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 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noriega (US 20210377801 A1, hereinafter Noriega) in view of Tsuda et al. (US 20240422566 A1, hereinafter Tsuda).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 Noriega discloses:
identifying frequency bands for providing a communication service in a sector; identifying a plurality of radio units (RUs) configured to provide the frequency bands; (Paragraph [0041], “ a set of BBUs, BBUs in a pool, can perform load sharing based on the per TTI on/off nature of the RU traffic. Pooling can be provided in an automatic form (e.g., load balancing, multiplexing, allocation of resources, etc.) for radios being serviced at a given location (e.g., radios in a given building being serviced by a BBU).” The RU provides frequency band, servicing communication in a given location.)
identifying a first RU of which prediction load information is less than an off-threshold, among the plurality of RUs; (Paragraph [0042], “the DU resources can be allocated away from radios that are inactive and allocated to radios that are active… The CU can track and predict the traffic patterns and allocate RUs to DUs to minimize the overall processing power required.” And paragraph [0064], “the BBU in Pool 300 (e.g., B-Pod) can comprise a load balancing component 410 that can analyze and predict radio unit activity to perform load balancing. RU/DU load can be proportional to the number of flows/radio bearers being processed.” And paragraph [0041], “ a set of BBUs, BBUs in a pool, can perform load sharing based on the per TTI on/off nature of the RU traffic.” Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the BBU is able to analyze and predict the traffic (prediction load info) of the RU. Further there must inherently be some threshold configured such that the BBU knows to turn off the RU and allocate to active ones.)
and transmitting, to the first RU, a first control signal for disabling the first RU. (Paragraph [0041], “if one radio is inactive for an extended period of time, (e.g., a radio in a game venue off-game), the radio can be turned off freeing resources on the BBUs that can be allocated to the radios that are active. In another scenario, a set of BBUs, BBUs in a pool, can perform load sharing based on the per TTI on/off nature of the RU traffic.” This form of load balancing includes energy saving where the BBU frees resources by turning off RU.)
Noriega does not disclose:
identifying, based on a priority of each frequency band, a first RU
Tsuda discloses:
identifying, based on a priority of each frequency band, a first RU (Paragraph [0134], “On the basis of the information regarding the priority and the capability information managed by the capability information management unit 5012, the control unit 502 of the management device 50 confirms that the wireless front end unit 251 of the RU 25 supports operation in a frequency band with a higher priority among a plurality of frequency bands.” The control unit is able to identify the RU that operates in a band with a priority among each bands.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Noriega in view of Tsuda to incorporate priority among the frequency bands of Tsuda with Noriega’s RU energy saving techniques. One would have been motivated to do this to improve the load balancing.
Specifically regarding claim 11 Noriega discloses:
Memory, Transceiver and Processor (Paragraph [0085], “The handset 900 includes a processor 902 for controlling and processing all onboard operations and functions. A memory 904 interfaces to the processor 902 for storage of data and one or more applications 906… the communications component 910 can also include a suitable cellular transceiver 911 (e.g., a GSM transceiver) and/or an unlicensed transceiver 913 (e.g., Wi-Fi, WiMax) for corresponding signal communications.”)
Regarding claims 2 and 12 Noriega
obtaining first prediction load information for the first candidate RU; and based on the first prediction load information for the first candidate RU being less than the off-threshold, identifying the first candidate RU as the first RU. (Paragraph [0042], “the DU resources can be allocated away from radios that are inactive and allocated to radios that are active… The CU can track and predict the traffic patterns and allocate RUs to DUs to minimize the overall processing power required.” And paragraph [0064], “the BBU in Pool 300 (e.g., B-Pod) can comprise a load balancing component 410 that can analyze and predict radio unit activity to perform load balancing. RU/DU load can be proportional to the number of flows/radio bearers being processed.” And paragraph [0041], “ a set of BBUs, BBUs in a pool, can perform load sharing based on the per TTI on/off nature of the RU traffic.” Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the BBU is able to analyze and predict the traffic (prediction load info) of the RUs. Further there must inherently be some threshold configured such that the BBU knows to turn off the RU and allocate to active ones.)
Noriega does not disclose:
identifying a first candidate RU configured to provide a highest frequency band, among the plurality of RUs;
Tsuda discloses
identifying a first candidate RU configured to provide a highest frequency band, among the plurality of RUs; (Paragraph [0134], “On the basis of the information regarding the priority and the capability information managed by the capability information management unit 5012, the control unit 502 of the management device 50 confirms that the wireless front end unit 251 of the RU 25 supports operation in a frequency band with a higher priority among a plurality of frequency bands.” The control unit is able to identify the RU that operates in a band with a priority among each bands.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Noriega in view of Tsuda to incorporate priority among the frequency bands of Tsuda with Noriega’s RU energy saving techniques. One would have been motivated to do this to improve the load balancing.
Regarding claims 3 and 13 Noriega discloses:
based on the first prediction load information being greater than or equal to the off- threshold, identifying a second candidate RU among the plurality of RUs, wherein the second candidate RU is different from the first candidate RU;
obtaining second prediction load information for the second candidate RU;
and based on the second prediction load information being less than the off-threshold, identifying the second candidate RU as the first RU. (Paragraph [0042], “the DU resources can be allocated away from radios that are inactive and allocated to radios that are active… The CU can track and predict the traffic patterns and allocate RUs to DUs to minimize the overall processing power required.” And paragraph [0064], “the BBU in Pool 300 (e.g., B-Pod) can comprise a load balancing component 410 that can analyze and predict radio unit activity to perform load balancing. RU/DU load can be proportional to the number of flows/radio bearers being processed.” And paragraph [0041], “the radio can be turned off freeing resources on the BBUs… a set of BBUs, BBUs in a pool, can perform load sharing based on the per TTI on/off nature of the RU traffic.” In this system it is inherent that the CU will cycle through all the RUs because its analyzing and predicting the traffic patterns to reallocate resources in the system, for example turning off a radio. There must be some sort of configured threshold that allows the CU to function and thus it will analyze and predict the first RU in the system.)
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Noriega and Tsuda in view of Soldati et al. (US 20240196252 A1, hereinafter Soldati).
Regarding claims 4 and 14 Noriega and Tsuda does not disclose:
the first prediction load information of the first RU is determined based on a physical resource block (PRB) usage of all of enabled cells within the frequency bands, a PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells, and a PRB capacity of at least one cell of the first candidate RU.
Soldati discloses:
the first prediction load information of the first RU is determined based on a physical resource block (PRB) usage of all of enabled cells within the frequency bands, a PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells, and a PRB capacity of at least one cell of the first candidate RU. (paragraphs [0226-0243], “The SECOND RESOURCE UTILIZATION REQUEST transmitted from the third network node to the first network node may comprise a request for one or more information elements pertaining to predictions of resource status utilization associated to resources controlled by the second network node… Predicted Radio Resource Status, e.g. per-cell or per-SSB areas usage of DL and/or UL PRB (in total, for GBR and for non-GBR), per-cell or per-SSB… predicted capacity available over a specific radio coverage area of the node, in uplink and/or downlink, such a Composite Available Capacity, or an absolute available capacity… This metric could be provided on a per UE basis of on a cumulative basis, i.e. counting all UEs using the same resource block within a given coverage area”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elements of predicted load information in Soldati incorporated in to Noriega and Tsuda’s teaching of RU energy saving. One would have been motivated to do this so that the “predicted resource utilization can be used as input to processes for traffic steering and optimization” (Soldati, [0035]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19 Noriega and Tsuda does not disclose:
the group load information is determined based on a physical resource block (PRB) usage of all of enabled cells within the frequency bands and a PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells.
Soldati discloses:
the group load information is determined based on a physical resource block (PRB) usage of all of enabled cells within the frequency bands and a PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells. (paragraphs [0226-0243], “The SECOND RESOURCE UTILIZATION REQUEST transmitted from the third network node to the first network node may comprise a request for one or more information elements pertaining to predictions of resource status utilization associated to resources controlled by the second network node… Predicted Radio Resource Status, e.g. per-cell or per-SSB areas usage of DL and/or UL PRB (in total, for GBR and for non-GBR), per-cell or per-SSB… predicted capacity available over a specific radio coverage area of the node, in uplink and/or downlink, such a Composite Available Capacity, or an absolute available capacity… This metric could be provided on a per UE basis of on a cumulative basis, i.e. counting all UEs using the same resource block within a given coverage area” The utilization of these elements are used both for group and individual load.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elements of predicted load information in Soldati incorporated in to Noriega and Tsuda’s teaching of RU energy saving. One would have been motivated to do this so that the “predicted resource utilization can be used as input to processes for traffic steering and optimization” (Soldati, [0035]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Noriega and Tsuda in view of Wu et al. (US 20250219671 A1, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claims 6 and 16 Noriega and Tsuda does not disclose:
identifying a second RU of which group load information is greater than or equal to an on-threshold, among at least one disabled RU; and transmitting, to the second RU, a second control signal for enabling the second RU.
Wu discloses:
identifying a second RU of which group load information is greater than or equal to an on-threshold, among at least one disabled RU; and transmitting, to the second RU, a second control signal for enabling the second RU. (paragraph [0007], “In this case, the radio remote unit may drive one or more other radio remote units in the medium-load state or the low-load state. In this way, the one or more radio remote units are in an idle state or a non-working state. This can reduce basic power consumption of the one or more radio remote units. However, when load of a cell corresponding to a radio remote unit is greater than the load threshold, it means that the cell corresponding to the radio remote unit is in a high-load state. In this case, the radio remote unit may drive an antenna corresponding to the radio remote unit, to meet a service requirement of the cell corresponding to the radio remote unit.” Group load greater than threshold in this context the non-working state RU gets driven on to meet requirements. Please note that while it is inherent that Noriega must have some threshold configured for the CU to function as described, Wu explicitly states less than and greater than load threshold. Greater as stated above and less than in paragraph [0155].)
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wu’s cell load information with Noriega and Tsuda’s load energy saving techniques. One would have been motivated to do this to “reduce power consumption of the RRU” (Wu, [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The method of claim 4, wherein the prediction load information of the first RU is determined based on a following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
25
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB usage is the PRB usage of all of the enabled cells, the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB capacity is the PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells, and the Off Candidate Sub Group Total PRB capacity is the PRB capacity of the at least one cell of the first RU.” In combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The method of claim 6, wherein the identifying of the second RU comprises: identifying a third candidate RU configured to provide a lowest frequency band, among the at least one disabled RU; and based on the group load information being greater than or equal to the on-threshold corresponding to the third candidate RU, identifying the third candidate RU as the second RU.” in combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The method of claim 7, wherein the identifying of the second RU comprises: based on the group load information being less than the on-threshold corresponding to the third candidate RU, identifying a fourth candidate RU among the at least one disabled RU, wherein the fourth candidate RU is different from the third candidate RU; and based on the group load information being greater than or equal to the on-threshold corresponding to the fourth candidate RU, identifying the fourth candidate RU as the second RU.” in combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The method of claim 9, wherein the group load information is determined based on a following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
26
261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB usage is the PRB usage of all of the enabled cells, and the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB capacity is the PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells.” in combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The electronic device of claim 14, wherein the first prediction load information is determined based on a following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
25
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB usage is the PRB usage of all of the enabled cells, the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB capacity is the PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells, and the Off Candidate Sub Group Total PRB capacity is the PRB capacity of the at least one cell of the first RU.” In combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a third candidate RU configured to provide a lowest frequency band among the at least one disabled RU; and based on the group load information being greater than or equal to the on-threshold corresponding to the third candidate RU, identify the third candidate RU as the second RU.” in combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The electronic device of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on the group load information being less than the on-threshold corresponding to the third candidate RU, identify a fourth candidate RU among the at least one disabled RU, wherein the fourth candidate RU is different from the third candidate RU; and based on the group load information being greater than or equal to the on-threshold corresponding to the fourth candidate RU, identify the fourth candidate RU as the second RU.” in combination with other limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach “The electronic device of claim 19, wherein the group load information is determined based on a following equation:
PNG
media_image3.png
26
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB usage is the PRB usage of all of the enabled cells, and the ∑ All Enabled Cells in the Group Total PRB capacity is the PRB capacity of all of the enabled cells.” in combination with other limitation of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shete et al. (US 20240259836 A1, hereinafter Shete), paragraph [0008], “For example, in case of a low network load (i.e., when the expected traffic volume or number of connected users are lower than the configured threshold) ES can be achieved by reducing the power consumption of O-RUs by switching off”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479