DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/413648 filed on 01/16/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 . 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.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on application filed on FINLAND 20235055 (01/19/2023). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the at least one” (line 9) should be replaced with “the at least one cell”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the word “minimised” (at the end of claim 6) should be replaced with “minimized”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 1 recites: “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one within said cell group”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-13 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an apparatus.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one within said cell group”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “collecting” and “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “collecting (i.e. gathering information) traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one within said cell group”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor, a memory) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor, a memory) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-13 merely contain (i) additional limitations defining the time windows, or (ii) addition limitations for determining step/calculating step that can also be performed mentally. Claims 2-13 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 1, will overcome the current claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 14 recites: A method comprising: collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one cell within said cell group”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 14 is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
.
Step 2A:Judicial Exception
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method comprising: collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one cell within said cell group”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “collecting” and “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “collecting (i.e. gathering information) traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one cell within said cell group”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 15 recites: “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for performing at least the following: collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one cell within said cell group”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 15 is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a “non-transitory readable storage medium”.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for performing at least the following: collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one cell within said cell group”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “collecting” and “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “collecting (i.e. gathering information) traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell; and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one cell within said cell group”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LUO et al. (US 2023/0284133 A1.)
As per claim 1, LUO discloses “An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:” as [(figure 6.)] “collecting traffic information indicative of user radio conditions within a cell group comprising at least one cell;” as [(par. 0196), The second network management unit determines the network configuration parameter (for example, determines whether to reduce a transmit power of a base station and whether to enable symbol shutdown, radio frequency channel shutdown, or carrier shutdown, and sets a corresponding shutdown start time point, end time point, uplink PRB usage threshold, downlink PRB usage threshold, user quantity threshold, and the like) based on the service scenario information (for example, traffic load) of the network node. A cell or a time period with a low traffic volume indicates a low traffic volume or a small quantity of users (for example, an average quantity of users is less than 1).] “and determining, from said traffic information, a plurality of time windows, the plurality of time windows having different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for switching off and switching on the at least one within said cell group” [(par. 0202), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. “switch off” change to “switch on”)]
As per claim 2, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein said plurality of time windows at least one of (i) fill a first time period, (ii) are contiguous within said first time period, and (iii) comprise a sequence of adjacent, non-overlapping time windows within said first time period” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 3, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the time windows within said plurality of time windows have a minimum duration” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 4, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein at least one time window comprises a time period where the apparatus is adapted to determine from said traffic information falling within that time period that said traffic information within that time period is stable” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 5, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 2,” as [see rejection of claim 2.] “wherein said plurality of time windows comprise time periods determined by the apparatus to have a variance within each time period which is lower than a variance across said first time period” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 6, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein said plurality of time windows comprise time periods determined by the apparatus to have a sum across said time periods of a variance of said traffic information within each time period which is minimized” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 7, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the at least one processor causes the apparatus at least to perform: calculating different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for different time windows from said traffic information falling within the different time windows” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 8, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein said specified user traffic load threshold conditions define a pair of thresholds for determining if a cell is to be switched on or switched off” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 9, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 8,” as [see rejection of claim 8.] “wherein said pair of thresholds comprise a lower threshold below which a cell is to be switched off and an upper threshold above which the at least one cell is to be switched on” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 10, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the at least one processor causes the apparatus at least to perform: periodically repeating determining said plurality of time windows and calculating the different specified user traffic load threshold conditions for different time windows” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 11, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the at least one processor causes the apparatus at least to perform: determining for a current time window whether to switch off or switch on the at least one cell within said cell group based on a relationship between said specified user traffic load threshold conditions for that current time window and current user traffic load within said cell group” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 12, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein said traffic information indicative of user radio conditions comprises at least one of (i) Key Performance Indicators, (ii) counters, and (iii) a Channel Quality Indicator” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 13, LUO discloses “The apparatus of claim 2,” as [see rejection of claim 2.] “wherein said first time period repeats” [(par. 0200), the symbol shutdown, the radio frequency channel shutdown, and the carrier shutdown may all be enabled, a PRB usage threshold may be set to 10% to 20% (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), a user quantity threshold may be set to 2 to 3 (which is merely an example, where the threshold may be higher or lower), and 12 hours with a lowest traffic volume in a day may be selected as a corresponding shutdown time period. (Note: LUO implicitly indicates that the remaining 12 hours of the day not associating with the lowest traffic volume (i.e. a threshold which the traffic volume is higher than the lowest traffic volume), the shutdown will not apply (i.e. switch on)]
As per claim 14 and 15, as [see rejection of claim 1.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
PURKAYASTHA et al. (US 2023/0413136 A1)
CARETTI et al. (US 2016/0353373 A1)
SAWAI (US 2016/0219454 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. 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.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417