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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 05/12/2025 havingclaims 1-23 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 10/03/2023 is a has no priority.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 10/03/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 05/12/2025 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. 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 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20240107564 A1 DOI et al. (Hereinafter “DOI ").
As per claim 10, DOI teaches method for optimizing a remote unit (RU) cluster(s) in a wireless communications system (WCS), comprising: proce3ssing a link quality measurement collected by a respective set of user equipment (UE) in each of a plurality of RU clusters with respect to one or more RUs in the respective one of the plurality of RU clusters (para 0122, 0135- 0137, fig.15-17, receiving UE position and quality of the mobile in each of a plurality of RU clusters with respect to one or more RUs in the respective one of the plurality of RU clusters); determining, based on the processed link quality measurement, whether it is necessary to optimize any of the plurality of RU clusters (para 0131, fig. 15-17, based on the received information and position and link quality information based on the determined position and to optimize any of the plurality of RU clusters); and optimizing one or more of the plurality of RU clusters in response to determining that it is necessary to optimize the one or more of the plurality of RU clusters ((para 0135- 0137, [0131] fig.15-17, optimize one or more of the plurality of RU clusters in response to determining that it is necessary by increase the combined power in the mobile station UE and to expect an improvement in communication stability ).
As per claim 18, DOI teaches method of claim 10, further comprising: determining a set of reference signal identifications for each of the plurality of BEAMIDs((para 0122, 0135- 0137, fig.15-17, based on the received signals strength from each of the UEs and plurality of BEAMIDs).;; generating a set of reference signals each corresponding to a respective one of the set of reference signal identifications((para 0122, 0135- 0137, fig.15-17, based on the information generate a set of reference signals each corresponding to a respective one of the set of reference signal identifications); and providing the set of reference signals to the one or more RUs in a respective one of the plurality of RU clusters associated with the respective one of the plurality of BEAMIDs to thereby enable the link quality measurement by the respective set of UE in the respective one of the plurality of RU clusters((para 0122, 0135- 0137, fig.15-17, based on the information one of the plurality of RU clusters associated with the respective one of the plurality of BEAMIDs to thereby enable the link quality measurement by the respective set of UE in the respective one of the plurality of RU clusters).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument regarding claim 10 applicant argues that, "With regard to claim 10, the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Doi is respectfully traversed. Claim 10 recites a method for optimizing remote-unit clusters in a wireless communications system by processing link-quality measurements collected by respective sets of user equipment in each of a plurality of remote-unit clusters with respect to one or more remote units in the respective clusters, determining from the processed link-quality measurements whether optimization is necessary, and then optimizing one or more of the remote-unit clusters in response. The pending application describes this method as a cluster-based optimization process driven by UE-collected link-quality measurements for the remote units within each cluster. See Summary paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and Detailed Description paragraphs [0051]-[0053] and [0061]-[0063]. Doi does not disclose such a method. As discussed in the Office Action, the Office Action relies on Doi paragraphs [0122], [0131], and [0135]-[0137] and Figures 15-17. However, Doi paragraph [0122] merely states that a communication service provider may be detected based on the detected mobile station UE and the reception signal from that UE. The cited portion of Doi is merely directed to detecting the service provider associated with a UE, not to processing link-quality measurements collected for respective remote units in each of a plurality of remote-unit clusters.Applicant's arugment's have been considered are not persuasive. DOI in ((para 0122, 0135- 0137, fig.15-17 and futher in fig 9-11, a mechanism in which link quality of the received signals from RU clusters by a set of user equipment, where UE1 receives the signal in 20 ms differnt signal strengths RSSI from the RU, so similary UE2. Based on the received quality from RU cluster, determines to optimize the received signal to highest RSSI so that connection to RU continue, based on the determation to optimize to the highest RSSI from RU to the particular UE, optimizing to one of the plurality of RU clusters to highest RSSI based on the determination of the received beam signal strengths and optimize to highest RSSi of each beam.
Applicant's argument regarding claim 10 applicant argues that, "Additionally, paragraphs [0135]-[0137] of Doi likewise do not disclose the method of claim 10. These paragraphs merely discuss that a controller receives a report identifying UE position and service-provider information, determines whether the UE position corresponds to an overlap area of another remote unit, and analyzes whether sufficient radio resources are available in that overlap area. These paragraphs are directed to position-based overlap analysis and resource availability, not to processing UE-collected link-quality measurements for remote units in each cluster and using that processed link-quality information to determine whether cluster optimization is necessary. Doi paragraph [0131] also does not cure these deficiencies. Paragraph [0131] merely states that, by such control, power can be saved and communication quality can be improved, particularly where cover areas overlap. That statement describes an asserted result or benefit of Doi’s control, but it does not disclose the claimed sequence of processing link-quality measurements for multiple remote-unit clusters, determining from those processed measurements whether optimization is required, and then optimizing one or more clusters in response. Because Doi fails to disclose the claimed method steps arranged as recited in claim 10, the rejection of claim 10 under § 102 should be withdrawn. Applicant's arugment's have been considered are not persuasive. DOI in ((para 0122, 0135- 0137, fig.15-17 and futher in fig 9-11, the mechanism in which link quality of the received signals from RU clusters by a set of user equipment , different beam strengths are being received at UE at at particular location, by comparing signal strength to highest one UE determines to optimize to the highest to one, where UE1 receives the signal in 20 ms differnt signal strengths RSSI from the RU, so similary UE2. Based on the received quality from RU cluster, determines to optimize the received signal to highest RSSI so that connection to RU continue, based on the determation to optimize to the highest RSSI from RU to the particular UE, optimizing to one of the plurality of RU clusters to highest RSSI based on the determination of the received beam signal strengths and optimize to highest RSSi of each beam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-9, 19-23 are allowed.
Claim 11-17 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.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20220417948 A1; US Patent Publication US 20220360313 A1, US Patent Publication US 20240031832 A1
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. 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.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights