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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 03/06/2026.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6 are amended.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tingfang Ji et al (US 20090190500 A1) in view of Lackis Eleftheriadis et al (US 20240015553 A1).
For Claim 1, Ji discloses a method (Ji teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 1-3, that FIG. 4, illustrated is a wireless communications system 400 that can allow cell selection/reselection based at least in part on energy efficiency and/or load parameters related to multiple access points), comprising:
the energy information comprises at least one of a current or a predicted green energy and gray energy status, a current or predicted ratio of renewable energy, a current green energy production state, and a current green consumption state, a current energy efficiency state, and a current green energy usage quota state (Ji teaches, in ¶ 0045, lines 5-7, that the energy efficiency estimator 408 can calculate energy efficiency related to reselecting to one or more access points 406 as well as that of the current access point 404);
selecting a second network entity based on the energy information, wherein the second network entity has better energy efficiency or a higher current or predicted ratio of renewable energy compared to one or more other network entities (Ji teaches, in ¶ 0041, lines 5-11, that the energy efficiency estimator 306 can calculate an energy efficiency for each of the plurality of cells or related apparatuses, and the cell selector 310 can select/reselect based additionally or alternatively on a minimum energy efficiency (min(E.sub.b,tx)). Ji also teaches, in ¶ 0050, lines 16-25, that At 504, the energy efficiency of the access point is compared to an energy efficiency related to a different access point. In one example, the different access point can be a current access point such that the energy efficiencies are compared to determine whether to reselect from a cell of the current access point to a cell of the access point. At 506, communication is established with the access point based at least in part on comparing energy efficiencies).
Ji fails to expressly disclose monitoring, by a first network entity, energy information.
However, Eleftheriadis, the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses monitoring, by a first network entity, energy information (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 1-7, that the first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an overall SCF towards the second network node 60 to inform the second network node 60 that this is the current SCF. In the illustrated embodiment, as the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source 50 powering the base station 20 is 20%, the overall SCF is 0.8 of SCF1). Eleftheriadis explains, in ¶ 0010, lines 1-7, that the emission factor may be measured, determined and/or learnt, such as by the network node 10 (or, more specifically, the processing circuitry 12 of the network node 10) or any other network node. The emission factor may also be referred to as an emission coefficient or an energy source CO2 emission factor (SCF).
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 transmission system taught in Ji with the monitoring of energy consumption taught in Eleftheriadis. The motivation is to enable additional incentives and mechanisms geared to reduce energy consumption and, in turn, reduce the carbon footprint for the UE [Eleftheriadis: ¶ 0009, lines 9-13].
For Claim 2, Ji discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of
selecting a third network entity, upon determining the third network entity has a higher current or predicted ratio of renewable energy than the second network entity.
However, Eleftheriadis, in the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses selecting a third network entity, upon determining the third network entity has a higher current or predicted ratio of renewable energy than the second network entity (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0171, lines 12-19, that any of the predictions referred to herein may be provided (e.g. rendered) with a proposed change to the behaviour of the UE, or each UE in the case of the method being performed for multiple UEs (such as in the case of an enterprise customer), that reduces the energy consumption and/or the carbon footprint. The change may, for example, comprise switching to a different carrier and/or initiating a handover to another base station (e.g. with better energy performance)).
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 transmission system taught in Ji with the monitoring of energy consumption taught in Eleftheriadis. The motivation is to enable additional incentives and mechanisms geared to reduce energy consumption and, in turn, reduce the carbon footprint for the UE [Eleftheriadis: ¶ 0009, lines 9-13].
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lackis Eleftheriadis et al (US 20240015553 A1).
For Claim 3, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, comprising:
monitoring, by a first network entity in a wireless system, energy information (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0156, lines 8-11, that a UE may represent a machine or other device that performs monitoring and/or measurements, and transmits the results of such monitoring and/or measurements to another UE and/or a network node), wherein the energy information comprises at least one of a current or a predicted green energy and gray energy status, a current or predicted ratio of renewable energy, a current green energy production state, and a current green consumption state, a current energy efficiency state, and a current green energy usage quota state (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 1-7, that the first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an overall SCF towards the second network node 60 to inform the second network node 60 that this is the current SCF. In the illustrated embodiment, as the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source 50 powering the base station 20 is 20%, the overall SCF is 0.8 of SCF1); and
reporting the energy information to a second network entity, wherein the reporting is performed periodically (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0102, lines 16-20, that the measure of energy consumed by the base station may be reported at the end of a call involving the UE, as part of a data transfer (e.g. transfer of a traffic usage report), and/or during handover of the UE from the base station to another base station (which may also be referred to as cell handover). In some embodiments, the measure of energy consumed by the base station may be reported periodically) or triggered upon detecting one or more reporting triggers comprising detecting the change of energy information, receiving a request from a third network entity, and wherein the third network entity and the second network entity are the same or are different (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0033, that the method may comprise estimating changes in the total energy consumption for the UE based on periodic changes in the resource usage for the UE in the network and/or periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station in communicating with the UE, wherein the periodic changes in the resource usage for the UE may be reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station, and the periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station is reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station).
For Claim 4, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, wherein a granularity of the energy information for reporting and monitoring is per service data flow, per network slice, or per PLM (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0009, lines 8-11, that these further derived measures can include accounting for an environmental footprint, e.g. a carbon footprint that is indicative of carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) emissions, on a network-level granularity [i.e., per PLM ] or an even finer granularity. Ideally, monitoring energy consumption at the level of an individual user equipment (UE) is desirable).
For Claim 5, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, wherein the monitoring is performed periodically (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0102, lines 16-20, that the measure of energy consumed by the base station may be reported at the end of a call involving the UE, as part of a data transfer (e.g. transfer of a traffic usage report), and/or during handover of the UE from the base station to another base station (which may also be referred to as cell handover). In some embodiments, the measure of energy consumed by the base station may be reported periodically) or triggered by one or more triggering events comprising receiving a request from another network entity (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0033, that the method may comprise estimating changes in the total energy consumption for the UE based on periodic changes in the resource usage for the UE in the network and/or periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station in communicating with the UE, wherein the periodic changes in the resource usage for the UE may be reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station, and the periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station is reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station).
Claims 6-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackis Eleftheriadis et al (US 20240015553 A1) in view of Xiaoyong Yu et al (US 20230239781 A1).
For Claim 6, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, comprising:
exchanging energy information of one or more cells by a network function in a mobile communication network, wherein the energy information comprises at least one of a current or a predicted green energy and gray energy status, a current green energy production state, and a current green consumption state, a current energy efficiency state, and a current green energy usage quota state (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0156, lines 8-11, that a UE may represent a machine or other device that performs monitoring and/or measurements, and transmits the results of such monitoring and/or measurements to another UE and/or a network node);
determining a triggering condition for increasing renewable energy or reducing carbon emission (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0033, that the method may comprise estimating changes in the total energy consumption for the UE based on periodic changes in the resource usage for the UE in the network and/or periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station in communicating with the UE, wherein the periodic changes in the resource usage for the UE may be reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station, and the periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station is reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station); making a decision to handover one or more UEs served by a first base station to a second base station when the triggering condition is satisfied (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0171, lines 12-19, that any of the predictions referred to herein may be provided (e.g. rendered) with a proposed change to the behaviour of the UE, or each UE in the case of the method being performed for multiple UEs (such as in the case of an enterprise customer), that reduces the energy consumption and/or the carbon footprint. The change may, for example, comprise switching to a different carrier and/or initiating a handover to another base station (e.g. with better energy performance)).
Eleftheriadis fails to expressly disclose transmitting a request message to the first base station for executing a handover operation.
However, Yu, in the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses transmitting a request message to the first base station for executing a handover operation (Yu teaches, in ¶ 0028, lines 1-4, that the communication unit is configured to send a first request to a network device. The first request is used to request to select a serving cell for the terminal device in an energy efficiency first manner). Yu also teaches, in ¶ 0087, that here may be a plurality of trigger conditions for the terminal device in embodiments of this application to send the first request to the network device.
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 transmission system taught in Eleftheriadis with the energy-efficiency-based selection taught in Yu . The motivation is to reduce energy consumed by the terminal device during communication [Yu: ¶ 0006].
For Claim 7, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, wherein the triggering condition is satisfied when the second base station uses a higher percentage of green energy than the first base station (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0171, lines 12-19, that any of the predictions referred to herein may be provided (e.g. rendered) with a proposed change to the behaviour of the UE, or each UE in the case of the method being performed for multiple UEs (such as in the case of an enterprise customer), that reduces the energy consumption and/or the carbon footprint. The change may, for example, comprise switching to a different carrier and/or initiating a handover to another base station (e.g. with better energy performance)).
For Claim 8, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, wherein the triggering condition is satisfied when the second base station uses a higher percentage of green energy than the first base station (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0102, lines 15-22, that the measure of energy consumed by the base station may be reported at the end of a call involving the UE, as part of a data transfer (e.g. transfer of a traffic usage report), and/or during handover of the UE from the base station to another base station (which may also be referred to as cell handover). In some embodiments, the measure of energy consumed by the base station may be reported periodically).
For Claim 11, Eleftheriadis discloses a method, further comprising: receiving a response accept message from the first message or from a UE served by the first base station (Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0102, lines 15-22, that a UE may be designed to transmit information to a network on a predetermined schedule, when triggered by an internal or external event, or in response to requests from the network).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackis Eleftheriadis et al (US 20240015553 A1) in view of Xiaoyong Yu et al (US 20230239781 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Konstantinos Dimou (US 20140011534 A1).
For Claim 9, Eleftheriadis & Yu disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the decision further involves switching off the first base station.
However, Dimou, in the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses that the decision further involves switching off the first base station (Dimou teaches, in ¶ 0010, lines 1-4, that the base station employing the energy-efficiency mechanism may inform UEs in its cell and neighbor base stations of the base station's intent to switch off its operation or reduce its transmission power within a defined time period. This information may be provided to UEs, for example, either with a specific pattern used for the pilot transmission or via explicit over the air signaling. The information may be provided to neighbor base stations directly via X2 signaling, via a Base Station Controller (BSC), via S1 signaling, or other routing).
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 transmission system taught in Eleftheriadis & Yu with the cell-breathing taught in Dimou. The motivation is to reduce energy consumed by the terminal device during communication.
For Claim 12, Eleftheriadis & Yu disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of receiving a response rejection message from the first message or from a UE served by the first base station.
However, Dimou, in the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses receiving a response rejection message from the first message or from a UE served by the first base station (Dimou teaches, in ¶ 0007, that the serving base station sends a Handover Request message to the target base station via the X2 interface (as described in TS 36.423), requesting whether the target base station can accept the UE. If the target base station is performing a procedure to switch off its transmitters/receivers, the target base station may refuse to accept the UE).
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 transmission system taught in Eleftheriadis & Yu with the cell-breathing taught in Dimou. The motivation is to reduce energy consumed by the terminal device during communication.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackis Eleftheriadis et al (US 20240015553 A1) in view of Xiaoyong Yu et al (US 20230239781 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Anil Nair et al (US 20240406831 A1).
For Claim 10, Eleftheriadis & Yu disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the message comprises a specific cause value related to carbon consideration.
However, Nair, in the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses that the message comprises a specific cause value related to carbon consideration (Nair teaches, in ¶ 0117, that Based on the usage of the data over green and red cells, the first node 101 may provide appropriate rewards to encourage the device 130 to use the energy from green cells to the maximum. … an operator of the communications system 100 may fix various cashback whenever the green cell is utilized for data transfer or provide carbon footprint points which may be redeemed).
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 transmission system taught in Eleftheriadis & Yu with the type of energy used by a plurality of cells as taught in Nair. The motivation is to efficiently incentivize UEs to utilize green cells more efficiently [Nair: ¶ 0008].
For Claim 13, Eleftheriadis & Yu disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the feedback information comprises at least one of a green energy and gray energy status, UE performance affected by the decision, and system performance of the network.
However, Nair, in the analogous art of transmission-energy management, discloses that the feedback information comprises at least one of a green energy and gray energy status, UE performance affected by the decision, and system performance of the network (Nair teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 12-20, that Based on the information on the availability of green cells and connection strength, the first node 101 may also inform the device 130 about potential downtime and suggest an alternative. While a green decision or a hint may be made, the decision may affect the QoE. An estimate of the impact of the QoE may be made. This impact may be factored in before the final hand over decision, or a hint to cache/delay a download may be made). Nair also teaches, in ¶ 0029, lines 1-4, that If the UEs and base stations manage the data flow in such a way that the green cells are utilized to the maximum, the carbon footprint may be reduced … Hybrid cells may also be referred to as “yellow cells”, which may use a mixture of renewable energy and non-renewable energy. If yellow cells exist in the system, the priority may be understood to be in the order green, yellow and then red, i.e., “red cells” may be understood to use only non-renewable energy.
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 transmission system taught in Eleftheriadis & Yu with the type of energy used by a plurality of cells as taught in Nair. The motivation is to efficiently incentivize UEs to utilize green cells more efficiently [Nair: ¶ 0008].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejection - 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching of "monitoring, by a first network entity in a 3GPP system, energy information, wherein the energy information comprises at least one of a current or a predicted green energy and gray energy status, a current or predicted ratio of renewable energy, a current green energy production state, and a current green consumption state, a current energy efficiency state, and a current green energy usage quota state," as recited in amended claim 1 (see remarks, pages 6-8).
First, MPEP 2145 admonishes Applicant to beware that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
Second, Examiner asserts that Ji teaches, in ¶ 0045, lines 5-7, that the energy efficiency estimator 408 can calculate energy efficiency related to reselecting to one or more access points 406 as well as that of the current access point 404. Ji also teaches, in ¶ 0050, lines 16-25, that At 504, the energy efficiency of the access point is compared to an energy efficiency related to a different access point. In one example, the different access point can be a current access point such that the energy efficiencies are compared to determine whether to reselect from a cell of the current access point to a cell of the access point.
In other words, Ji is relied on to teach selecting an access point (i.e., second network entity) based on comparing the energy efficiencies of different access points. It is useful to remind Applicant that Ji’s energy efficiency estimation/calculation is mapped to the claimed a current energy efficiency state, which is at least one of the members in the Markush group recited in claim 1.
Further, the rejection indicates that Ji fails to expressly disclose monitoring, by a first network entity, energy information.
However, Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 1-7, that the first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an overall SCF towards the second network node 60 to inform the second network node 60 that this is the current SCF. In the illustrated embodiment, as the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source 50 powering the base station 20 is 20%, the overall SCF is 0.8 of SCF1). Eleftheriadis explains, in ¶ 0010, lines 1-7, that the emission factor may be measured, determined and/or learnt, such as by the network node 10 (or, more specifically, the processing circuitry 12 of the network node 10) or any other network node. The emission factor may also be referred to as an emission coefficient or an energy source CO2 emission factor (SCF).
Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that Eleftheriadis, in fact, teaches that the network node 10 may measure, determine and/or learn the emission factor. Examiner notes that measuring as used herein is synonymous to the claimed monitoring. Examiner also notes that Eleftheriadis measures/determines the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source [i.e., green energy] by subtracting the SCF from 1 (i.e., %Renewable_Source = 1-SCF).
Clearly, Eleftheriadis is concerned with monitoring/measuring the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source. Little wonder that Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0115, lines 1-5, that As illustrated by arrow 404 of FIG. 5, a renewable energy source (e.g. a solar panel) 50 begins to power the base station 20 and the second network node 60 is informed of this. As such, the second network node 60 has information on this other energy source and can report this to the first network node 10 for use by the first network node 10 in calculating an overall SCF.
Accordingly, Examiner believes that Eleftheriadis teaches/suggests "monitoring, by the network node 10, energy information, wherein the energy information comprises the renewable energy source [i.e., green energy].
Examiner respectfully concludes that Ji, in combination with Eleftheriadis, teaches/suggests each and every limitation of claim 1.
Further, Examiner notes that applicant is “arguing limitations which are not claimed,” (see MPEP 2145 (VI)). In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., by a first network entity in a 3GPP system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitation, 3GPP system is not found in claim 1.
For at least the reasons above, claim 1 is not yet patentable. Claim 2 is also not yet patentable at least for depending from rejected base claim 1, as well as for claim 2 being rejected on its own merit.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC 102
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching of "monitoring, by a first network entity in a 3GPP system, energy information, wherein the energy information comprises at least one of a current or a predicted green energy and gray energy status, a current or predicted ratio of renewable energy, a current green energy production state, and a current green consumption state, a current energy efficiency state, and a current green energy usage quota state," as recited in amended claim 3 (see remarks, pages 6-8).
The reason being Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 1-7, that the first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an overall SCF towards the second network node 60 to inform the second network node 60 that this is the current SCF. In the illustrated embodiment, as the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source 50 powering the base station 20 is 20%, the overall SCF is 0.8 of SCF1). Eleftheriadis explains, in ¶ 0010, lines 1-7, that the emission factor may be measured, determined and/or learnt, such as by the network node 10 (or, more specifically, the processing circuitry 12 of the network node 10) or any other network node. The emission factor may also be referred to as an emission coefficient or an energy source CO2 emission factor (SCF).
Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that Eleftheriadis in fact, teaches that the network node 10 may measure, determine and/or learn the emission factor. Examiner notes that measuring as used herein is synonymous to the claimed monitoring. Examiner also notes that Eleftheriadis measures/determines the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source [i.e., green energy] by subtracting the SCF from 1 (i.e., %Renewable_Source = 1-SCF).
Accordingly, Examiner believes that Eleftheriadis teaches/suggests "monitoring, by the network node 10, energy information, wherein the energy information comprises the renewable energy source [i.e., green energy].
Further, Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 1-7, that the first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an overall SCF towards the second network node 60. And in ¶ 0010, lines 1-7, Eleftheriadis teaches that the network node 10 may measure (i.e., monitor), determine and/or learn the emission factor. Cleary, the first network node 10 measures (i.e., monitors), determines and/or learns the emission factor; and the [same] first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an overall SCF towards the second network node 60. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s argument, there is no conflation ("mixes and matches") of different actors and different information flows.
Moreover, Eleftheriadis is concerned with monitoring/measuring the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source. Little wonder that Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0115, lines 1-5, that As illustrated by arrow 404 of FIG. 5, a renewable energy source (e.g. a solar panel) 50 begins to power the base station 20 and the second network node 60 is informed of this. A PHOSITA recognizes a solar panel as a green energy source.
For at least the reasons above, claim 3 is not yet patentable. Claims 4-5 are also not yet patentable at least for depending from rejected base claim 3, as well as for claims 4-5 being rejected on their own merits.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching of "transmitting a request message to the first base station for executing a handover operation," as recited in amended claim 6 (see remarks, pages 6-8).
As an initial matter, Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0171, lines 12-19, that any of the predictions .. may be provided (e.g. rendered) with a proposed change to the behaviour of the UE, wherein the change may, for example, comprise … initiating a handover to another base station (e.g. with better energy performance).
Further, the rejection indicates that Eleftheriadis fails to expressly disclose transmitting a request message to the first base station for executing a handover operation.
However, Yu, teaches, in ¶ 0028, lines 1-4, that the communication unit is configured to send a first request to a network device. The first request is used to request to select a serving cell for the terminal device in an energy efficiency first manner. Yu also teaches, in ¶ 0087, that there may be a plurality of trigger conditions for the terminal device in embodiments of this application to send the first request to the network device.
As already indicated above, Eleftheriadis is concerned with monitoring/measuring the percentage of the energy from the renewable energy source. Little wonder that Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0115, lines 1-5, that As illustrated by arrow 404 of FIG. 5, a renewable energy source (e.g. a solar panel) 50 begins to power the base station 20 and the second network node 60 is informed of this. A PHOSITA recognizes a solar panel as a green energy source.
Further, Eleftheriadis teaches, in ¶ 0033, the periodic changes in the measure of energy consumed by the base station is reported to the network node by the UE and/or the base station. Eleftheriadis also teaches, in ¶ 0116, that the first network node 10 may transmit information indicative of an updated overall SCF towards the second network node 60 to inform the second network node 60 that this is the current SCF…The process may be repeated each time there is an update from the one or more energy sources 40, 50.
Thus, it is believed that Eleftheriadis’s trigger condition is related to increasing renewable energy and/or reducing carbon emission, not least because Eleftheriadis opines that “the combination of the model for predicting the future total energy consumption for the UE and the model for predicting the future carbon footprint for the UE can be useful for reducing both the energy consumption in the network and the carbon footprint in the network” (¶ 0125).
Additionally, there appears to be no specificity on what is contemplated by the claimed a network function in a mobile communication network.
Also, the claim is silent about what entity is transmitting the HO request to the first base station. Thus, Examiner argues that Yu’s communication unit, which provides the network function of transmitting the HO request properly reads on the claimed network function.
Once again, MPEP 2145 admonishes Applicant to beware that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
Again, applicant is “arguing limitations which are not claimed,” (see MPEP 2145 (VI)). In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Yu does not teach a central network function forcing a handover to manage the network's energy profile) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations central network function, and forcing a handover are not found in claim 6.
Consequently, Examiner respectfully remark that Eleftheriadis, in combination with Yu, teaches/suggests each and every limitation of claim 6.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes 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, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Eleftheriadis teaches that any of the predictions .. may be provided (e.g. rendered) with a proposed change to the behaviour of the UE, wherein the change may, for example, comprise … initiating a handover to another base station (e.g. with better energy performance) ( ¶ 0171). Yu, for its part is directed to a communication unit configured to send a first request to a network device. The first request is used to request to select a serving cell for the terminal device in an energy efficiency first manner [¶ 0028].
Clearly, Examiner believes that a motivation to combine exists herein because the prediction-based handover of Eleftheriadis can be improved by adding Yu’s handover request. Examiner further believes that the combination of references would result in an increased handover success rate, which could be more desirable.
In fact, MPEP 2143 (G) states: “the courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”
For at least the reasons above, claim 6 is not yet patentable. Claims 7-8, 11 are also not yet patentable at least for depending from rejected base claim 6, as well as for claims 7-8, 11 being rejected on their own merits.
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are not yet patentable for depending from rejected base claims, as well as for being rejected on their own merits. Accordingly, the rejection is respectfully maintained as proper.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejections be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: LIU (US 20140256330 A1) is pertinent to a method to improve the utilization rate of the renewable energy in the whole wireless cellular system, it is preferred that the renewable energy base station requesting the adjustment to the coverage area preferentially select a renewable energy base station(s) with sufficient electric power to carry out the subsequent operation of increasing the coverage area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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 JIANG can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights