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, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizov et al. (US 20230156620 A1), hereinafter Khafizov, in view of Malreddy et al. (US 9319872 B1), hereinafter Malreddy.
For claim 1,
Khafizov teaches a method, comprising: determining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, for each respective base station of a plurality of base stations, a coverage area of the respective base station ([Abstract], [0014], and [FIG. 1] RAN devices make up a computing system, with each RAN device acting as a base station and the coverage area of each base station is shown in figure 1);
for at least some respective base stations of the plurality of base stations, determining, by the computing system, a coverage area overlapped quantity that quantifies for a respective base station an overlap region of the coverage area of the respective base station that is overlapped by a coverage area of another base station of the plurality of base stations ([FIG. 8] a table that quantifies, as a percentage, the overlapping of a coverage area of a base station with the coverage area of another base station); and
generating, by the computing system, a coverage area overlap (CAO) structure that identifies for each respective base station of the at least some respective base stations, the coverage area overlapped quantity of the respective base station ([FIG. 8] and [0056] a table that quantifies, as a percentage, the overlapping of a coverage area of an identified base station with the coverage area of another identified base station)…
Khafizov does not explicitly teach, however, Malreddy teaches generating an identifier of the base station that has the coverage area that overlaps the coverage area of the respective base station ([COL. 7, lines 39-67] base stations are assigned an identifier based on their respective coverage areas, implying the identifiers must be generated in order to be assigned to each base station with a coverage area to include overlapping coverage areas.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov for creating a coverage overlap structure for each base station with the method of Malreddy for generating and assigning an identifier to each base station with overlapping coverage areas to facilitate clarity of the system and allow for accurate communication and manipulation of each base station and coverage area based on an identifier.
For claim 2, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches generating a coverage area overlapped quantity of the first base station ([FIG. 8] and [0056] a table that quantifies, as a percentage, the overlapping of a coverage area of an identified base station with the coverage area of another identified base station) …
Khafizov does not explicitly teach, however Malreddy teaches further comprising generating, by the computing system, information that identifies a first base station of the plurality of base stations ([Abstract] computing system may configure the first base station to use a selected identifier), …
and an identifier of a second base station that has the coverage area that overlaps the coverage area of the first base station ([COL. 1, lines 42-58] and [COL. 2, Lines 16-29] a neighboring second base station having overlapping coverage with the first base station. Neighboring base stations are assigned different identifiers than their neighbors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov for creating a coverage overlap structure for each base station with the method of Malreddy for generating and assigning an identifier to each base station with overlapping coverage areas to facilitate clarity of the system and allow for accurate communication and manipulation of each base station and coverage area based on an identifier.
For claim 4, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches wherein determining, for each respective base station of the plurality of base stations, the coverage area of the respective base station comprises receiving, from each respective base station of the plurality of base stations, coverage area information ([0062], and [0027] cell (coverage area) configuration parameters for each base station are collected by the computing system).
For claim 7, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches wherein generating the CAO structure that identifies for each respective base station of the plurality of base stations, the coverage area overlapped quantity of the respective base station ([FIG. 8] and [0056] a table that quantifies, as a percentage, the overlapping of a coverage area of an identified base station with the coverage area of another identified base station)…comprises:
determining, for a first base station of the plurality of base stations, a first coverage area ([0014], and [FIG. 1] the coverage area of each base station is shown in figure 1, meaning the first coverage area of the first base station is depicted.);
determining, for a second base station of the plurality of base stations, a second coverage area ([0014], and [FIG. 1] the coverage area of each base station is shown in figure 1, meaning the second coverage area of the second base station is depicted.); and
determining, a percentage of the first coverage area that is overlapped by the second coverage area ([FIG. 8] a table that quantifies, as a percentage, the first coverage area that is overlapped by the second coverage area).
Khafizov does not explicitly teach, however, Malreddy teaches …generating an identifier of the base station that has the coverage area that overlaps the coverage area of the respective base station ([COL. 7, lines 39-67] base stations are assigned an identifier based on their respective coverage areas, implying the identifiers must be generated in order to be assigned to each base station with a coverage area to include overlapping coverage areas.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov for creating a coverage overlap structure for each base station with the method of Malreddy for generating and assigning an identifier to each base station with overlapping coverage areas to facilitate clarity of the system and allow for accurate communication and manipulation of each base station and coverage area based on an identifier.
For claim 8, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches wherein at least some of the base stations of the plurality of base stations are multiple sector base stations that implement a plurality of coverage areas, and further comprising ([0014] base stations have cells that may be divided into multiple sectors with each sector providing multiple different areas of coverage):
determining, for a first multiple sector base station, a plurality of coverage areas ([0014] and [FIG. 1] cells may be divided into multiple sectors with each sector providing multiple different areas of coverage.); and
for each respective coverage area of the plurality of coverage areas determining, by the computing system, a coverage area overlapped quantity that quantifies for the respective coverage area an overlap region of the respective coverage area that is overlapped by a coverage area of another base station of the plurality of base stations ([FIG. 8] and [0056] a table that quantifies, as a percentage, the overlapping of a coverage area of an identified base station with the coverage area of another identified base station).
For claims 12 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claim 1, with claim 17 having the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions ([Khafizov 0046] non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes executable instructions).
Claim(s) 3, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizov, in view of Malreddy, and in further view of Patel et al. (US 9473898 B1), hereinafter Patel.
For claim 3, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov and Malreddy do not explicitly teach, however Patel teaches further comprising generating, by the computing system, imagery that depicts a coverage area of a first base station and a coverage area of a second base station that overlaps the coverage area of the first base station ([COL. 7, Lines 49-58], [FIG. 2], and [Col. 9, Lines 17-22] image-based surveillance is used, to include satellite imagery, and FIG. 2 depicts the coverage are of each base station, as an output, which may overlap with each other.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov and Malreddy for creating a coverage overlap structure for each base station with the method of Patel for generating imagery that depicts overlapping coverage areas of a first and second base station to facilitate clarity of the system and provide a visual representation of base station coverage areas for planning purposes involving the facilitation of device handovers and limiting interference between base stations.
For claims 13 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizov, in view of Malreddy, and in further view of Mangrulkar et al. (US 10432453 B1), hereinafter Mangrulkar.
For claim 5, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches wherein determining, for each respective base station of the plurality of base stations, the coverage area of the respective base station comprises ([0014], and [FIG. 1] the coverage area of each base station is shown in figure 1.):
accessing azimuth information that identifies an azimuth of an antenna of the first base station ([0062], and [0027] cell (coverage area) configuration parameters, including azimuth information, for each base station are collected by the computing system);
accessing tilt information that identifies a tilt of the antenna ([0062], and [0027] cell (coverage area) configuration parameters, including tilt information, for each base station are collected by the computing system);
Khafizov does not explicitly teach, however Malreddy further teaches accessing location information that identifies a location of a first base station of the plurality of base stations ([COL. 6, Lines 44-54] each base station and the network infrastructure have access to location information for each base station, to include the first base station);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov for determining a coverage area of each respective base station with the method of Malreddy for accessing location information for a first base station to facilitate clarity of the system and allow for effective handover of devices and a reduction in interference between each base station and coverage area.
Khafizov and Malreddy to not explicitly teach, however Mangulkar teaches determining the coverage area of the first base station based at least in part on the location information, the azimuth information and the tilt information ([COL. 7, Lines 38-47], and [COL. 5, Lines 61-63] location of the base station, azimuth information, and tilt information are used to determine coverage area of the base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov and Malreddy for determining a coverage area of each respective base station with the method of Mangulkar for using location information, azimuth information, and tilt information to determine the coverage area of a base station to facilitate clarity of the system and allow for effective handover of devices and a reduction in interference between each base station and coverage area.
For claim 6, Khafizov, Malreddy, and Mangulkar teach claim 5.
Khafizov, Malreddy do not explicitly teach, but Mangulkar further teaches accessing mobile device location information that identifies a plurality of locations of mobile devices being serviced by the first base station ([COL. 5, Lines 2-5] location information for mobile devices is known), and
wherein determining the coverage area of the first base station comprises determining the coverage area of the first base station based on the location information, the azimuth information, the tilt information and the mobile device location information ([COL. 7, Lines 38-47], [COL. 5, Lines 61-63], and [COL. 5, Lines 2-5] location of the base station, azimuth information, tilt information, and mobile device location information are used to determine coverage area of the base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov and Malreddy for determining a coverage area of each respective base station with the method of Mangulkar for using location information, mobile device location information, azimuth information, and tilt information to determine the coverage area of a base station to facilitate clarity of the system and allow for effective handover of devices and reduce interference between each base station and coverage area.
For claims 14 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizov, in view of Malreddy, and in further view of Carter et al. (US 20040152362 A1), hereinafter Carter.
For claim 9, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches accessing, by the computing system, the CAO structure ([FIG. 8] and [0056] computer system can access the table that quantifies, as a percentage, the overlapping of a coverage area of an identified base station with the coverage area of another identified base station);
Khafizov and Malreddy do not explicitly teach, however Carter teaches based on the CAO structure, identifying, by the computing system, a non- covered area that is not included in any coverage area of the plurality of base stations ([FIGs. 7 and 8] both images show gaps in coverage areas of the base stations);
based on the CAO structure, identifying, by the computing system, a location of an additional base station that, if implemented, can provide coverage in the non-covered area ([0076] and [0007] at the occurrence of a triggering event such as a device leaving a coverage area and entering a gap in coverage, a position estimate is taken and saved to the record database. The position estimate information about the location of the gaps in the coverage areas are used for network planning, to include where to add new base stations to eliminate or reduce the coverage gaps.); and
outputting information identifying the location of the additional base station ([0007] and [0076] at the occurrence of a triggering event such as a device leaving a coverage area and entering a gap in coverage, a position estimate is taken and saved to the record database. The record to which the location estimation is added is transmitted (output) and stored in a database. The position estimate information about the location of the gaps in the coverage areas are used for network planning, to include where to add new base stations to eliminate or reduce the coverage gaps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Khafizov and Malreddy for determining a coverage area of each respective base station with the method of Carter for identifying a gap in coverage areas as well as the location of an additional base station that, if implemented, could fill the gap in coverage to allow for effective handover of devices, reduce the possibility of a drop in coverage, and reduce interference between each base station and coverage area.
For claims 15 and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, and 16 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.
The closest prior art of record, Khafizov et al. (US 20230156620 A1) and Malreddy et al. (US 9319872 B1) do not teach “determining, by the computing system, based on the CAO structure, a multi-sector antenna pattern of the additional base station; and outputting, by the computing system, information identifying parameters of the multi-sector antenna pattern” of claim 10, “accessing, by the computing system, the CAO structure; determining, by the computing system, that a first base station has a first coverage area overlapped by coverage areas of one or more second base stations above a coverage area overlap threshold; determining, by the computing system, that the first coverage area provides service to a quantity of mobile stations below a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the first base station has the first coverage area overlapped by the coverage areas of the one or more second base stations above the coverage area overlap threshold and determining that the coverage area provides service to the quantity of mobile stations below the predetermined threshold, powering down the first coverage area.” of claim 11, or “accessing, by the computing system, the CAO structure; determining, by the computing system, that a first base station has a first coverage area overlapped by coverage areas of one or more second base stations above a coverage area overlap threshold; determining, by the computing system, that the first coverage area provides service to a quantity of mobile stations below a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the first base station has the first coverage area overlapped by the coverage areas of the one or more second base stations above the coverage area overlap threshold and determining that the coverage area provides service to the quantity of mobile stations below the predetermined threshold, powering down the first coverage area.” of claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465