DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 15-17 have been cancelled.
Claims 18-23 have been added.
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01//13/2026. Claims 1 and through 14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 18-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 1-11, 14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratasuk et al (US 2015/0223135 Al) in view of Park et al. (2019/0053193 A1).
For claim 1 Ratasuk teaches an access point configured to provide a first coverage area, the access point comprising:
at least one processor, and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see Fig. 2 “UE, eNB 107, eNB 108, and O&M system”), cause the access point at least to:
determine whether to deactivate or activate at least part of a second coverage area located within the first coverage area, the second coverage area being provided by a booster cell (see Fig. 1 “cells (second coverage area)to be activated and deactivated within coverage area 110” and Fig. 2 “eNB booster (booster cell)”);
identify the booster cell (see Fig. 2 “eNB booster (booster cell)”); and
(see paragraph 104 and Fig. 8 “cell activation request/response”),
Ratasuk does not explicitly teach wherein the request identifies whether the activation and/or deactivation is to be provided at a beam-level or at a cell-level of the second coverage area.
However, Park teaches the first message may be configured to request the DU at least one of: to activate (e.g. configure) a first beam; to deactivate (e.g. release) a second beam; and/or to modify one or more beam configuration parameters for a third beam (park: at least paragraphs 380, 382-384, 402, and 422). In addition, Park teaches cell addition/release/modification request (Park: at least paragraphs 290, 321, 408, 415). In addition, Park teaches the radio resource configuration information may be a request for a cell activation/deactivation, cell configurations (Park: at least paragraph 279-280). In addition, Park teaches the master gNB may maintain the RRM measurement configuration of the UE and may, (e.g., based on received measurement reports or traffic conditions or bearer types), decide to ask a secondary gNB to provide additional resources (serving cells) for a UE; upon receiving a request from the master gNB, a secondary gNB may create a container that may result in the configuration of additional serving cells for the UE (or decide that it has no resource available to do so) (Park: paragraph 171).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Park in the activation/deactivation cell of Ratasuk in order to determine activate/reactive at cell level or beam level according to design requirements (park: at least paragraphs171, 279-280, 321, 380, 382-384, 402, and 422).
For claim 2 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, wherein the first coverage area is provided using a different communication protocol to the communication protocol used to provide the second coverage area (see Ratasuk: Fig. 1 “Macro cell and Pico cells”).
For claim 3 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, wherein identifying the at least one booster cell (see Ratasuk: Fig. 2 “booster cell 108”) comprises:
retrieving a cell booster table from a table host, the cell booster table associating a plurality of coverage areas located in the first coverage area with respective booster cells (see Ratasuk: Fig. 7, 9-10 “a table includes relevant cells and the their capabilities” and paragraph 108 “the purpose of the Cell Activation procedure is to request to a neighboring eNB to switch on one or more cells, previously reported as inactive due to energy saving reasons." The eNB1 shown in the figure may be the coverage eNB 107 and the eNB2 shown in the figure may be the capacity booster eNB 108”); and
identifying the (see Ratasuk: Fig. 2 “booster cell 108” Fig. 7, 9-10 “a table includes relevant cells and the their capabilities”).
For claim 4 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, as claimed in claim 3, wherein the determining to deactivate or activate at least part of a second coverage area is performed in dependence on a plurality of communication parameters for a user equipment located in the second coverage area, the plurality of communication parameters for a user equipment comprising at least two of:
user equipment capability information associated with the user equipment (see Ratasuk: paragraph 95 “The capacity booster cells may be requested to first transmit the minimum information necessary such that the capacity booster cells only enable UEs to make measurements of capacity booster cells. This then allows determination of which capacity cells will provide the highest offload capability of UEs from the coverage cell”);
mobility information of the user equipment (see Ratasuk: paragraph 73 “This can result in radio link failure (RLFs) for some of the UEs 110. Besides the performance impact of the UE experiences the RLF, these RLFs can negatively impact Mobility Robustness Optimization (MRO) procedures resulting in reduced overall system performance”);
Key Performance Indicators on at least one communication performed by the user equipment in the first coverage area (see Ratasuk: paragraph 73 “This can result in radio link failure (RLFs) for some of the UEs 110. Besides the performance impact of the UE experiences the RLF, these RLFs can negatively impact Mobility Robustness Optimization (MRO) procedures resulting in reduced overall system performance”); or
on at least one communication performed by the user equipment in the first coverage area (see Ratasuk: paragraph 73 “This can result in radio link failure (RLFs) for some of the UEs 110. Besides the performance impact of the UE experiences the RLF, these RLFs can negatively impact Mobility Robustness Optimization (MRO) procedures resulting in reduced overall system performance”).
For claim 5 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, as claimed in claim 4, wherein the determining whether to deactivate or activate a second coverage area located within the first coverage area depends on a load on the access point and/or a load on neighboring access points (see Ratasuk: Fig. 6 “load information”, Fig. 7 “interference overload indication”, and paragraph 72 “(e.g., traffic utilization or loading, number of user near a Pico cell 105, total number of users, user distribution, and the like), the macro cell 106 can decide which pico-cell 105 to activate”).
For claim 6 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, as claimed in claim 5,wherein the instructions, when executed on the at least one processor further cause the access point to:
receive from the booster cell an indication that different beams will be activated and/or deactivated relative to beams identified in the transmitted request (Ratasuk: Fig. 8 “cell activation request/cell activation response” and Damnjanovic: paragraph 124 “activating/deactivating beams or cells”);
determine to deactivate or activate a different part of the second coverage area located within the first coverage area to the at least part of the second coverage area (Ratasuk: Fig. 8 “cell activation request/cell activation response” and Damnjanovic: paragraph 124 “activating/deactivating beams or cells”); and
transmit a request to the booster cell to deactivate and/or activate the different part of the second coverage area (Ratasuk: Fig. 8 “cell activation request/cell activation response”).
For claim 7 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, as claimed in claim 6, wherein the instructions, when executed on the at least one processor further cause the access point to:
maintain at least one list of booster cells (see Ratasuk: paragraph 95 “booster cells deactivation/activation based on load increases in the coverage areas”), the at least one list comprising:
a list of booster cells that are active in the first coverage area, a list of booster cells that must remain active in the first coverage area, and/or a list of booster cells that need to be activated given predefined respective criteria (see Ratasuk: paragraph 95 “booster cells deactivation/activation based on load increases in the coverage areas”).
For claim 8 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches an access point for an access point, the access point comprising at least one processor, and at least one processor storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (as discussed in claim 1), cause the access point at least to:
the access point is located in a first coverage area, receive a first request to activate and/or deactivate at least part of a second coverage area provided by the access point, wherein the request identifies whether the activation and/or deactivation is to be provided at a beam-level or at a cell-level of the second coverage area (as discussed in claim 1); and
respond to the first request with an indication of the at least part of the second coverage area that will be activated and/or deactivated (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 9 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, wherein the first coverage area is provided using a different communication protocol to the communication protocol used to provide the second coverage area (as discussed in claim 2).
For claim 10 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point as claimed in claim 9, wherein the indication indicates different beams that will be activated and/or deactivated relative to beams identified in the received request (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 11 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point as claimed in claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed on the at least one processor further cause the access point to receive a second request to activate and/or deactivate a different part of the second coverage area relative to the at least part of the second coverage area (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 14 Ratasuk in view of Park further in view of Ogilvie teaches a method for an access point for an access point configured to provide a first coverage area (as discussed in claim 1 and claim 12), the method comprising:
determining to deactivate or activate at least part of a second coverage area located within the first coverage area, the second coverage area being provided by a booster cell (as discussed in claim 1);
identifying the booster cell (as discussed in claim 1); and
transmitting a request to the booster cell to deactivate and/or activate the at least part of the second coverage area in dependence on the determination, wherein the request identifies whether the activation and/or deactivation is to be provided at a beam-level or at a cell-level of the second coverage area (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 18 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point, wherein said request identifies that the activation and/or deactivation is to be provided at the beam-level (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 19 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point as claimed in claim 18, wherein said request identifies beams of said booster cell to be activated and/or deactivated (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 20 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point as claimed in claim 8, wherein said request identifies that the activation and/or deactivation is to be provided at the beam-level (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 21 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the access point as claimed in claim 20, wherein said request identifies beams of said booster cell to be activated and/or deactivated (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 22 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the method, wherein said request identifies that the activation and/or deactivation is to be provided at the beam-level (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 23 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein said request identifies beams of said booster cell to be activated and/or deactivated.
6. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratasuk in view of Park and further in view of Ogilvie (US 2006/0046645 A1).
For claim 12 Ratasuk in view of Park teaches a network apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network apparatus at least to:
maintain a cell booster table, the cell booster table associating a plurality of coverage areas located in a first coverage area with respective booster cells, wherein the first coverage area is provided by a first access point (see Ratasuk: paragraph 95 “list of booster cells deactivation/activation based on load increases in the coverage areas”, Fig. 9 “group (list or table) of served cells to activate”);
receive a request for the cell booster table from the first access point (see Ratasuk: Fig. 8 “cell activation request and cell activation response” Fig. 10 eNB2 is requested”, Fig 11 “activating the capacity booster cell… requesting from coverage cell indications…receiving from coverage cell indications); and
provide the cell booster table to the first access point in response to the request (see Ratasuk: Fig. 8 “cell activation request and cell activation response” Fig. 10 eNB2 is requested”, Fig 11 “activating the capacity booster cell… requesting from coverage cell indications…receiving from coverage cell indications).
Ratasuk in view of Park does not explicitly teach request/response for a cell booster table.
However, Ogilvie teaches a request that includes a request 500 that includes repeater (booster) cell phone list (table) and response 600 that includes repeater (booster) cell phone list (table) (see Ogilvie: Fig. 5-6). In addition, Ogilvie teaches a method for a requesting cell phone to communicate with a base station through repeater cell phones includes (1) generating a request to communicate with a base station, (2) transmitting the request to a repeater cell phone, and (3) upon receiving a response from the base station, transmitting data to the repeater cell phone for relay to the base station (see Ogilvie: paragraph 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious t a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Ogilvie in the combined activation/deactivation cell of Park and Ratasuk in order to increase coverage areas to allow for temporary networks in case of emergencies (see Ogilvie: paragraph 7).
For claim 13 Ratasuk in view of Park further in view of Ogilvie teaches the network apparatus, wherein the instructions when executed on the at least one processor further cause the network apparatus to:
maintain at least one list of booster cells (as discussed in claim 12), the at least one list comprising:
a list of booster cells that are active in the first coverage area, a list of booster cells that must remain active in the first coverage area, and/or a list of booster cells that need to be activated given predefined respective criteria (as discussed in claim 12).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Damnjanovic et al. (US 2022/0264346 A1).
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415