DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 12/2/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11 and 14-20 have been amended.
Note: the status of claim 10 is incorrect.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being (a)(2) by anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US-2025/0081270 hereinafter, Okamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto teaches a method performed by a network node (Fig. 2 [160]), the method comprising:
acquiring cell capacity information (Page 5 [0070] “the distributed station notifies the switching control apparatus of the traffic amount by using downlink control information (DCI) of 5G”) for a plurality of cells (Page 8 [0090] “The traffic amount calculator 161 calculates a predicted traffic amount of the next transmission period of each distributed station 130 by using the DCI information received from each distributed station 130”) supported by a distributed unit (DU); (Fig. 6 [130])
determining cell capacity summations at least by obtaining sets of cell capacities for the plurality of cells based on the cell capacity information; (Page 6 [0076] “When the resource amount of the aggregation station 140 is fixed, the switching control apparatus 160 stores information on the maximum processable band”) and
determining predicted cell capacity information for the plurality of cells based on the cell capacity summations (Fig. 6 [S1109], Page 10 [0114-0115] “The future traffic amount predictor 162 predicts the future traffic amount DU(i+1) of each distributed station 130 in the transmission period U(i+1) from the time t(i+1) to a time t(i+2)” and Fig. 9 [S1305]), wherein the predicted cell capacity information is configured to be used to allocate a cell capacity with respect to each of the plurality of cells by the DU. (Fig. 7 [S1107] and Page 12 [0139] “the determiner 164 reads the aggregation station required band CU(i) or CU(i+1) of the aggregation station 140 stored in the storage 167 in step S1107 of FIG. 7 by the required band calculator 163, and defines the band as a required band X_traffic”)
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto teaches wherein the cell capacity summations includes a maximum cell capacity summation among the respective determined cell capacity summations (Page 6 [0076] “When the resource amount of the aggregation station 140 is fixed, the switching control apparatus 160 stores information on the maximum processable band”), and
wherein the predicted cell capacity information is associated with the maximum cell capacity summation. (Page 6 [0077] “When a sum of the required band and the current buffer amount is larger than the maximum processable band by a predetermined amount or more, the switching control apparatus 160 determines that congestion occurs because the band is tight or the processing enters an overload state”)
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations of claims 18-19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 2. See transceiver and processor in Fig. 36 [71 & 73].
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. (see Page 24 [0270] for non-transitory computer readable storage medium description of switching control apparatus)
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Xi et al. (CN104484233A hereinafter, Xi note: translation included).
Regarding claim 10, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting determining idle CPU resource of the DU based on the predicted cell capacity information, [for the DU allocating CPU resource with respect to time insensitive modules of the plurality of cells according to the idle CPU resource] note: terms within [ ] are considered a recitation of intended use.
In an analogous art, Xi discloses a resource allocation method (Abstract) that includes determining idle processing capacity based on the ratio of current business volume to the total business volume that can be accommodated. (Pages 4-5 “The current idle processing capacity can be represented by the ratio of the currently accommodated business volume to the total business volume that can be accommodated by the resource pool.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Okamoto after modifying it to incorporate the ability to determine excess processing capacity based on the current capacity used vs total capacity available of Xi since it enables moving resources to where the network needs them.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Serravalle et al. (US-2014/0148165 hereinafter, Serravalle).
Regarding claim 14, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting the cell capacity comprises at least one of: a maximum supportable user equipment (UE) number; a maximum supportable UE number with sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration; a maximum supportable multi-user (MU) scheduling candidate UE number; a maximum supportable MU layer number.
In an analogous art, Serravalle discloses a network sharing method and system (Abstract) that includes a cell capacity being calculated as a maximum supportable user equipment (UE) number (Page 5 [0071] and Page 10 [0171] “ when one PLMN has reached the maximum granted resources, eNB may block further connection requests from UEs belonging to that PLMN.”); a maximum supportable UE number with sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration; a maximum supportable multi-user (MU) scheduling candidate UE number; a maximum supportable MU layer number.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Okamoto after modifying it to incorporate the ability to determine a cell capacity based on the maximum supportable user equipment of Serravalle since it enables controlling the load on a base station, keeping it from overloading the base station and ensuring optimal performance for all mobile devices connected to the base station. (Serravalle Page 2 [0018-0020])
Regarding claim 16, Okamoto teaches acquiring cell capacity information (Page 5 [0070] “the distributed station notifies the switching control apparatus of the traffic amount by using downlink control information (DCI) of 5G”) for a plurality of cells (Page 8 [0090] “The traffic amount calculator 161 calculates a predicted traffic amount of the next transmission period of each distributed station 130 by using the DCI information received from each distributed station 130”) from the DU (Fig. 6 [130]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting transmitting the predicted cell capacity information to the DU, for the DU allocating the cell capacity with respect to each of the plurality of cells according to the predicted cell capacity information.
In an analogous art, Serravalle discloses a network sharing method and system (Abstract) that includes a cell capacity being calculated as a maximum supportable user equipment (UE) number (Page 5 [0071] and Page 10 [0171] “ when one PLMN has reached the maximum granted resources, eNB may block further connection requests from UEs belonging to that PLMN.”), acquiring cell capacity information of the corresponding plurality of cells from the DU (Page 5 [0071] “The performance monitor module 43 provides the monitored information to the PLMN resource share limiter module 45 which stores agreed usage limits for each PLMN defining the proportion of the capacity at the base station 6 assigned to each PLMN, and compares the resources used by each PLMN id with the stored usage limits”) and transmitting the predicted cell capacity information to the DU, for the DU allocating the cell capacity with respect to each of the plurality of cells according to the predicted cell capacity information. (Page 5 [0072] “ac-BarringInfo IE”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Okamoto after modifying it to incorporate the ability to use the predicted cell capacity information for load balancing at the DUs of Serravalle since it enables controlling the load on a base station, keeping it from overloading the base station and ensuring optimal performance for all mobile devices connected to the base station. (Serravalle Page 2 [0018-0020])
Regarding claim 17, Okamoto in view of Serravalle teaches wherein the cell capacity information comprises at least one of:
an actual cell capacity of a cell (Serravalle Page 5 [0071] “maximum level of contracted resource usage”), information on the occupied CPU resource corresponding to the actual cell capacity, and a target cell capacity of the cell.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Dixit (US-2023/0362809).
Regarding claim 15, Okamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the network node corresponds to the DU or a radio access network intelligent controller (RIC) in an open radio access network (O-RAN).
In an analogous art, Dixit teaches a system and method for saving energy in a wireless network (Abstract) that includes having a prediction engine in a DU or radio access network intelligent controller (RIC) in an open radio access network (O-RAN). (Fig. 2 [218], Page 7 [0073] “prediction engine” and Page 3 [0036])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Okamoto after modifying it to incorporate the ability to have the predictions occur in the DU or radio access network intelligent controller (RIC) in an open radio access network (O-RAN) of Dixit since the RIC is designed to control and optimize radio access network functions. (Dixit Page 4 [0046])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 11-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner was unable to find the combination of claims 1+3, 1+5 or 1+10+11.
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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646