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 .
Claims 1-20 filed 10/11/2023 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: typos “ration” and “partiuclar” in the last line of the claim.
Claim 12: there is no claim 12, claim 10 is repeated twice instead. Misnumbered claim 10 – the second occurrence of “claim 10” - has been renumbered claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Due to the presence of two (2) different instances of “claim 10”, the dependency of claim 13 is unclear. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be considered to depend from renumbered claim 12.
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, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lennartson et al. (US20230023283A1), hereafter Lennartson.
Regarding claims 1 and 14,
Lennartson discloses a non-transitory machine readable medium (Fig. 10, memory 1006; paragraph 109-112) storing a method program for execution by a set of processing units (Fig. 10, processors 1004), the program for a PIM detection RAN application deployed across one or more RICs (Fig. 1, macrocells 102-1, 102-2) for detecting PIM in a RAN (paragraph 3-4, 53-54) comprising a plurality of RAN base stations (Fig. 1, small cells 106-1 thru 106-4) for servicing a plurality of users located across a plurality of regions (i.e. sites/clusters; Abstract), each region comprising at least one RAN base station (Fig. 1) comprising sets of instructions for a method (Fig. 4-5) for a particular region serviced by a particular RAN base station, detecting (i) high UL noise for the particular region (Fig. 4, step 402; paragraph 7, 15, 64, 130; correlate downlink traffic load with measured uplink noise) and (ii) antenna imbalance for the particular region (paragraph 66; site/group of base stations interact/induce PIM interference based on relative position of antennas; paragraphs 14, 136; detection of in-line PIM caused in the radio/coax/antennas + external PIM via site carriers).
Lennartson further shows, based on said detecting, determining whether high KPI impact is detected for the particular region (Fig. 4, step 404-406; Fig. 5, step 504; paragraph 93-100) and when high KPI impact is detected for the particular region, generating a PIM alert (i.e. alarm) to notify an operator of the particular RAN base station that services the particular region that PIM is detected for the particular region (Fig. 5, step 506; paragraph 101; trigger alarm if estimated PIM is above threshold).
Regarding claims 3 and 16,
Lennartson discloses displaying the PIM alert through user interface to notify the operator (paragraph 103).
Regarding claims 4, 7, 17, and 19,
Lennartson discloses detecting high UL noise for the particular region comprises calculating an average UL per-PRB interference measurement for a particular/strongest (i.e. maximum) receiver antenna branch of a set of receiver antenna branches of the particular RAN base station (Fig. 6; paragraph 79-97; average PRB uplink noise over all receiver branches per sector/carrier; maximum PIM interference created by aggressor carriers across sectors/branches) and determining that the calculated average UL per-PRB interference measurement is greater than an interference threshold specified for the particular region (paragraph 89, 101; trigger alarm if correlation and/or estimated PIM is above a threshold based on average UL per-PRB interference/noise).
Regarding claim 12,
Lennartson discloses each RAN base station in the plurality of RAN base stations comprises a respective set of base station components (Fig. 1, 6, 11; sectors/carriers/branches of the base station), wherein the RAN application communicates with each respective set of base station components of each RAN base station via a particular RIC that interfaces with the RAN application and the respective set of base station components (Fig. 1, macrocell base stations 102 connect small cells 106 to the core network 110).
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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennartson in view of Hasarchi et al. (US20170250765A1), hereafter Hasarchi.
Regarding claims 2 and 15,
Lennartson discloses detecting antenna imbalance for the particular region (paragraph 66; site/group of base stations interact/induce PIM interference based on relative position of antennas; paragraphs 14, 136; detection of in-line PIM caused in the radio/coax/antennas) when high KPI impact is not detected (external PIM not detected) but does not expressly disclose distinguishing between a PIM alert when high KPI impact is detected and generating an antenna imbalance alert to notify the operator of the particular RAN base station that services the particular region that antenna imbalance is detected for the particular region even when high KPI impact is not detected for the particular region.
Hasarchi discloses analogous art (Title: Automatic Mapping and Handling PIM and Other Uplink Interferences in Digital Distributed Antenna Systems) including generating an antenna imbalance alert to notify the operator of the particular RAN base station that services the particular region that antenna imbalance is detected for the particular region even when high KPI impact is not detected for the particular region (paragraphs 46, 89-102; Fig. 8, step 8008; submit report on design value deviations of RRU antennas/resource filters – i.e. internal PIM as in Lennartson - even if external PIM is not detected in step 8004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Lennartson by generating an antenna imbalance alert to notify the operator of the particular RAN base station that services the particular region that antenna imbalance is detected for the particular region even when high KPI impact is not detected for the particular region, as shown by Hasarchi, thereby isolating and identifying root causes generating problems in the network.
Claim 5, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennartson in view of Marupaduga (USP 11425620B1).
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 18,
Lennartson discloses LTE and NR carrier signals (paragraph 36, 43) but fails to expressly disclose the interference threshold specified for the particular region is based on those different types of carrier signal type.
Marupaduga discloses analogous art in which interference threshold specified for the particular region is based on those different types of carrier signal type (Col. 5-6, lines 47-6; Col. 20-21, lines 46-14; different interference thresholds for different types of RATs, i.e. 4G LTE/5G NR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Lennartson by specifying the interference threshold for the particular region based on those different types of carrier signal type, as shown by Marupaduga, thereby controlling interference according to the particular technology being evaluated.
Claims 8-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennartson in view of Mansour et al. (US2023038057A1), hereafter Mansour.
Regarding claims 8 and 20,
Lennartson discloses detecting antenna imbalance for the particular region comprises calculating a maximum/minimum (i.e. range) per-branch interference value for the particular region (paragraph 98; different ranges of uplink interference values per aggressor-victim groups) but fails to expressly disclose determining if the range is greater than a threshold specified for the region.
Mansour discloses analogous art (Title; paragraph 1; dynamic HARQ activation in 5G/6G in consideration of PIM) including determining if the range is greater than a threshold specified for the region (paragraph 92; dynamic HARQ activation based on comparing range of measurements to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Lennartson by determining if the range is greater than a threshold specified for the region, as shown by Mansour, thereby optimizing HARQ usage based on radio link conditions to more efficiently use resources and improve network throughput.
Regarding claims 9 and 10,
Lennartson discloses determining whether high KPI impact is detected for the particular region (Fig. 4, step 404-406; Fig. 5, step 504; paragraph 93-100) but fails to expressly show calculating a UL Layer 1 HARQ or RLC retransmission ratio and determining the calculated UL Layer 1 or RLC retransmission ratio is greater than a threshold specified for the particular region.
Mansour discloses analogous art (Title; paragraph 1; dynamic HARQ activation in 5G/6G in consideration of PIM) including calculating a UL Layer 1 HARQ or RLC retransmission ratio and determining the calculated UL Layer 1 or RLC retransmission ratio is greater than a threshold specified for the particular region (paragraph 92; dynamic HARQ activation based on comparing measurements to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Lennartson by calculating a UL Layer 1 HARQ or RLC retransmission ratio and determining the calculated UL Layer 1 or RLC retransmission ratio is greater than a threshold specified for the particular region, as shown by Mansour, thereby optimizing HARQ usage based on radio link conditions to more efficiently use resources and improve network throughput.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennartson in view of Tsui et al. (US20220279520A1), hereafter Tsui.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood),
Lennartson discloses the particular RIC comprises a centralized RIC (paragraph 36; gNB-CU; Fig. 1, macrocell 102-1 is centralized with respect to small cells 106-1 and 106-2) but does not expressly disclose the RAN application comprises an rApp.
Tsui discloses analogous art (Title: Mitigating Interference Relating to Passive Intermodulation (PIM)) including RAN application rApp (Abstract; paragraph 57; management of RIC behaviors via network applications such as rApp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Lennartson by providing RAN application rApp, as shown by Tsui, thereby enabling network service management of various entities via one or more RICs using known network applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+8, 20, 4, 9, 10 and/or 20, 12+19, and 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/3788882 in view of Lennartson.
Regarding claims 1 and 14,
Both present claims 1 and 14 and copending claims 1+8 and 12 (misnumbered as 10) + 19 recites a method and machine-readable medium with the same preamble, detecting UL noise and antenna imbalance (i.e. interference incident) associated with the particular region, determining whether high KPI impact is detected for the region (i.e. analyzing the pattern of interference) and generating an alert to notify an operator of the particular RAN/region. The differences in terminology and description of the “detecting” and “determining” steps would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing given the similar disclosure and descriptions provided in Lennartson, as shown above, in order to manage various causes and impact of passive intermodulation/PIM in the network.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 17 are similarly rejected based on co-pending claims 20, 4, 9, 10 and/or 20, and 15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477