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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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(s) 1,2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurtenberger (US 10,117,248) in view of De Pasquale (US 20150065137).
Re claim 1:
Wurtenberger discloses a system for ducting-based traffic steering, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Fig.6 ref. 612 memory and ref. 614 processors):
identify one or more layers experiencing tropospheric ducting, including a first layer (Col.10 lines 42-47 when tropospheric ducting occurs between first base station 310 and second base station 320, adjustments may be made such that only the frequencies used by first base station antenna 312a are different than frequencies used by second base station antenna 322a because sector 314a and sector 324a are generally facing each other and Col.11 lines 19-21 operating channels having frequencies of 700 megahertz, 800 megahertz, 1700 megahertz, and 1900 megahertz – Examiner Note: operating frequencies are “layers”);
identify one or more (Col.10 lines 42-47 when tropospheric ducting occurs between first base station 310 and second base station 320, adjustments may be made such that only the frequencies used by first base station antenna 312a are different than frequencies used by second base station antenna 322a because sector 314a and sector 324a are generally facing each other and Col.11 lines 19-21 operating channels having frequencies of 700 megahertz, 800 megahertz, 1700 megahertz, and 1900 megahertz – Examiner Note: operating frequencies are “layers”); and
reallocate (Col.11 lines 10-13 In some aspects, the adjustments comprises the first base station turning off or ceasing use of channels for a portion of first base station antennas that are using the same frequencies as a portion of the second base station antennas and Col.11 lines 26-37 In alternative aspects, the adjustments comprise changing the frequencies used by the first base station. For example, if first base station antennas and second base station antennas are operating channels having frequencies of 700 megahertz and 1700 megahertz, the first base station may adjust the frequencies for the first base station antennas to 800 megahertz and 1900 megahertz while the frequencies for the second base station antennas remain the same. In some embodiments, both the frequencies used for both the first base station antennas and the second base station antennas may be changed – Examiner Note: changing the frequencies used is reallocating from one layer to another layer).
As shown above, Wurtenberger shows identifying ducting occurring on layers and reallocating to another layer. The reallocation is done by base stations changing their operating frequencies. Wurtenberger does not expand upon all the details involved when a base station changes its operating frequency and therefore does not explicitly disclose identify one or more user devices at the one or more layers experiencing tropospheric ducting and reallocate the one or more user devices.
De Pasquale discloses identify one or more user devices at the one or more layers experiencing tropospheric ducting and reallocate the one or more user devices (Para.[0058] In the case that the Inter-frequency load balancing handover is to be executed during the call 108, the method provides criteria for selecting the UEs to be handed-over 109 as follows and Para. [0059] 1) Selecting a group of Eligible UEs and Para.[0061] Using UE Ranking criteria among the Eligible UEs to handover these UEs from a frequency to another one).
Wurtenberger and De Pasquale are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include identifying UE’s for handover as taught by De Pasquale in order to improve management of data and avoid unnecessary inter-frequency handovers (De Pasquale Para.[0016]).
Re claim 2:
As discussed above, Wurtenberger in view of De Pasquale meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wurtenberger does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to prioritize reallocation of the one or more user devices.
De Pasquale discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to prioritize reallocation of the one or more user devices (Para.[0058] In the case that the Inter-frequency load balancing handover is to be executed during the call 108, the method provides criteria for selecting the UEs to be handed-over 109 as follows and Para. [0059] 1) Selecting a group of Eligible UEs and Para.[0061] Using UE Ranking criteria among the Eligible UEs to handover these UEs from a frequency to another one).
Wurtenberger and De Pasquale are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include prioritizing reallocation as taught by De Pasquale in order to improve management of data and avoid unnecessary inter-frequency handovers (De Pasquale Para.[0016]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Wurtenberger in view of De Pasquale meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wurtenberger does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to communicate a handoff instruction to each of the one or more user devices on the first layer.
De Pasquale discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to communicate a handoff instruction to each of the one or more user devices on the first layer (Para.[0005] the RNC sends the command to connect to the cell with the lowest load or best signal and Para.[0058] In the case that the Inter-frequency load balancing handover is to be executed during the call 108, the method provides criteria for selecting the UEs to be handed-over 109).
Wurtenberger and De Pasquale are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include a handover command as taught by De Pasquale in order to improve management of data and avoid unnecessary inter-frequency handovers (De Pasquale Para.[0016]).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurtenberger (US 10,117,248) in view of De Pasquale (US 20150065137) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20200145864).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Wurtenberger in view of De Pasquale meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wurtenberger does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 2, wherein a first user device utilizing delay sensitive services is designated a higher priority value than a second user device not utilizing delay sensitive services.
Liu discloses the system of claim 2, wherein a first user device utilizing delay sensitive services is designated a higher priority value than a second user device not utilizing delay sensitive services (Para.[0077] For another example, if the terminal device is relatively sensitive to delay, or a priority of the terminal device is relatively high, or a priority of the current traffic of the terminal device is relatively high, the terminal device may not perform handover to reduce influence on data transmission due to the cell handover and Para.[0008] In a possible implementation, the traffic type information of the terminal device includes at least one of: a voice traffic, a data traffic, an emergency traffic, a low delay traffic, and a small data traffic).
Wurtenberger and Liu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include prioritizing user devices for handover as taught by Liu in order to meet demands of different traffic types (Liu Para.[0003]).
Re claim 4:
Wurtenberger discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first user device is reallocated to a second layer different than the first layer experiencing ducting prior to the second user device (Col.10 lines 42-47 when tropospheric ducting occurs between first base station 310 and second base station 320, adjustments may be made such that only the frequencies used by first base station antenna 312a are different than frequencies used by second base station antenna 322a because sector 314a and sector 324a are generally facing each other and Col.11 lines 19-21 operating channels having frequencies of 700 megahertz, 800 megahertz, 1700 megahertz, and 1900 megahertz – Examiner Note: operating frequencies are “layers” – Examiner Note: when both base stations are reallocating frequencies, either base station can be first to do the reallocation for their user devices).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Wurtenberger in view of De Pasquale meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wurtenberger does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 3, wherein delay sensitive services comprise conversational voice services.
Liu discloses the system of claim 3, wherein delay sensitive services comprise conversational voice services (Para.[0077] For another example, if the terminal device is relatively sensitive to delay, or a priority of the terminal device is relatively high, or a priority of the current traffic of the terminal device is relatively high, the terminal device may not perform handover to reduce influence on data transmission due to the cell handover and Para.[0008] In a possible implementation, the traffic type information of the terminal device includes at least one of: a voice traffic, a data traffic, an emergency traffic, a low delay traffic, and a small data traffic).
Wurtenberger and Liu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include prioritizing user devices for handover as taught by Liu in order to meet demands of different traffic types (Liu Para.[0003]).
Re claim 6:
Wurtenberger discloses the system of claim 4, wherein at least one user device on one or more other layers different than the first layer that is experiencing ducting is reallocated to other layers after devices on the first layer are reallocated (Col.10 lines 42-47 when tropospheric ducting occurs between first base station 310 and second base station 320, adjustments may be made such that only the frequencies used by first base station antenna 312a are different than frequencies used by second base station antenna 322a because sector 314a and sector 324a are generally facing each other and Col.11 lines 19-21 operating channels having frequencies of 700 megahertz, 800 megahertz, 1700 megahertz, and 1900 megahertz – Examiner Note: operating frequencies are “layers” – Examiner Note: when both base stations are reallocating frequencies, either base station can be first to do the reallocation for their user devices).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurtenberger (US 10,117,248) in view of De Pasquale (US 20150065137) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 10,873,915).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Wurtenberger in view of De Pasquale meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wurtenberger does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the first layer is an n41 layer.
Park discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first layer is an n41 layer (Col.13 lines 3-8 In other aspects, the first wireless downlink signal and the second wireless downlink signal may use the same protocol (e.g., both 5G), but may use different frequency bands (e.g., the first wireless downlink signal uses 5G on an n41 band, and the second wireless downlink signal uses 5G on a millimeter wave band)).
Wurtenberger and Park are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include an n41 band as taught by Park in order to use a well-known frequency band and to improve throughput (Park Col.4 lines 18-19).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurtenberger (US 10,117,248) in view of De Pasquale (US 20150065137) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of da Silva (US 20150208295).
Re claim 9:
As discussed above, Wurtenberger in view of De Pasquale meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Wurtenberger does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to communicate a reconnection instruction to any idle user device instructing the idle user device to reconnect to a layer different than the first layer when the idle user device reconnects.
Da Silva discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to communicate a reconnection instruction to any idle user device instructing the idle user device to reconnect to a layer different than the first layer when the idle user device reconnects (Para.[0091] In some RLF cases, a UE 121 may attempt to re-establish to a cell but be rejected by the network node. The UE 121 may then select another cell for re-establishment and connect to it, or the UE 121 may go into an RRC IDLE mode and re-connect at a later stage to a different cell – Examiner Note: a different cell uses a different frequency (“layer”)).
Wurtenberger and da Silva are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wurtenberger to include reconnection after being idle as taught by da Silva in order to improve network performance (da Silva Para.[0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zeng (EP3761705) shows determining which UEs to move out of a cell experiencing atmospheric waveguide (“ducting”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471