Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 05/26/2023.
Notice of 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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ryan et al. ( Publication Patent No. US 2010/0216467). The prior art discloses that in response to a network failure condition, the first RAN is instructed by another RCC to save a copy of its dynamic eMIB, such that it can revert back to using the saved copy of the dynamic eMIB during a failure recovery process; see ¶ 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves et al. (Publication No. US 2008/0144528, hereinafter referred as Graves) in view of Rastogi et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0050653, hereinafter referred as Rastogi).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Graves discloses a radio access network (RAN) node (Each of the cell sites comprises a respective base station [RAN]; see figure 2/3 104A…N & ¶ 43.); and
a network manager communicatively coupled to the RAN node (Each cell site is connected to a response coordination entity and a configuration entity via a respective communication link; see figure 3 numeral 128 & ¶ 48. It should be appreciated that the response coordination entity and the configuration entity can be co-located or even integrated; see ¶ 53.),
the network manager configured to perform operations comprising: determining, from data obtained from a device, that a trigger event occurred (The response coordination entity receives information [data] regarding the occurrence of an event, wherein the information can be provided by remote sensing equipment [device]; see figure 3 numeral 128 & ¶ 49.);
extracting site configuration data based on determining that the trigger event occurred (It may be advantageous for the configuration entity to know [extracting] what the antenna response characteristics were initially configured as [previous site configuration version], in order to be able to revert to their initial antenna response characteristics once the event has passed; see ¶ 54); and
using the site configuration data to create a new configuration file without overwriting a previous site configuration version (If the event is indeed determined to warrant coverage region reconfiguration, the response coordination entity output a command to the coordination entity to reconfigure at least one of cell sites; see figure 3 numeral 132/126 & ¶ 50.).
Graves teaches receiving information [data] regarding the occurrence of the event from the device, but fails to explicitly disclose that the device is the radio access network (RAN) node. However, in analogous art, Rastogi discloses that the RAN receive a congestion threshold to perform congesting monitoring; see figure 4 numeral 402 & ¶ 85. If one or more of the congestion metrics exceeds its corresponding congestion threshold, an action is performed of generating and/or providing a congestion report to the core network; see figure 4 numerals 406-408 & ¶ 87. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graves traffic management system with RAN report in order to avoid or reduce congestion at the RAN of a cellular communication system; see ¶ 10.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Graves discloses that the network manager further comprises a trigger event detection module configured to analyze incoming data and events to determine the occurrence of a trigger event (The response coordination entity [detection module] receives information regarding occurrence of an event, wherein the event can be provided by reports [events] or remote sensing equipment [incoming data]; see ¶ 49. For example, events that may warrant coverage region reconfiguration include natural or man-made disasters, artistic exhibits, concerts, political rallies, battles and the establishment of humanitarian aid posts or any other event which is likely to trigger a significant increase in communication traffic at or around the event site; see ¶ 44.).
Regarding claim 3, Graves teaches receiving information [data] regarding the occurrence of the event from the device, but fails to explicitly disclose that the trigger event comprises network congestion exceeding a predetermined threshold. However, in analogous art, Rastogi discloses that the RAN receive a congestion threshold to perform congesting monitoring; see figure 4 numeral 402 & ¶ 85. If one or more of the congestion metrics exceeds its corresponding congestion threshold, an action is performed of generating and/or providing a congestion report to the core network; see figure 4 numerals 406-408 & ¶ 87. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graves traffic management system with RAN report of Rastogi in order to avoid or reduce congestion at the RAN of a cellular communication system; see ¶ 10.
Regarding claim 4, Graves teaches receiving information [data] regarding the occurrence of the event from the device, but fails to explicitly disclose that the trigger event comprises receiving an indication that one or more components of the first RAN have failed. However, in analogous art, Rastogi discloses that the RAN receive a congestion threshold to perform congesting monitoring; see figure 4 numeral 402 & ¶ 85. If one or more of the congestion metrics exceeds its corresponding congestion threshold, an action is performed of generating and/or providing a congestion report to the core network; see figure 4 numerals 406-408 & ¶ 87. The RAN congestion metrics may include numbers, rates, or other measures [component] of (a) RLC packet loss, (b) PDCP packet discards, (c) ARQ retransmissions or retransmission requests, and (d) HARQ retransmissions or retransmission requests; see ¶ 86. Examiner has interpreted component as a software performing a function such as determining a value of congestion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graves traffic management system with RAN report of Rastogi in order to avoid or reduce congestion at the RAN of a cellular communication system; see ¶ 10.
Regarding claim 5, Graves teaches receiving information [data] regarding the occurrence of the event from the device, but fails to explicitly disclose that the trigger event comprises determining that an equipment failure has occurred based on a threshold high degradation of one or more KPI parameters. However, in analogous art, Rastogi discloses that the RAN receive a congestion threshold to perform congesting monitoring; see figure 4 numeral 402 & ¶ 85. If one or more of the congestion metrics exceeds its corresponding congestion threshold, an action is performed of generating and/or providing a congestion report to the core network; see figure 4 numerals 406-408 & ¶ 87. The RAN congestion metrics [KPI parameter] may include numbers, rates, or other measures of (a) RLC packet loss, (b) PDCP packet discards, (c) ARQ retransmissions or retransmission requests, and (d) HARQ retransmissions or retransmission requests; see ¶ 86. Examiner has interpreted component as a software performing a function such as determining a value of congestion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graves traffic management system with RAN report of Rastogi in order to avoid or reduce congestion at the RAN of a cellular communication system; see ¶ 10.
Regarding claim 6, Graves teaches that the trigger event comprises receiving an indication of one or more configuration (The network entity comprises means for receiving position information [configuration] regarding occurrence of an event at an event site; means for determining on a basis of a set of factors including (i) the position information regarding occurrence of the event and (ii) policy information regarding the network, whether the event warrants coverage region reconfiguration; see ¶ 7.).
Regarding claim 7, Graves discloses that the trigger event comprises determining that an environmental event has occurred (The response coordination entity [detection module] receives information regarding occurrence of an event, wherein the event can be provided by reports [events] or remote sensing equipment [incoming data]; see ¶ 49. For example, events that may warrant coverage region reconfiguration include natural or man-made disasters [environmental event], artistic exhibits, concerts, political rallies, battles and the establishment of humanitarian aid posts or any other event which is likely to trigger a significant increase in communication traffic at or around the event site; see ¶ 44.)..
Regarding claim 8, Graves discloses that the network manager further comprises a data acquisition module configured to retrieve the site configuration data based on the detection of the trigger event (The response coordination entity output a command to the coordination entity to reconfigure at least one of cell sites based on the event [trigger event]; see figure 3 numeral 132/126 & ¶ 50. The configuration entity [module] learns [extracting] what the antenna response characteristics were initially configured as [previous site configuration version], in order to be able to revert to their initial antenna response characteristics once the event has passed and a "return to normal" command is received from the response coordination entity; see ¶ 54.).
Regarding claim 9, Graves discloses that the network manager further comprises a configuration file management module configured to generate the new configuration file using the site configuration data (The configuration entity determines the new size/shape/position for each affected cell site (based on the geographic position [site data] of the cell in question) and determines what the antenna response characteristics for individual cell site should be (based on the type of antenna being used [size data]) in order to achieve the new size/shape/location.), without overwriting a previous site configuration version (The configuration entity [module] learns [extracting] what the antenna response characteristics were initially configured as [previous site configuration version], in order to be able to revert to their initial antenna response characteristics once the event has passed and a "return to normal" command is received from the response coordination entity; see ¶ 54.).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Graves discloses that the trigger event is associated with at least a second RAN node (A subset of the overall geographic area in the vicinity of the event that was determined to warrant coverage region reconfiguration, wherein the coverage regions are supported by different RAN nodes; see figure 5A numerals 118D, 118E, 118G and 118H. Post-reconfiguration epicenter the epicenter of a coverage region has shifted towards the event site; see figure 5B numeral 418H.).
Regarding claim 11, Graves discloses that the second RAN is a neighbor of the first or that they are within a predetermined threshold distance of each other (A subset of the overall geographic area in the vicinity of the event that was determined to warrant coverage region reconfiguration, wherein the coverage regions are supported by different RAN nodes; see figure 5A numerals 118D, 118E, 118G and 118H. Post-reconfiguration epicenter the epicenter of a coverage region has shifted towards the event site; see figure 5B numeral 418H.)..
Regarding claim 12, Graves discloses that the network manager further comprises a rollback mechanism configured to revert to a previous site configuration version in case of deployment errors or undesired consequences resulting from the new configuration file event (The response coordination entity output a command to the coordination entity to reconfigure at least one of cell sites based on the event [trigger event]; see figure 3 numeral 132/126 & ¶ 50. The configuration entity [module] learns [extracting] what the antenna response characteristics were initially configured as [previous site configuration version]; see ¶ 54. The coordination entity may detect the cessation of the event and determine that it no longer warrants coverage region reconfiguration [undesired consequence]; see ¶ 52. Under such circumstances, the response coordination entity may output a "return to normal" command [revert to a previous site configuration] to the configuration entity 124.).
Regarding claim 13, Graves teaches receiving information regarding the occurrence of the event from the device, but fails to explicitly disclose that the network manager further comprises a performance monitoring module configured to monitor the performance of the RAN node after the deployment of a new configuration file and make adjustments as necessary to optimize performance. . However, in analogous art, Rastogi discloses that after implementing communication parameters change [deployment of new configuration] associated with the RAN congestion report, the controller modifies the reporting policies implemented by the RAN, wherein modifying the reporting policies includes thresholds.; see figure 5 numerals 510-512 & ¶ 85. The RAN uses the thresholds to determine whether congestion metrics exist, an action is performed of generating and/or providing a congestion report [monitoring] to the controller; see figure 4 numerals 402-408 & ¶ 87. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graves traffic management system with RAN report of Rastogi in order to avoid or reduce congestion at the RAN of a cellular communication system; see ¶ 10.
Regarding claims 14, Rastogi discloses determining, from data obtained from a RAN node, that a trigger event occurred based on predefined criteria, wherein the trigger event includes at least one of network congestion, signal degradation, or performance deviation (The RAN receive a congestion threshold to perform congesting monitoring; see figure 4 numeral 402 & ¶ 85. If one or more of the congestion metrics exceeds its corresponding congestion threshold, an action is performed of generating and/or providing a congestion report [data] to the core network; see figure 4 numerals 406-408 & ¶ 87.);
wherein the trigger event comprises determining that an equipment failure has occurred based on a threshold high degradation of one or more KPI parameters (The RAN congestion metrics [KPI parameter] may include numbers, rates, or other measures of (a) RLC packet loss, (b) PDCP packet discards, (c) ARQ retransmissions or retransmission requests, and (d) HARQ retransmissions or retransmission requests; see ¶ 86.
Rastogi discloses that the controller implements parameters changes based on the report from the RAN associated with the congestion metrics, but fails to explicitly disclose extracting specific site configuration data for the RAN node associated with the trigger event, utilizing the extracted site configuration data to create a new configuration file without overwriting a previous site configuration version. However, in analogous art, Graves discloses that it may be advantageous for the configuration entity to know [extracting] what the antenna response characteristics were initially configured as [previous site configuration version], in order to be able to revert to their initial antenna response characteristics once the event has passed; see ¶ 54. If the event is indeed determined to warrant coverage region reconfiguration, the response coordination entity output a command to the coordination entity to reconfigure at least one of cell sites; see figure 3 numeral 132/126 & ¶ 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastogi reporting system with configuration mechanism in order to mitigates the consequences of equipment failure at a given one of the cell site by modifying the configuration of the cells.
Regarding claims 15, Rastogi discloses that the controller implements parameters changes based on the report from the RAN associated with the congestion metrics, but fails to explicitly disclose analyzing incoming data and events to determine the occurrence of a trigger event. However, in analogous art, Graves discloses that the response coordination entity [detection module] receives information regarding occurrence of an event, wherein the event can be provided by reports [events] or remote sensing equipment [incoming data]; see ¶ 49. For example, events that may warrant coverage region reconfiguration include natural or man-made disasters, artistic exhibits, concerts, political rallies, battles and the establishment of humanitarian aid posts or any other event which is likely to trigger a significant increase in communication traffic at or around the event site; see ¶ 44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastogi reporting system with configuration mechanism in order to mitigates the consequences of equipment failure at a given one of the cell site by modifying the configuration of the cells.
Regarding claims 16, Rastogi discloses that the controller implements parameters changes based on the report from the RAN associated with the congestion metrics, but fails to explicitly disclose the trigger event is associated with at least a second RAN node. However, in analogous art, Graves discloses that A subset of the overall geographic area in the vicinity of the event that was determined to warrant coverage region reconfiguration, wherein the coverage regions are supported by different RAN nodes; see figure 5A numerals 118D, 118E, 118G and 118H. Post-reconfiguration epicenter the epicenter of a coverage region has shifted towards the event site; see figure 5B numeral 418H. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastogi reporting system with configuration mechanism in order to mitigates the consequences of equipment failure at a given one of the cell site by modifying the configuration of the cells.
Regarding claims 17, Rastogi discloses that the controller implements parameters changes based on the report from the RAN associated with the congestion metrics, but fails to explicitly disclose a rollback mechanism is configured to revert to a previous site configuration version in case of deployment errors or undesired consequences resulting from the new configuration file. . However, in analogous art, Graves discloses that the response coordination entity output a command to the coordination entity to reconfigure at least one of cell sites based on the event [trigger event]; see figure 3 numeral 132/126 & ¶ 50. The configuration entity [module] learns [extracting] what the antenna response characteristics were initially configured as [previous site configuration version]; see ¶ 54. The coordination entity may detect the cessation of the event and determine that it no longer warrants coverage region reconfiguration [undesired consequence]; see ¶ 52. Under such circumstances, the response coordination entity may output a "return to normal" command [revert to a previous site configuration] to the configuration entity 124. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastogi reporting system with configuration mechanism in order to mitigates the consequences of equipment failure at a given one of the cell site by modifying the configuration of the cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472