DETAILED ACTION
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 communication filed on 6/1/2026. Claims 1-8 & 13-20 have been elected.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application is effectively filed 2/21/2024. The assignee of record is T-Mobile Innovations LLC. The listed inventor(s) is/are: SINGH, Jasinder P.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-8, 15 & 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims provided that all other rejections under 35 USC 101/112 (if any) are obviated upon upcoming amendments/arguments without raising new issues that necessitate further consideration/search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevindik et al. (US 20210274339 A1, published 9/2/2021; hereinafter Sev) in view of Liu et al. (US 20240224178 A1, filed 10/27/2023; hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Jung (CN 102754482 A, published 10/24/2012, PE2E Machine Translation provided with the non-final rejection dated 7/30/2026; hereinafter Jun).
For Claim 1, Sev teaches a method, the method comprising: monitoring a number of fixed wireless devices on a frequency band served by a serving access node (Sev ¶ 0054 informing the spectrum access system 1200 of a count of subscriber identification module (SIM) cards and a count of radios in the customer premise equipment device 1400 (operation 7008); informing the spectrum access system 1200 of a frequency and an identity of the network 1100 to monitor (operation 7012); performing, by the customer premise equipment device 1400, one or more measurements based on the frequency and the identity of the network 1100 (operation 7016); and sending the one or more measurements to a managing server (operation 7020).
Please see screenshot of Sev Fig. 7 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
656
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Sev does not explicitly teach determining that the number of fixed wireless devices on the frequency band served by the serving access node has exceeded a threshold; and transmitting a notification to one or more neighboring access nodes, the notification including the number of fixed wireless devices served by the serving access node on the frequency band, and the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices.
However, Liu teaches determining that the number of fixed wireless devices on the frequency band served by the serving access node has exceeded a threshold (Liu ¶ 0160 in a case where the sum of the traffic loads of respective band domains is greater than the total threshold value, the customer premises equipment is switched to the on state for all band domains. In a case where the sum of the traffic loads of respective band domains is below the total threshold value, the customer premises equipment is switches to, for example, the off state for all band domains).
Liu and Sev are analogous art because they are both related to customer premises equipment (CPE).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the threshold techniques of Liu with the system of Sev to increase a resource utilization rate of the customer premises equipment and reduce power consumption and interference (Liu ¶ 0008).
Sev-Liu does not explicitly teach transmitting a notification to one or more neighboring access nodes, the notification including the number of fixed wireless devices served by the serving access node on the frequency band, and the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices.
However, Jun teaches transmitting a notification to one or more neighboring access nodes, the notification including the number of fixed wireless devices served by the serving access node on the frequency band, and the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices (Jun [0240] Specifically, the controller of the mobile station may be through broadcast from the serving base station of the neighbor notification (AAI-EMBS-CFG NBR-ADV) message to obtain relative information of neighbour base station change count information and system information (i.e., SPR information).
Claim 2 wherein the handover command message further comprises a second change count information representing a change count of the neighbor notification message with the serving base station, and when the first change count information and the second change count information are different, the increment control information is included in the handover command message).
Jun and Sev-Liu are analogous art because they are both related to handover.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the threshold techniques of Liu with the system of Sev-Liu to effectively obtaining system information of the target base station (or control information) of the device (Jun ¶ 0001).
For Claim 4, Sev-Liy-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, Sev-Liv-Jun does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: monitoring a traffic level in the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices (Sev ¶ 0057); determining that the traffic level in the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices is below a first traffic threshold (Sev ¶ 0057); and responsive to determining that the traffic level in the frequency band is below the first traffic threshold, transmitting the number of fixed wireless devices being served by the serving access node, the frequency band on which the fixed wireless devices are being served, and an indication that the serving access node is accepting new wireless device handovers for the frequency band.
For Claim 5, Sev-Liy-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, Sev-Liv-Jun does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: transmitting, on a schedule, the number of fixed wireless devices being served by the serving access node, and the frequency band on which the fixed wireless devices are being served (Sev ¶ 0057 the measurements are performed at during a configuration of the network 1100, at a prescheduled time, when the customer premise equipment device 1400 has available resources, or when a resource usage of the customer premise equipment device 1400 is under a specified load threshold).
For Claim(s) 13, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 16, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 17, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Claim(s) 2 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sev-Liv-Jun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujie (JP 2014017578 A, published 1/30/2014, PE2E English Machine Translation provided with non-final rejection dated 7/30/2026; hereinafter Fuj).
For Claim 2, Sev-Liy-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, Sev-Liv-Jun does not explicitly teach wherein the notification to the one or more neighboring access nodes further includes an indication that the serving access node is not accepting new wireless device handovers for the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices.
However, Fuj teaches wherein the notification to the one or more neighboring access nodes further includes an indication that the serving access node is not accepting new wireless device handovers for the frequency band serving the fixed wireless devices (Fuj Pg 10 the base station notifies the terminal that the handover to the adjacent base station in the stopped state is prohibited, and the terminal that has received the notification cancels the handover to the adjacent base station in the stopped state, Hand over to Also, the second base station (neighboring base station) needs to change transmission power and antenna radiation pattern to complement the service area in response to the power supply of the first base station being stopped. You may take appropriate measures).
Fuj and Sev-Liu-Jun are analogous art because they are both related to handover.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the stopping techniques of Fuj with the system of Sev-Liu-Jun because of the benefit of power consumption reduction (Fuj Pg 2).
For Claim(s) 14, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20230276251 A1
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights