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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chandramouli (US 2024/0057139). Hereinafter referred to as Chandramouli.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 18. Chandramouli discloses a method, comprising: facilitating, by a system comprising a processor, energy efficiency aware load balancing of already served user equipment, wherein the energy efficiency aware load balancing distributes the already served user equipment among a group of cells of a communication network (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]); and facilitating, by the system, controlling of admissions of other user equipment to the communication network (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]), wherein the facilitating the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the facilitating the controlling of the admissions comprise: evaluating feedback data representative of near-real-time quality of service performance indicator feedback (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]); and based on the feedback data, controlling the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the admission control, the controlling resulting in a mitigated degradation of a quality of service of the already served user equipment (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Chandramouli discloses a method wherein the facilitating the energy efficiency aware load balancing comprises: selecting a first cell of the group of cells for offloading of a first user equipment of the already served user equipment to a second cell of the group of cells, wherein the group of cells is within control of a near-real-time-radio access network intelligent controller; and based on selection of the first cell, providing information indicative of offload instructions for the first user equipment to a centralized unit for validation (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Chandramouli discloses a method further comprising: based on a completion of the connection transfer of the user equipment, determining, by the system, an outcome of the connection transfer as a function of a change in a network utility; and communicating, by the system, the change in the network utility for incorporation into a reinforcement learning model (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Chandramouli discloses a method wherein the controlling resulting in the mitigated degradation of the quality of service of the already served user equipment comprises the controlling resulting in minimized degradation of the quality of service of the already served user equipment, and wherein the facilitating the controlling of the admissions of other user equipment comprises: based on receipt of a connection request from a first user equipment of the other user equipment, activating an admission control procedure; and based on a result of the admission control procedure and based on acceptance of an admission policy and a utility function, selectively admitting the first user equipment to the group of cells (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Chandramouli discloses a method wherein the communication network is deployed as a disaggregated architecture that comprises central units, distributed units, and a near-real-time-radio access network intelligent controller (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Chandramouli discloses a method wherein the group of cells is configured to operate according to a new radio network communication protocol (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 11. Chandramouli discloses a system wherein the operations further comprise: prior to the selecting of the first cell, obtaining average data usage from the cells, wherein the selecting is based on the average data usage and a defined policy (see at least paragraphs [0028]-[0031], and [0058]).
Regarding claim 12. Chandramouli discloses a system wherein the defined policy is based on a function of cell loads, PRB utilization, and load states of neighbor cells (see at least paragraphs [0028]-[0031], and [0058]).
Regarding claim 13. Chandramouli discloses a system wherein the load balancing procedure is activated based on a cell within a cluster being determined to satisfy a utilization threshold (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0032], [0042]-[0045], and [0048]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 17. Chandramouli discloses a system, wherein the system is deployed in a disaggregated architecture of network equipment (see at least paragraphs [0028]-[0031], and [0058]).
Regarding claim 20. Chandramouli discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium wherein the controlling of the admissions of other user equipment comprises: based on receipt of a connection request from a first user equipment of the other user equipment, activating an admission control procedure; and based on a result of the admission control procedure, selectively admitting the first user equipment to the plurality of cells based on acceptance of an admission policy and a utility function (see at least paragraphs [0028]-[0031], and [0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 5, 9-10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandramouli in view of Ranganath et al (US 2024/0259879, hereinafter referred to as Ranganath).
Regarding claim 5, Chandramouli discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that based on completion of an admission of the first user equipment, communicating, by the system, cell level data for incorporation into a reinforcement learning model. However, Ranganath, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that based on completion of an admission of the first user equipment, communicating, by the system, cell level data for incorporation into a reinforcement learning model (see at least paragraphs [0161], [0193], and [0333]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ranganath, as indicated, into the communication method of Chandramouli for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 9, Chandramouli discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that based on a completion of the connection transfer of the second user equipment, determining an outcome of the connection transfer as a function of a change in a network utility; and communicating the change in the network utility to a reinforcement learning model. However, Ranganath, from the same field of endeavor, teaches that based on a completion of the connection transfer of the second user equipment, determining an outcome of the connection transfer as a function of a change in a network utility; and communicating the change in the network utility to a reinforcement learning model (see at least paragraphs [0161], [0193], and [0333]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ranganath, as indicated, into the communication method of Chandramouli for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 10. Chandramouli in view of Ranganath discloses a system wherein the operations further comprise: based on the validation of the offload instructions by the centralized unit, transferring the offload instructions to a scheduler for initiation of a connection transfer of the first user equipment (Chandramouli: see at least paragraphs [0028]-[0031], and [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Chandramouli discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of activating the admission control procedure comprises: recommending, to a control unit (CU), a policy for admission of the second user equipment; based on acceptance of the policy by the CU and based on a determination that the second user equipment is to be admitted in a same radio unit (RU) that received the connection request from the second user equipment, sending an acceptance acknowledgment to the second user equipment; and completing setup of the second user equipment with a selected cell of the cells. However, Ranganath, from the same field of endeavor, teaches activating the admission control procedure comprises: recommending, to a control unit (CU), a policy for admission of the second user equipment; based on acceptance of the policy by the CU and based on a determination that the second user equipment is to be admitted in a same radio unit (RU) that received the connection request from the second user equipment, sending an acceptance acknowledgment to the second user equipment; and completing setup of the second user equipment with a selected cell of the cells (see at least paragraphs [0161], [0193], and [0333]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ranganath, as indicated, into the communication method of Chandramouli for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 15, Chandramouli discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of activating the admission control procedure comprises: recommending, to a control unit (CU), a policy for admission of the second user equipment; based on acceptance of the policy by the CU and based on a determination that the second user equipment is to be admitted in a different cell than the cell that received the connection request from the second user equipment, sending redirect information to the second user equipment; and completing setup of the second user equipment with the different cell. However, Ranganath, from the same field of endeavor, teaches activating the admission control procedure comprises: recommending, to a control unit (CU), a policy for admission of the second user equipment; based on acceptance of the policy by the CU and based on a determination that the second user equipment is to be admitted in a different cell than the cell that received the connection request from the second user equipment, sending redirect information to the second user equipment; and completing setup of the second user equipment with the different cell (see at least paragraphs [0161], [0193], and [0333]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ranganath, as indicated, into the communication method of Chandramouli for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 16, Chandramouli in view of Ranganath discloses a system wherein the operations further comprise: based on completion of the admission of the second user equipment at the different cell, communicating cell level data to a reinforcement learning model (see at least paragraphs [0161], [0193], and [0333]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476