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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/15/2026 has been entered. Claim 18 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant Argues “The Patent Office asserts that Khafizov discloses the generation of a 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’ and that Malreddy discloses ‘an identifier of the base station that has the coverage area that overlaps the coverage area of the respective base station.’ and that one would be motivated to combine the two to arrive at Applicant's claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Khafizov discloses mechanisms for determining a ‘cumulative overlap feature’ that is used by an ‘energy consumption predictive model’ to determine ‘optimal cell boundaries that correspond to a reduced energy consumption needed to meet service requirements during the future time period’ (Khafizov, Abstract). The goal in Khafizov is to calculate how much power to save. The model in Khafizov cares, for example, that ‘Cell A is 20% overlapped’. That Cell A is overlapped by Base Station 123 has no relevance to the model or the invention disclosed in Khafizov. There is nothing in Khafizov that suggests that knowledge of the identifier of the overlapping base station would be useful to the determination of ‘optimal cell boundaries that correspond to a reduced energy consumption needed to meet service requirements during the future time period.’
Malreddy addresses a problem of coverage area identifier re-use. In particular, Malreddy discloses ‘there are a limited number of unique identifiers, coverage area identifiers are typically re-used within the cellular wireless network’ (Malreddy, col. 2, 11. 6-8). To solve this problem Malreddy assigns coverage area identifiers based on a likelihood of handover between base stations (Malreddy, col. 3, 11. 4 - 41). Malreddy contains no disclosure regarding the generation of a 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 and an identifier of the base station that has the coverage area that overlaps the coverage area of the respective base station.’ Rather, Malreddy essentially discloses the existence of coverage area identifiers. The existence of identifiers provides no motivation to utilize the identifiers in a certain manner, such as in a data 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 and an identifier of the base station that has the coverage area that overlaps the coverage area of the respective base station.’ This is especially so where the primary reference, Khafizov, has no need for such identifiers to accomplish the goal of Khafizov, which is to calculate how much power to save. Khafizov uses overlap quantities as a mathematical feature for an energy consumption predictive model. Khafizov fails to disclose or suggest a need to link such overlap regions to specific base station identifiers. To suggest that Khafizov could benefit from implementing the handover-centric identifier logic of Malreddy is unsupported by the teachings of Khafizov. Nothing in the cited art teaches or suggests that redesigning the power-modeling process of Khafizov to include the specific identifiers of Malreddy would in any way benefit the energy optimization mechanism disclosed in Khafizov.
In fact, the Examiner's asserted motivation, to ‘facilitate clarity,’ is merely a statement citing a generic benefit of using identifiers in any computing context. Because the Patent Office has failed to provide a reasoned explanation as to why a PHOSITA would be motivated to map specific quantified overlap regions to specific station identifiers in the structured manner recited in claim 1, the Patent Office has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness.
For all the foregoing reasons, Applicant thus submits that claim 1 is patentable over the cited references. Claims 12 and 17 contain limitations substantially similar to those discussed herein with regard to claim 1 and should therefore be allowable for at least the same reasons.”
Reply
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0061-0062], [0023], and [FIGs 1 and 7] of Khafizov teach that a system may be provided with identifiers for a cluster of neighboring cells, to include individual cells, serving UE devices. The system further utilizes a process to collect configuration parameters for each cell in the cell cluster, computing cell configurations and boundaries to minimize energy consumption. These configuration parameters are then used to generate a series of models to determine an optimized set of cell parameters for the cluster. Furthermore, to conserve energy during low-use periods, one or more sectors of a cell may be turned off or powered down to reduce overall energy consumption. Specifically, when two cells provide overlapping coverage as is shown in FIG. 1, certain sectors of either cell with overlapping coverage can be powered down to conserve energy. Both actions of determining an optimized cell configuration using a model created from collected cell configurations of cells in the system, as well as the ability to power down specific sectors of specific overlapping cells would require the identifiers of the cells and cell clusters, including their corresponding RAN devices (base stations), as are provided to the modeling system.
Furthermore, at least [COL. 7, lines 39-67] of Malreddy teach that while coverage area identifiers assigned to base stations are typically re-used, in order to avoid identifier conflict, unique identifiers may be allocated to base stations instead. The use of unique identifiers instead of re-using old identifiers implies that the unique identifiers would have to be generated.
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 with the method of Malreddy in order to identify base stations that have overlapping coverage. The motivation to combine includes the ability for the method of Khafizov to use the unique identifiers of Malreddy to identify which specific cell sectors of the specific cell clusters serviced by a specific base station to power down in the event of two or more cells having overlapping coverage in order to conserve energy (Khafizov at least [0023]).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 17, and 21 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).
For claim 21, Khafizov and Malreddy teach claim 1.
Khafizov further teaches storing, in the CAO, perimeter information indicative of a coverage area perimeter of each respective base station of the at least some respective base stations ([FIGs. 10 and 11], [at least 0067-0077] cell boundaries (coverage area of each base station, including the perimeter of the boundary) are determined based on field data. Coverage area boundaries are then used for computation by at least the modeling system to compute the coverage area overlap matrix, implying that the boundary information is stored in the system for use by at least the modeling system).
Claims 3, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizov and 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.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizov and 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, Khafizo and Malreddy and Mangulkar teach claim 5.
Khafizov and 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.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 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 and Malreddy 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights