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 action is in response to application filed 12/18/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 recites “An apparatus configured to:…” The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for having non-statutory matter. The claim is drawn to an apparatus without reciting any hardware, which, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms, are interpreted as software or computer program and/or data structure which is non-statutory subject matter.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow).
Here, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2111), the claim as a whole covers a computer program which is not of the four statuary categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to a computer program, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter. Thus, a rejection is made properly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6-8, 13-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US 2011/0300867 A1) in view of Hariharan et al. (US 2022/0022061).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a configuration manager, updated data of one or more neighboring cells in a telecommunications network ([0013]: A wireless communication system of the present invention comprises a Mobility Management Entity which generates a white list in which CSG cells being accessible by a terminal device. [0049]: the MME 70 adds the cell ID of the user's desired CSG cell which is included in the white list update request, to the white list);
saving, by the configuration manager, the updated data into persistent storage (fig. 9, [0079]-[0080]: The MME 70 has an HeNB gateway communication interface (described as "HeNB gateway communication IF" ), a white list storing unit 72 which has stored the white list, and a control unit 73 which controls the MME 70. The control unit 73 has an NAS message transmitting/receiving unit 74, a white list updating unit 75. The NAS message transmitting/receiving unit 74 transmits and receives a white list update message and the updated white list as the NAS messages);
displaying, by the configuration manager, the updated data in a graphical user interface (GUI) ([0058]: The manual selection executing unit 16 displays neighboring CSG cells on a display to cause the user to select the desired CSG cell, and if the selected CSG cell is not in the white list, the manual selection executing unit 16 notifies the white list update request generating/transmitting unit 17 of nonexistence of the selected CSG cell in the white list. The white list update request generating/transmitting unit 17 generates the white list update request by including the cell ID of the CSG cell selected by the user into the Tracking Area Update message, and transmits the white list update request to the MME 70);
receiving, by the configuration manager, an instruction to change a configuration in the one or more neighboring cells ([0049]: the UE 10 transmits a Tracking Area Update message (this is referred to as "white list update request") including a cell ID of the CSG cell selected by the user. [0058]: The manual selection executing unit 16 displays neighboring CSG cells on a display to cause the user to select the desired CSG cell, and if the selected CSG cell is not in the white list, the manual selection executing unit 16 notifies the white list update request generating/transmitting unit 17 of nonexistence of the selected CSG cell in the white list. The white list update request generating/transmitting unit 17 generates the white list update request by including the cell ID of the CSG cell selected by the user into the Tracking Area Update message).
However, Matsuo does not disclose wherein the instruction to change the configuration is an instruction to change a value of a parameter of a neighboring cell included in a list of neighboring cells displayed by the GUI.
In an analogous art, Hariharan discloses wherein the instruction to change the configuration is an instruction to change a value of a parameter of a neighboring cell included in a list of neighboring cells displayed by the GUI ([0027]: A GUI can display the cells and number of impacted user sessions or the number of user sessions that would improve with new power parameters. The GUI can also display the current power parameters and the hypothetical power parameters that correspond to the number of user sessions that would improve. The GUI can allow the administrator to select a button to deploy the new parameters. [0050]: The GUI also can allow the administrator to customize thresholds per cell or set maximum power headroom of a cell such that power parameters are not dynamically adjusted above that maximum. The GUI can also allow the administrator to elect to receive a notification regarding a power parameter adjustment recommendation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuo to comprise “wherein the instruction to change the configuration is an instruction to change a value of a parameter of a neighboring cell included in a list of neighboring cells displayed by the GUI” taught by Hariharan.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled the administrator to select a button to deploy the new parameters for neighboring cells (Hariharan, [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuo-Hariharan disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the updated data comprises one of deleting a neighbor cell, adding a neighbor cell, or updating a value of the one or more neighboring cells (Matsuo, [0014]: manual selection executing unit which accepts manual selection of a CSG cell, and if the selected CSG cell has not been stored in the white list storing unit, requests the Mobility Management Entity to add the CSG cell to the white list).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuo-Hariharan discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the configuration may include one or more parameters of: a neighbor name, a cell name, a cell identifier, a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID, a carrier frequency, a physical cell ID, a Neighbor eNodeB ID, a tracking area code(TAC), a Neighbor Type value, a handover allowed parameter, a Cell Individual Offset, a Measurement Object Offset Frequency, and rank (Matsuo, [0049]: e UE 10 transmits a Tracking Area Update message (this is referred to as "white list update request") including a cell ID of the CSG cell selected by the user, to an MME 70 via a source HeNB 30 and an HeNB gateway 50 (S12, S14 and S16). When receiving the Tracking Area Update message, the MME 70 adds the cell ID of the user's desired CSG cell which is included in the white list update request).
Regarding claims 8 and 15; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 20; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 6.
Regarding claim 14; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 7.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Hariharan, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sambandan et al. (US 2021/0297508 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuo-Hariharan discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the updated data is provided by a user equipment (UE) to a base station (Matsuo, [0050]: when the UE 10 transmits a Measurement report message to the source HeNB 30, the UE 10 inserts a flag indicating that the white list is currently being updated (white list update flag) into the Measurement report message (S22). When receiving the Measurement report message, the source HeNB 30 transmits HO preparation including handover setting information to the HeNB gateway 50).
However, Matsuo-Hariharan does not disclose the updated data is received from the base station via a notification from a netconf server.
In an analogous art, Sambandan discloses the updated data is received from the base station via a notification from a netconf server ([0067]: the NETCONF server 150 creates a NETCONF “candidate” datastore in the data persistence database 142 for the controller 104 if one has not already been created (by copying the current NETCONF running datastore maintained by the NETCONF server 150 in the data persistence database 142 for the controller 104) and edit the NETCONF candidate datastore by changing one or more configuration parameters specified in the received NETCONF RPC.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuo-Hariharan to comprise “the updated data is received from the base station via a notification from a netconf server” taught by Sambandan.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to retrieve the current configuration and operational state data for the controller (Sambandan, [0066]).
Regarding claims 9 and 16; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 2.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Hariharan, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Purkayastha et al. (US 8,335,171 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuo-Hariharan discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instruction to change a configuration is to update the parameter in the one or more neighboring cells (Hariharan, [0027]: A GUI can display the cells and number of impacted user sessions or the number of user sessions that would improve with new power parameters. The GUI can also display the current power parameters and the hypothetical power parameters that correspond to the number of user sessions that would improve. The GUI can allow the administrator to select a button to deploy the new parameters).
However, Matsuo-Hariharan does not disclose wherein upon receiving the instruction, the method further comprises: creating, by the configuration manager, a workorder having a scheduling window; and sending, by the configuration manager, an edit remote procedure call (RPC) to a netconf server during the scheduling window, wherein upon receiving the edit RPC, the netconf server updates the parameter in the one or more neighboring cells.
In an analogous art, Purkayastha discloses wherein upon receiving the instruction, the method further comprises: creating, by the configuration manager, a workorder having a scheduling window; and sending, by the configuration manager, an edit remote procedure call (RPC) to a netconf server during the scheduling window, wherein upon receiving the edit RPC, the netconf server updates the parameter in the one or more neighboring cells (column 4, 41-45: Provisioning server 130 may permit network device 125 to receive configuration data from user device 110 (e.g., provisioning client 115) and/or provision the configuration of network devices 135. In an implementation, provisioning server 130 may include a NETCONF provisioning server. Column 10, 9-17: the task manager may schedule the provisioning and may manage successful and unsuccessful provisioning based on a fully atomic or a partially atomic approach. As will be described in greater detail below, in an implementation, task manager 415 may issue, for example, LOCK, UNLOCK, EDIT-CONFIG, and COMMIT RPC commands to network devices 135 according to the NETCONF protocol, during a provisioning process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuo-Hariharan to comprise “wherein upon receiving the instruction, the method further comprises: creating, by the configuration manager, a workorder having a scheduling window; and sending, by the configuration manager, an edit remote procedure call (RPC) to a netconf server during the scheduling window, wherein upon receiving the edit RPC, the netconf server updates the parameter in the one or more neighboring cells” taught by Purkayastha.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to schedule issuing RPC command during a provisioning process (Purkayastha, Column 10, 9-17).
Regarding claims 10 and 17; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 3.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Hariharan in view of Purkayastha, as applied to claim 3, in further view of Demonget et al. (US 2025/0056360 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuo-Hariharan-Purkayastha discloses the method as claimed in claim 3.
However, Matsuo-Hariharan-Purkayastha wherein the edit RPC is sent based on and subsequent to the workorder being approved by an authorized user.
In an analogous art, Demonget discloses wherein the edit RPC is sent based on and subsequent to the workorder being approved by an authorized user ([0053]: When OAMs 212 receives the output (i.e., new operating parameter values) from RAN coordinator 214, each OAM 212 may accept or deny/reject the submitted parameter changes (block 810), depending various factors, such as predefined rules or manual approval by an administrator of that OAM. Furthermore, OAMs 212 may implement the accepted parameter changes on target access stations 210 (block 812) (e.g., reconfigure the access stations 210 that the OAM 212 manages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuo-Hariharan-Purkayastha to comprise “wherein the edit RPC is sent based on and subsequent to the workorder being approved by an authorized user” taught by Demonget.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to forward instructions for parameter changes to reconfigure each of access stations, so that each of access stations handles appropriate traffic load (Demonget , [0015]).
Regarding claims 11 and 18; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 4.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Hariharan in view of Herr et al. (US 2018/0338291 A1) in further view of Purkayastha et al. (US 8,335,171 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuo-Hariharan discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, Matsuo-Hariharan does not disclose wherein the instruction to change a configuration is to reset the one or more neighboring cells.
In an analogous art, Herr discloses wherein the instruction to change a configuration is to reset the one or more neighboring cells ([0030]: the UE 300 may also support a radio frequency neighbor monitoring service, controlling the UE's measurements of neighbor cell radio conditions. Applications such as the application 310A and 310B may provide a user interface 320 to allow user selections—to select, for example, initial configuration, reconfiguration, or gathering neighboring cell information that the base station may use in determining if a reconfiguration is needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuo-Hariharan to comprise “wherein the instruction to change a configuration is to reset the one or more neighboring cells” taught by Herr.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled reconfiguring the wireless base station based at least in part on the neighboring cell information and, in response to determining that the reconfiguring has been successful, incrementally increasing cellular transmit power (Herr, [0005]).
However, Matsuo-Hariharan-Herr does not disclose wherein upon receiving the instruction, the method further comprises: sending, by the configuration manager, an edit remote procedure call (RPC) to a netconf server, wherein upon receiving the edit RPC, the netconf server updates the configuration in the one or more neighboring cells.
In an analogous art, Purkayastha discloses wherein upon receiving the instruction, the method further comprises: sending, by the configuration manager, an edit remote procedure call (RPC) to a netconf server, wherein upon receiving the edit RPC, the netconf server updates the configuration in the one or more neighboring cells (column 4, 41-45: Provisioning server 130 may permit network device 125 to receive configuration data from user device 110 (e.g., provisioning client 115) and/or provision the configuration of network devices 135. In an implementation, provisioning server 130 may include a NETCONF provisioning server. Column 10, 9-17: the task manager may schedule the provisioning and may manage successful and unsuccessful provisioning based on a fully atomic or a partially atomic approach. As will be described in greater detail below, in an implementation, task manager 415 may issue, for example, LOCK, UNLOCK, EDIT-CONFIG, and COMMIT RPC commands to network devices 135 according to the NETCONF protocol, during a provisioning process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuo-Hariharan-Herr to comprise “wherein upon receiving the instruction, the method further comprises: sending, by the configuration manager, an edit remote procedure call (RPC) to a netconf server, wherein upon receiving the edit RPC, the netconf server updates the configuration in the one or more neighboring cells” taught by Purkayastha.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to schedule issuing RPC command during a provisioning process (Purkayastha, Column 10, 9-17).
Regarding claims 12 and 19; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 5.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Dhaka et al., US 2024/0205097 A1: New Site Impact Analysis For Network Improvement.
Shankaranarayanan et al., US 2023/0308959 A1: Method and System of Managing Plurality of Neighbor Cells of a Target Cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446