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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed 5/25/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0377610 (Garcia et al.) over US 2008/0151856 (Glick et al.).
As to claims 1 and 8, Garcia teaches a communication apparatus (Inter-RAT Load Balancer, see figs 2 and 12a); comprising: at least one processor (12, fig 12a); and a memory (14, fig 12a) coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to instruct the at least one processor to:
obtain first network status information of a first network device; obtain information indicating a network status of a second network device (load metrics collected by load balancer [LB] from multiple radio resource managers [RRMs] for multiple RATs, see figures 2 and 10 and paragraphs 41 and 109);
obtain a to-be-effective first mobility load balancing (MLB) policy based on the first network status information of the first network device and the information indicating a network status of the second network device (using load metrics, the LB determines adjusted resources from the shared resource pool for the different RATs, see paragraphs 41-43 and 110-111); and
send the first MLB policy to the second network device (LB informs RATs of resource adjustments from the shared resource pool, see paragraphs 41-43 and 112):
What is lacking from Garcia is wherein the first MLB policy comprising reliability information of the first MLB policy.
In analogous art, Glick teaches a first network device sending a network optimization policy (~MLB of Garcia) to a second network device that includes reliability metrics for that information (see Glick, paragraphs 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so as to optimize policy parameters by quantifying its reliability.
As to claim 15, Garcia teaches a communication apparatus (Radio Resource Manager, see figs 2 and 12b); comprising: at least one processor (12, fig 12b); and a memory (14, fig 12b) coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to instruct the at least one processor to:
send information indicating a network status of a second network device (load metrics collected by load balancer [LB] from multiple radio resource managers [RRMs] for multiple RATs, see figures 2 and 10 and paragraphs 41 and 109); and
receive a first mobility load balancing (MLB) policy (LB informs RATs of resource adjustments from the shared resource pool, see paragraphs 41-43 and 112), wherein the first MLB policy is based on the information indicating a network status of the second network device (using load metrics, the LB determines adjusted resources from the shared resource pool for the different RATs, see paragraphs 41-43 and 110-111)
What is lacking from Garcia is wherein the first MLB policy comprising reliability information of the first MLB policy.
In analogous art, Glick teaches a first network device sending a network optimization policy (~MLB of Garcia) to a second network device that includes reliability metrics for that information (see Glick, paragraphs 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so as to optimize policy parameters by quantifying its reliability.
As to claims 3 and 10, Garcia further teaches wherein the executable instructions further instruct the at least one processor to: obtain, based on the first network status information of the first network device and the information indicating the network status of the second network device, at least one of a first predicted load value of the first network device at a first time in a current MLB policy or a second predicted load value of the second network device at the first time in the current MLB policy; and obtain the to-be-effective first MLB policy based on at least one of the first predicted load value or the second predicted load value (resource adjustments are based on predicted load values for the respective RATs, see paragraphs 51, 93 and 101).
As to claims 4 and 11, Garcia further teaches wherein the executable instructions further instruct the at least one processor to: perform at least one of the following by using a neural network: predict a load value of the first network device based on the current MLB policy, to obtain the first predicted load value at the first time; or predict a load value of the second network device based on the current MLB policy, to obtain the second predicted load value at the first time, wherein an input of the neural network comprises the first network status information of the first network device, the information indicating the a-network status of the second network device, and the current MLB policy, and an output of the first neural network comprises at least one of the first predicted load value or the second predicted load value (resource adjustments are based on predicted load values for the respective RATs using load metric inputs from different RATs into deep neural networks, see paragraphs 51, 93 and 101).
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Glick as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 2020/0260324 (Byun et al.).
As to claims 2 and 9, Garcia further teaches wherein the executable instructions further instruct the at least one processor to; and receiveload metrics collected by load balancer [LB] from multiple radio resource managers [RRMs] for multiple RATs, see figures 2 and 10 and paragraphs 41 and 109).
What is lacking from Garcia is send query information to the second network device, wherein the query information is used to request the information indicating the network status of the second network device; wherein the acknowledgement information responds to the query information.
In analogous art, Byun teaches a load balancing entity receiving load metrics in response to sending a request for said load metrics (see Byun, figure 14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Garcia so as to provide the load metrics as needed by the load balancer.
As to claim 16, Garcia further teaches wherein the executable instructions further instruct the at least one processor to: send acknowledgement information, wherein the acknowledgement information and comprises the information indicating the network status of the second network device, wherein the information indicating the network status of the second network device comprises at least one of the following: current network status information of the second network device, network status information predicted by the second network device, or aload metrics collected by load balancer [LB] from multiple radio resource managers [RRMs] for multiple RATs, see figures 2 and 10 and paragraphs 41 and 109).
What is lacking from Garcia is receive query information, and wherein the acknowledgement information responds to the query information.
In analogous art, Byun teaches a load balancing entity receiving load metrics in response to sending a request for said load metrics (see Byun, figure 14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Garcia so as to provide the load metrics as needed by the load balancer.
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights