DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 11/30/2023.
Claims 21-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected.
The IDSs filed on 12/4/2024, 12/30/2024 and 1/23/2025 have been considered.
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 17-18 are directed towards network equipment that are configured to perform functions to “determine an inter-network interference condition”. However, there is no express recitation of any hardware elements in these claims. The instant specification teaches that the network equipment can be virtualized, and hence the scope of the claim is only directed towards the software aspects of the invention. As result, claims 17 and 18 are directed to software per se and is non-statutory because it is a software claim, and do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Independent claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because this claim is directed to a computer program. This claim recites in part: “… a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor of network equipment (20), cause the network equipment (20) to perform the method of claim 1”. The claim indicates the limitation “when executed”, but it doesn’t include the processor in the scope of the claim. As result, the claim is directed to software per se and is non-statutory because it is a software claim, and does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Independent claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because this claim is directed towards a “carrier” that covers transitory signals. This claim recites in part: “… a carrier containing the computer program of claim 19, wherein the carrier comprises one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium”. The limitation “carrier” can be one of one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium. As a result, software stored on carriers of signals (electrical, optical, or radio) are non-statutory subject matter because they cover transitory signal, and does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. This claim recites in part: “Network Equipment… configured to… perform the method of any of claims 2-16”. MPEP §2173.05(f) states that: “… where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph”. If claim 18 performs the method of Claim 2, and Claim 2 further recites a method according to the method of claim 1. Claim 1 recites the step of “determining…” and “adapting…”. These process steps of duplicative of the “determining…” and “adapting…” steps of claim 18, which the network equipment comprises. The claim appears to be attempting to only require the “further comprising” steps of claim 2, however the claim requires the full process of claim 2, which includes the process steps of claim 1. As result, the scope of claim 18 is unclear as to the scope of the claim in light of referring to the limitations of claim 2 by reference. Hence in claim 18, it is unclear as to the exact scope of the claim, making these limitations unclear and hence indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims contain numerical references in parentheses, and these should be removed from all claims. For example, claim 1 recites: “… a method performed by network equipment (20) configured for use in a wireless communication network (10), the method comprising: determining (100) an inter-network interference condition (50C) measured by a set of sensors (30) …”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seol (US 20190372740 A1) in view of Gormley (US 20200344619 A1, from IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Seol discloses a method performed by network equipment configured for use in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
determining an inter-network interference condition (see para 64, the base station allocates a resource for a subframe based on inter-cell interference. Specifically, the base station may allocate resources for a subframe consistent with the basic TDD configuration/i.e., for normal TDD, and a subframe not consistent with the basic TDD configuration in the determined TDD configuration based on inter-cell interference/i.e., for dynamic TDD); and
adapting, based on the determined inter-network interference condition, time division duplexing, TDD, configuration of one or more radio network nodes in the wireless communication network (see para 51, the selection module/i.e., in the base station, determines a particular TDD configuration/i.e., representing adapting, from the TDD configuration list using information about resources allocated by the scheduling module for DL transmission or UL transmission. Here, the information about the resources allocated by the scheduling module for DL transmission or UL transmission is determined based on statistical information about data previously transmitted and received configuration based on historical or statistical data of resource allocation for UL/DL for dynamic TDD; at para 7, When the ratio of time resources used for DL transmission and those for UL transmission is dynamically adjusted/i.e. adapted, according to the characteristics of data, it is possible to efficiently use time resources; also see FIG. 9 illustrates an operating method of a base station for determining whether to use a dynamic TDD configuration, or regular TDD configuration).
Seol teaches collecting statistical data to allocate resources for scheduling UL/DL transmission in dynamic TDD.
Seol does not disclose details regarding using sensors to measure inter-cell interference, i.e., the limitation: inter-network interference condition measured by a set of sensors (30) deployed in a coverage area of the wireless communication network
In the same field of endeavor, Gormley teaches this limitation: see FIG. 1, performance monitoring system connected to the trace utility; see para 54, Performance Monitoring (PM) data includes data input from a dedicated PM tool, as well as data received directly from element management system (EMS), or elements of the Operations and Support System (OSS) … Performance Monitoring (PM) data may be derived directly from network event data by the spectrum analytics server. For example, when event data is available to the spectrum analytics server, the server may aggregate individual events to create equivalent PM counters and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). PM data is derived from sources other than a PM system; also see para 63, The network event data may be collected by a trace utility that is integrated with a cellular network/i.e., FIG. 1 is collectively representing the interference collected using sensor data (via trace utility) for generating the interference pattern (of FIG.1); and at para 65, Embodiments utilize additional information sources beyond the sources illustrated in FIG. 1, such as information provided by SON (Self Organizing Network) tools, including analysis and insight into neighbor relationships not readily apparent from the sources listed above. Additional external integrations may also include radio frequency propagation planning tools that may be used to enhance accuracy of interference detection and interference localization.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Seol, so as to include details regarding the collection of statistical interference data in TDD as taught by Gormley, the motivation being to optimize network capacity by mitigating interference in times allocated to uplink transmissions (see Gormley, para 8).
Regarding Claims 2, 18, Seol discloses: obtaining a model that models, for each of multiple candidate TDD configurations of the one or more radio network nodes, performance achievable with the candidate TDD configuration under different inter- network interference conditions, and wherein said adapting comprises: selecting, from the candidate TDD configurations, a candidate TDD configuration that, according to the model, achieves a performance objective under an inter-network interference condition corresponding to the determined inter-network interference condition; and configuring the one or more radio network nodes with the selected candidate TDD configuration (Examiners Note: Using BRI consistent with the specification, the limitation “candidate TDD configuration” has been interpreted to mean “TDD configuration for normal TDD”; and the limitation “a candidate TDD configuration that, according to the model, achieves a performance objective under an inter-network interference condition corresponding to the determined inter-network interference condition” has been interpreted to mean “TDD configuration for dynamic-TDD”. Based on this interpretation, see FIG. 3. Depicting a base station with TDD configuration list, see paras 51-52, the selection module determines a particular TDD configuration from the TDD configuration list using information about resources allocated by the scheduling module for DL transmission or UL transmission. Here, the information about the resources allocated by the scheduling module for DL transmission or UL transmission are determined based on statistical information/i.e., model, about data previously transmitted and received/i.e., multiple candidate TDD configurations … Specifically, the scheduling module may allocate a resource for a subframe in the determined TDD configuration, which is assigned DL transmission or UL transmission differently from in the basic TDD configuration, in consideration of inter-cell interference/i.e., representing adapting TDD configuration based on interference … Here, the possibility of occurrence of interference may be determined based on at least one of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the channel quality indicator (CQI), and the path loss of a channel with each terminal/i.e., representing performance achievable with selected TDD configuration based on inter-network interference in SNR, CQI or pathloss).
Regarding Claim 3, Seol discloses the method of claim 2, wherein obtaining the model comprises obtaining a labeled dataset that comprises one or more measurement records for each of the candidate TDD configurations, wherein each measurement record comprises a measurement of performance achieved with the candidate TDD configuration and a measurement by the set of sensors (30) of an inter-network interference condition under which the performance was measured (see para 52, the scheduling module may allocate a resource for a subframe in the determined TDD configuration, which is assigned DL transmission or UL transmission differently from in the basic TDD configuration, in consideration of inter-cell interference/i.e., representing adapting TDD configuration based on interference … Here, the possibility of occurrence of interference may be determined based on at least one of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the channel quality indicator (CQI), and the path loss of a channel with each terminal/i.e., representing performance achievable with selected TDD configuration based on inter-network interference in SNR, CQI or pathloss).
Seol teaches collecting statistical data to allocate resources for scheduling UL/DL transmission in dynamic TDD.
Seol does not disclose details regarding using sensors to measure inter-cell interference, i.e., the limitation: inter-network interference condition measured by a set of sensors (30) deployed in a coverage area of the wireless communication network
In the same field of endeavor, Gormley teaches this limitation: see FIG. 1, performance monitoring system connected to the trace utility; see para 54, Performance Monitoring (PM) data includes data input from a dedicated PM tool, as well as data received directly from element management system (EMS), or elements of the Operations and Support System (OSS) … PM data may be derived directly from network event data by the spectrum analytics server. For example, when event data is available to the spectrum analytics server, the server may aggregate individual events to create equivalent PM counters and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). PM data is derived from sources other than a PM system; also see para 63, The network event data may be collected by a trace utility that is integrated with a cellular network/i.e., FIG. 1 is collectively representing the interference collected using sensor data (trans utility) for generating the interference pattern (of FIG.1); and at para 65, Embodiments utilize additional information sources beyond the sources illustrated in FIG. 1, such as information provided by SON (Self Organizing Network) tools, including analysis and insight into neighbor relationships not readily apparent from the sources listed above. Additional external integrations may also include radio frequency propagation planning tools that may be used to enhance accuracy of interference detection and interference localization.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Seol, so as to include details regarding the collection of statistical interference data in TDD as taught by Gormley, the motivation being to optimize network capacity by mitigating interference in times allocated to uplink transmissions (see Gormley, para 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Seol discloses the method of claim 3, wherein each measurement record also comprises a measurement of a channel condition at one or more wireless devices under which the performance was measured (see para 52, the possibility of occurrence of interference may be determined based on at least one of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the channel quality indicator (CQI), and the path loss of a channel with each terminal/i.e., representing channel condition).
Regarding Claim 5, Seol discloses the method of claim 3, wherein said selecting comprises: selecting, from among one or more measurement records that include a measurement of an inter-network interference condition that is similar to the determined inter-network interference condition (50C) according to similarity criteria, a measurement record that includes a measurement of performance meeting a performance objective; and selecting the candidate TDD configuration for which the selected measurement record was obtained (see para 83, FIG. 10A. the base station allocates a resource for the subframe, which is not consistent with the basic TDD configuration, in a determined TDD configuration of a TDD configuration list… the base station allocates the resource to a terminal having an SNR or CQI equal to or greater than the threshold value/i.e., representing meeting a performance objective. Also, the base station allocates the resource for a terminal having a higher SNR or CQI with a higher probability. Thereafter, the base station transmits control information indicating a resource allocation result and may receive an uplink signal).
Regarding Claim 6, Seol discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said selecting comprises selecting, from the candidate TDD configurations, a candidate TDD configuration that, according to the model, achieves a performance objective while meeting one or more performance constraints, under an inter-network interference condition corresponding to the determined inter-network interference condition (see para 81, the base station identifies whether there is a terminal which is likely to cause interference. When there is no terminal which is likely to cause interference, the base station allocates resources (performs operation 1007)… A terminal being likely to cause interference may mean that the terminal is located in an outskirt area of a cell. For example, when a terminal has an SNR or CQI less than a threshold value/i.e., performance constraint, or has a path greater than a threshold value/i.e., performance objective, the terminal may be determined to be located in the outskirt area of the cell).
Regarding Claim 8, Seol discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said adapting comprises adapting, based on the determined inter-network interference condition (50C), TDD configuration (14) of multiple radio network nodes in the wireless communication network (10), and wherein each candidate TDD configuration is a candidate combination of multiple TDD patterns with which to respectively configure the multiple radio network nodes (see FIG. 3. paras 46-49, The TDD configuration list refers to a list of a plurality of TDD configurations. Here, a TDD configuration refers to a pattern that specifies whether each of a plurality of subframes included in a frame (e.g., a radio frame) is for UL transmission or for DL transmission. That is, the TDD configuration refers to the result of allocating the plurality of subframes for DL transmission and UL transmission. That is, the TDD configuration list includes a plurality of TDD configurations having different ratios of DL transmission and UL transmission. The TDD configuration list includes N TDD configurations in which DL transmission or UL transmission is assigned to each subframe in units of K subframes … para 52, The scheduling module allocates a resource based on the TDD configuration determined by the selection module. Specifically, the scheduling module may allocate a resource for a subframe in the determined TDD configuration/i.e. adapting to use dynamic TDD configuration, which is assigned DL transmission or UL transmission differently from in the basic TDD configuration, in consideration of inter-cell interference).
Regarding Claim 9, Seol discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose: configuring at least one of any one or more of: a bandwidth or frequency range over which the set of sensors (30) detects the inter- network interference condition (50C); a center frequency at which the set of sensors (30) detects the inter-network interference condition (50C); a quantity in terms of which the set of sensors (30) detects the inter-network interference condition (50C); and an interval at which the set of sensors (30) detects the inter-network interference condition.
In the same field of endeavor, Gormley teaches the limitation “configuring an interval at which the set of sensors (30) detects the inter-network interference condition”, it further discloses: see FIG. 1. para 53, The performance monitoring system generates performance data for the wireless network. The PM data may be derived from observations of network performance, which may be reported at a predetermined time interval, e.g., every minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, hourly or daily. PM data may include raw event counts (e.g. counts of dropped calls or handover failures during the observation period) or complex derived performance indicators (e.g. noise rise normalized by user loading, Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) distribution statistics normalized by data volume, downlink power information, uplink interference information, etc.). PM data may include raw or aggregated performance data.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Seol, so as to include details regarding the collection of statistical interference data in TDD as taught by Gormley, the motivation being to optimize network capacity by mitigating interference in times allocated to uplink transmissions (see Gormley, para 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Seol discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose: said adapting is further based on weights respectively assigned to sensors (30) in the set.
Examiners Note: Using BRI consistent with the specification, the above limitation has been interpreted to mean “adapting and analyzing based on the probability that an interference event is a tropospheric ducting interference event by computing a tropospheric ducting interference score that indicates a probability that an event is a tropospheric ducting interference event”. Based on this interpretation, and in the same field of endeavor, Gormley teaches the limitation: see FIG. 7. Para 91, a process for analyzing tropospheric ducting for each multi-site interference event; see para 111, The various tropospheric ducting factors analyzed in process of FIG. 7 will be used to quantify the probability/i.e., representing weight, that an interference event is a tropospheric ducting interference event at S408, for example by computing a tropospheric ducting interference score that indicates a probability that an event is a tropospheric ducting interference event. The score may be calculated using the characteristics that were analyzed by process 700 (FIG.7). Examples of quantification include performing correlations and calculating or estimating probabilities … paras 117-118, After computing probabilities, correlations and scores for the tropospheric ducting factors, the values may be weighted based on importance to accurate detection of tropospheric ducting events. The individual weighting factors may be statically determined based on testing or may be adjusted dynamically via adaptive or machine learning processes based on ongoing detection of such events. A weighted characteristic score may be summed to create a total score that represents total aggregate likelihood that the detected event resulted from tropospheric ducting. This total score is compared to a detection threshold. Total scores greater than or equal to the defined threshold are considered valid tropospheric ducting events. Events meeting or exceeding the detection threshold may trigger automated or manual mitigation actions such as alarms or reports, and pertinent information regarding the detected event are added to the cumulative tropospheric ducting history files for performing future correlations.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Seol, so as to include details regarding the collection of statistical interference data in TDD and assigning weights based on detected events to measure interference using sensors as taught by Gormley, the motivation being to optimize network capacity by mitigating interference in times allocated to uplink transmissions (see Gormley, para 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Seol discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said adapting comprises adapting, based on the determined inter-network interference condition (50C), a combination of TDD patterns with which respective radio network nodes in the wireless communication network (10) are configured (see FIG. 3. paras 46-49, The TDD configuration list refers to a list of a plurality of TDD configurations. Here, a TDD configuration refers to a pattern that specifies whether each of a plurality of subframes included in a frame (e.g., a radio frame) is for UL transmission or for DL transmission. That is, the TDD configuration refers to the result of allocating the plurality of subframes for DL transmission and UL transmission. That is, the TDD configuration list includes a plurality of TDD configurations having different ratios of DL transmission and UL transmission. The TDD configuration list includes N TDD configurations in which DL transmission or UL transmission is assigned to each subframe in units of K subframes … para 52, The scheduling module allocates a resource based on the TDD configuration determined by the selection module. Specifically, the scheduling module may allocate a resource for a subframe in the determined TDD configuration/i.e. adapting to use dynamic TDD configuration, which is assigned DL transmission or UL transmission differently from in the basic TDD configuration, in consideration of inter-cell interference).
Regarding Claim 12, Seol discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said adapting comprises adapting TDD configuration (14) of the one or more radio network nodes (12) further based on traffic to be communicated in the wireless communication network (see FIGs. 2-3. Paras 47-48, the storage unit stores a DL/UL buffer state/i.e., depicting traffic, and a TDD configuration list. The controller (FIG. 2) includes a selection module and a scheduling module. The DL/UL buffer state includes a DL buffer state and a UL buffer state. The DL buffer state may refer to information indicating the total amount of data for a base station to transmit in a cell, and the UL buffer state may refer to information indicating the amount of data for at least one terminal to transmit to the base station in the cell. Here, since the at least one terminal may periodically or aperiodically report information (e.g., buffer state information) about the amount of data for the terminal to transmit to the base station, the base station may identify the amount of data to be transmitted by the at least one terminal. The TDD configuration list may refer to a list of a plurality of TDD configurations. Here, a TDD configuration refers to a pattern that specifies whether each of a plurality of subframes included in a frame (e.g., a radio frame) is for UL transmission or for DL transmission… para 52, The selection module may determine a particular TDD configuration from the TDD configuration list based on the DL/UL buffer state/i.e., based on traffic to be communicated in a network).
Regarding Claim 15, Seol discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose details regarding: at least some of the sensors (30) in the set are deployed at fixed locations within the coverage area of the wireless communication network (10) and/or are dedicated to detecting inter-network interference conditions.
In the same field of endeavor, Gormley teaches: see para 58. FIG. 1. Topology data is data relating to the location and orientation of network elements, including information such as the antenna latitude and longitude of a base station, antenna height, pointing angle for sectorized antennas, antenna beamwidth, site deployment type (e.g. indoor, outdoor, distributed antenna system, etc.), etc. In addition to interference detection and characterization, topology data is used to aid in correlating PM data and network event data against actual physical locations, and for understanding physical distance relationships between network elements/i.e. the network elements used for collectively monitoring performance representing sensors.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Seol, so as to include details regarding the collection of statistical interference data in TDD as taught by Gormley, the motivation being to optimize network capacity by mitigating interference in times allocated to uplink transmissions (see Gormley, para 8).
Regarding Claim 17, Seol discloses Network equipment (20) configured for use in a wireless communication network (10), the network equipment (20) configured to:
determine an inter-network interference condition (50C) measured by a set of sensors (30) deployed in a coverage area of the wireless communication network (10), wherein the inter- network interference condition (50C) characterizes interference to the wireless communication network (10) from one or more other wireless communication networks (see para 64, the base station allocates a resource for a subframe based on inter-cell interference. Specifically, the base station may allocate resources for a subframe consistent with the basic TDD configuration/i.e., for normal TDD, and a subframe not consistent with the basic TDD configuration in the determined TDD configuration based on inter-cell interference/i.e., for dynamic TDD); and
adapt, based on the determined inter-network interference condition (50C), time division duplexing, TDD, configuration (14) of one or more radio network nodes (12) in the wireless communication network (see para 51, the selection module/i.e., in the base station, determines a particular TDD configuration/i.e., representing adapting, from the TDD configuration list using information about resources allocated by the scheduling module for DL transmission or UL transmission. Here, the information about the resources allocated by the scheduling module for DL transmission or UL transmission is determined based on statistical information about data previously transmitted and received configuration based on historical or statistical data of resource allocation for UL/DL for dynamic TDD; at para 7, When the ratio of time resources used for DL transmission and those for UL transmission is dynamically adjusted/i.e. adapted, according to the characteristics of data, it is possible to efficiently use time resources; also see FIG. 9 illustrates an operating method of a base station for determining whether to use a dynamic TDD configuration, or regular TDD configuration).
Seol teaches collecting statistical data to allocate resources for scheduling UL/DL transmission in dynamic TDD.
Seol does not disclose details regarding using sensors to measure inter-cell interference, i.e., the limitation: inter-network interference condition measured by a set of sensors (30) deployed in a coverage area of the wireless communication network
In the same field of endeavor, Gormley teaches this limitation: see FIG. 1, performance monitoring system connected to the trace utility; see para 54, Performance Monitoring (PM) data includes data input from a dedicated PM tool, as well as data received directly from element management system (EMS), or elements of the Operations and Support System (OSS) … Performance Monitoring (PM) data may be derived directly from network event data by the spectrum analytics server. For example, when event data is available to the spectrum analytics server, the server may aggregate individual events to create equivalent PM counters and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). PM data is derived from sources other than a PM system; also see para 63, The network event data may be collected by a trace utility that is integrated with a cellular network/i.e., FIG. 1 is collectively representing the interference collected using sensor data (via trace utility) for generating the interference pattern (of FIG.1); and at para 65, Embodiments utilize additional information sources beyond the sources illustrated in FIG. 1, such as information provided by SON (Self Organizing Network) tools, including analysis and insight into neighbor relationships not readily apparent from the sources listed above. Additional external integrations may also include radio frequency propagation planning tools that may be used to enhance accuracy of interference detection and interference localization.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Seol, so as to include details regarding the collection of statistical interference data in TDD as taught by Gormley, the motivation being to optimize network capacity by mitigating interference in times allocated to uplink transmissions (see Gormley, para 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Seol discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor of network equipment (20), cause the network equipment (20) to perform the method of claim 1 (see para 89).
Regarding Claim 20, Seol discloses carrier containing the computer program of claim 19, wherein the carrier comprises one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium (see para 89).
Claim(s) 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seol in view of Gormley, in view of Abedini (US 20210359829 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Seol in view of Gormley do not disclose details regarding: the performance objective comprises a maximum sum-throughput of the wireless communication network (10), and wherein the one or more performance constraints include a bounded latency and minimum throughput for each wireless communication device in the wireless communication network.
Examiners Note: Using BRI consistent with the specification, this limitation has been interpreted to mean: providing a TDD configuration to increase throughput (performance objective) and reduce latency (performance constraint).
Based on this interpretation, see Abedini para 65, the requesting node may adjust one or more TDD configurations used by the requesting node based on one or more requested TDD configurations received from one or more other nodes. As a result, the requesting node may reduce interference, which provides greater quality and/or reliability within a network including the nodes. Additionally, by reducing interference, the requesting node may increase throughput (e.g., by reducing a quantity of lost communications) and/or reduce latency (e.g., by reducing a quantity of retransmissions) within the network.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined systems of Seol and Gormley, so as to include details regarding providing a TDD configuration to increase throughput (performance objective) and reduce latency (performance constraint) as taught by Abedini, the motivation being to provide techniques and apparatuses for requesting intended time division duplex configurations (see Abedini, Field of the disclosure).
Regarding Claim 16, Seol in view of Gormley do not disclose details regarding: the wireless communication network (10) is an industrial internet-of-things, IoT, network.
Abedini teaches this limitation: see paras 35-36, A UE may also be referred to as an … industrial manufacturing equipment. Some UEs may be considered machine-type communication (MTC) or evolved or enhanced machine-type communication (eMTC) UEs. MTC and eMTC UEs include, for example, robots, drones, remote devices, sensors, meters, monitors, and/or location tags, that may communicate with a base station, another device (e.g., remote device), or some other entity. A wireless node may provide, for example, connectivity for or to a network (e.g., a wide area network such as Internet or a cellular network) via a wired or wireless communication link. Some UEs may be considered Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices, and/or may be implemented as NB-IoT (narrowband internet of things) devices.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined systems of Seol and Gormley, so as to include details regarding providing an industrial internet-of-things, IoT, network as taught by Abedini, based on the KSR rationale F - Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seol in view of Gormley, in view of Haustein (US 20230189382 A1, having foreign priority date Jan 14, 2021).
Regarding Claim 13, Seol in view of Gormley do not disclose details regarding: the inter- network interference condition (50C) characterizes cross-link interference to the wireless communication network (10) from one or more other wireless communication networks.
In the same field of endeavor, Haustein teaches this limitation: see FIG. 18 - an illustration of CLI and inter-cell interference in a multi-hop IAB network; paras 344-345, FIG. 18 is an extension of FIG. 17 which illustrates ICI and CLI in more detail. This is done for three example scenarios: “Inter-branch (or inter-tree) interference on backhaul and access link”; “Inter-hop interference between access and backhaul links”; and “Inter-string interference on access link”. The scenarios illustrate how interference could affect inter-branch, inter-hop and inter-string communication in either both the backhaul and access links (the first two cases) or in the access link only; para 337, Cross-link interference occurs in dynamic TDD systems, where adjacent cells use different transmission directions, as can be seen in FIG. 15 showing examples of CLI. Dynamic TDD systems improve spectrum utilization and enable flexible adaptation to varying traffic patterns. However, CLI remains of the major challenges.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined systems of Seol and Gormley, so as to include cross link interference that occurs in dynamic TDD as taught by Haustein, the motivation being to ensure that the dynamic TDD considers not just inter-network interference but also the cross link interference; and to mitigate CLI, gNBs can exchange and coordinate their intended TDD DL-UL configurations over Xn and F1 interfaces; and the victim UEs can be configured to perform CLI measurements (see Haustein, para 400).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seol in view of Gormley, in view of Montojo (US 20100074209 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Seol in view of Gormley do not disclose details regarding: the inter- network interference condition (50C) characterizes at least out-of-band interference to the wireless communication network (10) from one or more other wireless communication networks.
Montojo teaches this limitation: see para 62, dynamic resource allocation may be performed to obtain resources with less inter-cell interference. Whenever an offending UE desires to send control information on the uplink, a resource request may be sent to ask neighboring eNBs to clear certain resources to be used by the offending UE. The offending UE may then send its control information on the cleared resources and may observe less inter-cell interference… By assigning these resources to the offending UEs, the probability of these UEs transmitting at high power may be reduced, which may then mitigate emissions out of band.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined systems of Seol and Gormley, so as to consider out-of-band interference reduction that share resources with inter-cell interference information as taught by Montojo, the motivation being mitigate emissions out of band (see Montojo, para 62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA BELUR whose telephone number is (571)270-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 4:30 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at 571-272-3980. 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.
/DEEPA BELUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472