DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 10 July 2026 has been entered. No claims are currently amended; claims 20 and 22-28 are cancelled; claims 1-19 and 21 are previously presented; no claims have been added. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 10 July 2026, with respect to “Independent Claims 1 and 21 are Patentable” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sundaresan does not teach adapting the number of active digital processing components comprised in a radio network based on an estimate of a required processing capacity for an estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume relating to a plurality of cells of the radio network.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Within the applicant’s arguments, the applicant asserts that Sundaresan does not disclose the determination of number of active digital processing components based on a required processing capacity for a combined time-averaged traffic. The applicant summarizes in pages 7 and 8 that Sundaresan discloses that FluidNet configures the RAN by hybrid application of DAS and FFR strategies based on traffic demand and user profiled and also determines the optimal spectral resource split between the strategies, computes a BBU resource usage metric to quantify the required BBUs for each strategy, and clusters sectors with similar RU values using graph coarsening to improve resource efficiency and guide coordinated spectral resource allocation across sectors. The examiner respectfully points out that the features upon which applicant relieve (i.e., the determination of number of active digital processing components based on a required processing capacity for a combined time-averaged traffic) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the claims as a whole are interpreted as potentially adapting the number of active components in the network based on an estimate of the required processing capacity for an estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume metric and scheduling transmissions in the network where the processing capacity of the active components is not exceeded by the processing requirement. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims with the based on language includes a scenario that we may not adapt the number of active components even if the estimated combined time-average traffic volume is well below the estimated processing capacity for instance. In this particular instance, the examiner finds that the cited portion of Sundaresan teaches the broad interpretation of the claimed invention where the BBU as the baseband unit represents the active digital processing components of the claim and Sundaresan teaches reconfiguring them in clusters to meet the radio resource demands from mobile traffic in each of its small cells over the epochs which represent the time-averaged traffic volume of the claims. The examiner respectfully invites the applicant to schedule an interview if they would like to discuss this further or if they wish to explore possible amendments that can better define the features that they believe their claim to have that are not currently claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundaresan et al. (US 2014/0031049 A1), hereafter referred Sundaresan. Sundaresan was cited by applicant’s IDS filed 30 January 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Sundaresan teaches a method for a radio network, the method comprising:
adapting the number of active digital processing components comprised in a radio network based on an estimate of a required processing capacity for an estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume relating to a plurality of cells of the radio network (Sundaresan, Fig. 32, [0114]-[0123]; step 3204 apply the respective strategies and assign respective traffic resources allocated to their appropriate strategies based on a BBU resource usage metric that captures the effective number of BBUs needed to run and provide signals to DAS and FFR strategies in each sector that aggregates the radio resource demands from mobile traffic in each of its small cells over previous epoch wherein epoch stands for several tens of minutes); and
scheduling transmissions relating to the plurality of cells SO that processing requirements of the transmissions do not exceed a processing capacity of the active digital processing components (Sundaresan, [0076] and [0151]; the traffic demand of multiple cells is handled without any spectral reuse. Hence while the load-dependent processing component is limited to that needed to handle the total number of slots (e.g. resource blocks in LTE) in a single frame, the basic processing component (FFT/IFFT) scales with the number of cells, where BBU selector determines the appropriate number of BBU units needed to generate distinct number of transmission frames that will be dispatched to the RAUs, where the transmission frames are determined based on user buffers and their traffic demands).
Regarding claim 21, Sundaresan teaches a system for reducing energy consumption of a radio network, the system comprising:
an adapter configured to adapt the number of active digital processing components comprised in the network based on an estimate of a required processing capacity for an estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume relating to a plurality of cells of the radio network (Sundaresan, Fig. 32, [0114]-[0123]; step 3204 apply the respective strategies and assign respective traffic resources allocated to their appropriate strategies based on a BBU resource usage metric that captures the effective number of BBUs needed to run and provide signals to DAS and FFR strategies in each sector that aggregates the radio resource demands from mobile traffic in each of its small cells over previous epoch wherein epoch stands for several tens of minutes); and
a scheduler configured to schedule transmissions relating to the plurality of cells so that processing requirements of the transmissions do not exceed a processing capacity of the active digital processing components (Sundaresan, [0076] and [0151]; the traffic demand of multiple cells is handled without any spectral reuse. Hence while the load-dependent processing component is limited to that needed to handle the total number of slots (e.g. resource blocks in LTE) in a single frame, the basic processing component (FFT/IFFT) scales with the number of cells, where BBU selector determines the appropriate number of BBU units needed to generate distinct number of transmission frames that will be dispatched to the RAUs, where the transmission frames are determined based on user buffers and their traffic demands).
Regarding claim 2, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the method further comprises, prior to the adapting of the number of active digital processing components;
obtaining the estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume relating to the plurality of cells (Sundaresan, [0016]-[0120]; each sector aggregates the radio resource traffic demands from mobile traffic in each of its small cells); and
determining the estimate of the required processing capacity to support the estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume (Sundaresan, [0116]-[0120]; determines the minimum amount of additional spectra resources needed for FFR to satisfy the net traffic demands in each sector).
Regarding claim 3, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the number of active digital processing components is adapted to the minimum number of active digital processing components which can provide the required processing capacity for the estimated combined time-averaged traffic volume (Sundaresan, [0029]; determining optimal multiplexing of the distributed antenna systems and fractional frequency reuse configurations for each sector).
Regarding claim 4, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the scheduling further comprises scheduling transmissions so that transmissions in a time slot do not exceed the processing capacity of the active digital processing components (Sundaresan, [0149]-[0151]; when DAS is employed, the traffic demand of multiple cells is handled without any spectral reuse so while the traffic load-dependent processing component is limited to that needed to handle the total number of slots in a single frame).
Regarding claim 9, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein cells that share a multi-band radio unit are scheduled in the same time slots (Sundaresan, Fig. 18, [0155]-[0156]; hybrid configurations can be multiplexed in frequency so the operator spectrum can be divided into coarse spectral blocks at the same time).
Regarding claim 10, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein cells that do not share a multi-band radio unit are scheduled in different time slots to time slots of cells that share the multi-band radio unit (Sundaresan, Fig. 18, [0155]-[0156]; hybrid configurations can be multiplexed in time so the hybrid configuration can be realized at the granularity of an epoch spanning several super-frames (10 ms each in LTE) where a contiguous subset of the sub-frames operate in a DAS configuration while the rest operate in FFR).
Regarding claim 11, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the number of cells scheduled in the same time slot is based on the estimate of a required processing capacity (Sundaresan, [0164]-[0166]; each small cell maintains an estimate of the aggregate traffic demand from its users, where given a traffic demand from a user in the cell, the corresponding radio resource demand per subframe can be determined and how many cells are needed to fulfill that aggregate traffic demand).
Regarding claim 12, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 7 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein at least one cell uses a reduced performance transmission format for transmission (Sundaresan, [0092]-[0097]; the FFR configuration are connected with 5 MHz bandwidth for the RAUs is then switched to the BBU pool to have a 10 MHz bandwidth which results in a higher bandwidth).
Regarding claim 13, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 12 above. Sundaresan teaches wherein the reduced performance transmission format comprises at least one of: lower order modulation; larger bandwidth (Sundaresan, [0092]-[0097]; the FFR configuration are connected with 5 MHz bandwidth for the RAUs is then switched to the BBU pool to have a 10 MHz bandwidth which results in a higher bandwidth); wider beamforming; reduced complexity interference suppression beamforming; no interference suppressing beamforming; no, or less, data compression.
Regarding claim 14, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the processing capacity is based on at least one of: uplink; downlink; both uplink and downlink (Sundaresan, [0164]-[0166]; each small cell maintains an estimate of the aggregate traffic demand from its users, where given a traffic demand from a user in the cell, the corresponding radio resource demand per subframe can be determined and how many cells are needed to fulfill that aggregate traffic demand. The examiner contends that traffic would be classified as uplink, downlink, or uplink and downlink).
Regarding claim 16, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the digital processing components are shared hardware resources comprised in a compute node serving the plurality of cells (Sundaresan, [0003]; baseband units separated from the radio access units to form the C-RAN that can serve the small cells).
Regarding claim 17, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 16 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the shared hardware resources comprise at least one of: a central processing unit core, a digital signal processor core, an accelerator core, an application-specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array (Sundaresan, [0003] and [0007]; the baseband units comprise possible processing, including DSPs, FPGAs, etc. that is needed to manage a given set of RAUs).
Regarding claim 18, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein the digital processing components are interfaces of a transport connection between the plurality of cells and a centralized processing unit (Sundaresan, [0003] and [0007]; the C-RAN has the backhaul between BBUs and RAUs as a key component of any C-RAN and the baseband units comprise possible processing, including DSPs, FPGAs, etc. that is needed to manage a given set of RAUs).
Regarding claim 19, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 18 above. Further, Sundaresan teaches wherein a proportion of cells scheduled in the same time slots corresponds to the processing capacity of the active interfaces (Sundaresan, [0003] and [0007]; the C-RAN has the backhaul between BBUs and RAUs as a key component of any C-RAN and the baseband units comprise possible processing, including DSPs, FPGAs, etc. that is needed to manage a given set of RAUs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaresan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2008/0104377 A1), hereafter Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Sundaresan does not expressly teach wherein the scheduling comprises delaying a proportion of transmissions in a time slot where transmissions in the time slot would exceed the processing capacity of the active digital processing components.
However, Wang teaches wherein the scheduling comprises delaying a proportion of transmissions in a time slot where transmissions in the time slot would exceed the processing capacity of the active digital processing components. (Wang, Fig. 7, [0032]-[0034]; if the delta value for the BMP sub-unit is greater than 0, which corresponds to an AF level for the BMP sub-unit of less than one, which in turn corresponds to a processor overload condition where the measured PO is greater than the target PO for the BMP sub-unit, the DSP is instructed to skip a designated percentage of time slots in scheduling at DSP, where when a time slot is skipped, the DSP will not schedule packets to be sent at the slots, instead, the packets will be stored in a buffer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Sundaresan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wang in order to control systems for packet data wireless communications networks (Wang, [0001]).
Regarding claim 6, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Sundaresan does not expressly teach wherein the scheduling further comprises maximizing the number of discontinuous transmissions of at least one cell of the plurality of cells.
However, Wang teaches wherein the scheduling further comprises maximizing the number of discontinuous transmissions of at least one cell of the plurality of cells. (Wang, [0024]-[0027]; the average number of FL and RL BE packets being transmitted through the processor in the last T seconds can be increased to a maximum value of (1-fmin) PO).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Sundaresan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wang in order to control systems for packet data wireless communications networks (Wang, [0001]).
Claims 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaresan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/050363 A1, hereafter referred Fu.
Regarding claim 7, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Sundaresan does not expressly teach wherein the number of cells scheduled in the same time slot is restricted to one cell per time slot.
However, Fu teaches wherein the number of cells scheduled in the same time slot is restricted to one cell per time slot (Fu, [45]-[48]; acquiring the number of cells in the subgroup corresponding to downlink time slots configured to be bound in the subgroup is bound).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Sundaresan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Fu in order to save signaling overhead (Fu, [42]).
Regarding claim 8, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Sundaresan does not expressly teach wherein the scheduling of transmissions further comprises scheduling at least two cells of the plurality of cells in different time slots.
However, Fu teaches wherein the scheduling of transmissions further comprises scheduling at least two cells of the plurality of cells in different time slots (Fu, [45]-[48]; the number of downlink time slots for each cell transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback information in a same uplink time slot and the number of bits of HARQ-ACK feedback information corresponding to each downlink time slot).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Sundaresan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Fu in order to save signaling overhead (Fu, [42]).
Regarding claim 15, Sundaresan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 above. Further, Sundaresan does not expressly teach wherein user equipment, UEs, in the same cell and scheduled in the same time slot are coordinated in the frequency domain.
However, Fu teaches wherein user equipment, UEs, in the same cell and scheduled in the same time slot are coordinated in the frequency domain (Fu, [68]-[70]; in carrier aggregation, the downlink cells which transmit HARQ-ACK on PUCCHs of uplink time slots for a same cell).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Sundaresan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Fu in order to save signaling overhead (Fu, [42]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached at 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 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights