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 on 05-14-2026 has been entered and considered
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims “the facilitating the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the facilitating the controlling of the admissions are performed concurrently”. However, in the original disclosure, the applicant does not adequately teach or explain how the facilitating of the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the facilitating the controlling of the admissions are performed concurrently. Moreover, the specification does not have sufficient information to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In paragraph [0045]: it is stated “concurrently balancing the network load dynamically and reducing its energy consumption”, which is different than “the facilitating the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the facilitating the controlling of the admissions are performed concurrently”
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandramouli (US 2024/0057139) in view of Horn et al (US 2016/0057658). Hereinafter referred to as Chandramouli and Horn.
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]).
Chandramouli discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of facilitating the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the facilitating the controlling of the admissions. However, Horn, from the same field of endeavor, teaches facilitating the energy efficiency aware load balancing and the facilitating the controlling of the admissions (see at least abstract and paragraph [0087] and [0093]-[0094]). 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 Horn, as indicated, into the communication method of Chandramouli for the purpose of managing data handling.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Chandramouli) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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]).
Claims 5, 9-10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandramouli) in view of Horn and further in view of Ranganath et al (US 2024/0259879, hereinafter referred to as Ranganath).
Regarding claim 5, Chandramouli ) in view of Horn 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) in view of Horn for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 9, Chandramouli ) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 10. Chandramouli ) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn 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) in view of Horn for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 15, Chandramouli) in view of Horn 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 ) in view of Horn for the purpose of improving communication.
Regarding claim 16, Chandramouli ) in view of Horn 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights