 105) about service-level metrics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to substitute MME from Singh for RAT from Yoo to reduce expensive, time-consuming, inefficient (Singh, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 2, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the current measurement data includes uplink (UL) communication measurements (Yoo, page 12, paragraph 197; i.e., [0197] the communication unit 1210 may transmit an uplink signal. The uplink signal may include a random access-related signal (e.g., a random-access preamble (RAP) (or messages)).
As to claim 3, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1,wherein
the first message includes a request message (Yoo, page 6, paragraph 151; i.e., [0151] measurement report), and
wherein the second message includes a response message based on the request message (Yoo, page 10, paragraph 173; i.e., [0173] the base station may receive a measurement report. The base station may select a PCell or a PSCell based on the measurement report).
As to claim 9, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1,wherein the sending the first message is performed in response to receiving a UE measurementYoo, page 10, paragraph 173; i.e., [0173] the base station may receive a measurement report. The base station may select a PCell or a PSCell based on the measurement report).
As to claim 16, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo failed to teach the claim limitation wherein sending at least one of: a list of at least one cell which is affected by interference: and at least one recommended action to a respective central unit of at least one other base station over an Inter- base station interface, in a case where it is determined that interference in cells under control of the at least one other base
However, Singh teaches the limitation wherein sending at least one of: a list of at least one cell which is affected by interference: and at least one recommended action to a respective central unit of at least one other base station over an Inter- base station interface, in a case where it is determined that interference in cells under control of the at least one other base (Singh, page 7, paragraph 62; i.e., [0062] response to these queries includes the list of all the interference sources detected in the specified filters. In some variations, the output engine 170 optionally determines and outputs one or more recommended corrective actions for mitigating the interference as part of the provided analysis output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to substitute MME from Singh for RAT from Yoo to reduce expensive, time-consuming, inefficient (Singh, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 17, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo failed to teach the claim limitation wherein using the current measurement data to generate at least one of: a list of UEs for which handover is recommended, a list of cells/beams that require capacity improvement and, a list of potential interference source cells/beams.
However, Singh teaches the limitation wherein using the current measurement data to generate at least one of: a list of UEs for which handover is recommended, a list of cells/beams that require capacity improvement; and, a list of potential interference source cells/beams (Singh, page 7, paragraph 64; i.e., [0064] an interference analysis dashboard of interference events, a root cause or root causes for the event, and corrective actions for mitigating the interference taken and/or recommended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to substitute MME from Singh for RAT from Yoo to reduce expensive, time-consuming, inefficient (Singh, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 18, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 17. But Yoo failed to teach the claim limitation wherein: sending, to the distributed unit, recommendation data indicating at least one recommended action to be taken by the distributed unit to reduce interference levels; and receiving, from the distributed unit, action data indicating action taken by the distributed unit in response to the recommendation data.
However, Singh teaches the limitation wherein sending, to the distributed unit, recommendation data indicating at least one recommended action to be taken by the distributed unit to reduce interference levels; and receiving, from the distributed unit, action data indicating action taken by the distributed unit in response to the recommendation data (Singh, page 10, paragraph 97; i.e., [0097] control the mobile network to change operation to reduce impact of interference. In some implementations, control parameters can include radio transmitter power level parameters. In a first example, if extremal interference is impacting a base station, the base station's radio transmission power level is increased. In a second example, if internal interference (caused by an infrastructure element) is impacting a base station, the infrastructure element causing the interference can be reconfigured to reduce the impact of the interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo to substitute MME from Singh for RAT from Yoo to reduce expensive, time-consuming, inefficient (Singh, page 1, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 19, 23 & 24 is/are directed to a method and system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 19, 23 & 24 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 4, 6 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 11,665,720 B2 in view of Singh, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2019/0386759 A1, and further in view of Lei, US 2015/0111575 A1 .
As to claim 4, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first message includes a resource status request message, and wherein the second message includes a resource status update message based on the resource status request message.
However, Lei teaches the limitation wherein the first message includes a resource status request message, and wherein the second message includes a resource status update message based on the resource status request message (Lei, figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh to substitute SON from Lei for enhanced base station from Yoo-Singh to meet the demands of higher traffic, conventional systems employ traffic steering mechanisms that offload mobile traffic from a first cell to an overlapping second cell (Lei, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 6, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first message includes a bitmap including at least one bit indicating to request the distributed unit to provide the current measurement data.
However, Lei teaches the limitation wherein the first message includes a bitmap including at least one bit indicating to request the distributed unit to provide the current measurement data (Lei, page 5, paragraph 42; i.e., [0042] cell user occupancy indicator can be included as a bit (e.g., sixth bit) in a bitmap provided in the request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh to substitute SON from Lei for enhanced base station from Yoo-Singh to meet the demands of higher traffic, conventional systems employ traffic steering mechanisms that offload mobile traffic from a first cell to an overlapping second cell (Lei, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 14, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein from the distributed unit, a configuration update acknowledgement message indicating at least one action taken by the distributed unit in response to the configuration update message.
However, Lei teaches the limitation wherein from the distributed unit, a configuration update acknowledgement message indicating at least one action taken by the distributed unit in response to the configuration update message (Lei, figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh to substitute SON from Lei for enhanced base station from Yoo-Singh to meet the demands of higher traffic, conventional systems employ traffic steering mechanisms that offload mobile traffic from a first cell to an overlapping second cell (Lei, page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, US 2021/0314783 Al, in view of Singh, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2019/0386759 A1, and further in view of Farag, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 11,665,720 B2.
As to claim 10, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation further comprising using the current measurement data to determine an overall interference level in at least one of each cell and/or beam currently under control of the distributed unit.
However, Farag teaches the limitation wherein using the current measurement data to determine an overall interference level in at least one of each cell and/or beam currently under control of the distributed unit (Farag, col 20, lines 9-45; i.e., TCI-state having a level-I CSI-RS as a source RS. These narrower beams can be considered level-2 beams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh-Lei to substitute transport channels from Farag for new radio from Yoo-Singh-Lei to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity, new waveform (e.g., a new radio access technology (RAT)) to flexibly accommodate various services/applications (Farag, col 1, lines 30-33).
As to claim 11, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation further comprising determining an overall interference level in at least one of one or more neighboring cells or beams.
However, Farag teaches the limitation wherein using the current measurement data to determine an overall interference level in at least one of each cell and/or beam currently under control of the distributed unit (Farag, col 20, lines 9-45; i.e., TCI-state having a level-I CSI-RS as a source RS. These narrower beams can be considered level-2 beams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh-Lei to substitute transport channels from Farag for new radio from Yoo-Singh-Lei to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity, new waveform (e.g., a new radio access technology (RAT)) to flexibly accommodate various services/applications (Farag, col 1, lines 30-33).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, US 2021/0314783 Al, in view of Singh, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2019/0386759 A1, and Lei, US 2015/0111575 A1, and further in view of Farag, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 11,665,720 B2.
As to claim 7, Yoo-Singh-Lei teaches the method as recited in claim 6. But Yoo-Singh-Lei failed to teach the claim limitation wherein: a first bit of the bitmap indicates to request the distributed unit to provide the current measurement data at beam level, and a second bit of the bitmap indicates to request the distributed unit to provide the current measurement data at cell level.
However, Farag teaches the limitation wherein a first bit of the bitmap indicates to request the distributed unit to provide the current measurement data at beam level (Farag, col 20, lines 9-45; i.e., TCI-state having a level-I CSI-RS as a source RS. These narrower beams can be considered level-2 beams), and a second bit of the bitmap indicates to request the distributed unit to provide the current measurement data at cell level (Farag, col 20, lines 9-45; i.e., a TCI-state having SSBs as source RS can be considered level-I beams. Level-I beams can include multiple narrower beams, each corresponding to CSI-RS, with a 15 TCI-state having a level-I CSI-RS as a source RS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh-Lei to substitute transport channels from Farag for new radio from Yoo-Singh-Lei to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity, new waveform (e.g., a new radio access technology (RAT)) to flexibly accommodate various services/applications (Farag, col 1, lines 30-33).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 11,665,720 B2 in view of Singh, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2019/0386759 A1, and further in view of Goldhamer, US 2020/0296696 A1.
As to claim 8, Yoo-Singh teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Yoo-Singh failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the second message includes data representing signal-to-interference signal-to-noise ratio (SINR), which is associated with a communication channel of the UE and which is obtained at least one of a signal-level, beam-level or cell-level.
However, Goldhamer teaches the limitation wherein the second message includes data representing signal-to-interference signal-to-noise ratio (SINR), which is associated with a communication channel of the UE and which is obtained at least one of a signal-level, beam-level or cell-level (Goldhamer, page 5, paragraph 116; i.e., [0116] The PHY measurements can reflect the received power on the bandwidth part or on a channel BWP, received power (for example RSRP) or interference to noise ratio (for example SINR)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo-Singh to substitute MEC from Goldhamer for new radio from Yoo-Singh to increase radio efficiency, as a part of the Uu time-frequency resources in V2X communication will be reserved for receiving the control information from different base stations (Goldhamer, page 1, paragraph 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 14, 16-19, 23-24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Nam, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20200052775 A1 discloses transmission and measurement resources, split base station.
Liou, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20190230545 A1 discloses beam level, SINR and cell level, bitmap.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416