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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (US 20200337004 A1).
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.
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) 1-2, 6-10, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20240357420 A1) in view of Li (US 20200337004 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses:
“A method of dynamic tuning of signal periodicity in a cellular network, the method comprising: monitoring …parameters associated with a base station in the cellular network, the … parameters characterizing… at least one of: data demand associated with the base station, a number of a plurality of user equipment (UE) connected to the base station, or a key performance indicator (KPI) of an infrastructure resource of the cellular network associated with the base station;” ([¶ 0057]: “In step 620, the access node 210 monitors network load. Monitoring of network load may include, for example, monitoring PRB usage at the access node. For example, monitoring of the network load in step 620 may include determining a percentage of available PRBs that are currently in use. Alternatively, monitoring network load includes determining a number of wireless devices connected to the access node. As a further alternative, monitoring of the network load in step 620 includes determining a noise level based on, for example, SINR or RSRQ.”)
“dynamically generating, based on the … parameters, a value of a periodicity parameter of a signal broadcasted by the base station of the cellular network; and applying the value of the periodicity parameter for transmission of the signal to a first UE of the plurality of UE.” ([¶ 0059]: “Each threshold may have an associated SSB periodicity. Thus, in step 650, the access node 210 adjusts the periodicity of SSB transmission in accordance with the particular threshold met. For example, when the first threshold is met, the access node 210 may change the periodicity to 40 ms. When the second threshold is met, the access node 210 may adjust the periodicity to 80 ms and when the third threshold is met, the access node 210 may adjust the periodicity to 160 ms.”)
Lu does not explicitly disclose the parameters include “occurrence of radio link failure associated with the base station and characterizing.”
However, Li discloses the missing feature the parameters include “occurrence of radio link failure associated with the base station and characterizing.” ([¶ 0134]: “The detection of the link quality and the adjustment of periodicities may be based on an error rate, lack of receiving ACKs (or increased reception of NACKs), measurements performed based on SSBs to determine radio link failure, low RSRP, failure to decode a channel due to signal quality, lower than expected SINR or SNR, or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lu and Li, to modify the technique as disclosed by Lu, to utilize RLF as disclosed by Li. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility and ability to adapt to network conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lu with Li to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “wherein the periodicity parameter of the signal comprises at least one of: a periodicity of a synchronization signal block (SSB), or a periodicity of a system information block, wherein the system information block comprises at least one of: system information block type 2 (SIB2), system information block type 3 (SIB3), system information block type 4 (SIB4), or system information block type 5 (SIB5).” ([¶ 0003]: “Exemplary embodiments include a method for reducing radio access network (RAN) energy consumption through adaptive synchronization signal block (SSB) periodicity setting.”)
Regarding claim 6, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “determining whether the plurality of parameters satisfies a threshold criterion, wherein dynamically generating the value of the periodicity parameter of the signal is performed responsive to determining that the plurality of parameters satisfies the threshold criterion.” ([¶ 0055]: “If the measured load does not meet the threshold, i.e., the load is higher than the threshold in step 540, the access node returns to transmitting the SSB at the default periodicity in step 510. However if the measured load satisfies the threshold in step 540, the access node transmits the SSB using a longer periodicity in step 550.”)
Regarding claim 7, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “wherein the infrastructure resource is at least one of a dedicated transport resource, a dedicated radio frequency (RF) resource instance, customer radio access network (RAN) data, a transport slice pipeline, secure signaling session data, a Radio Unit (RU), a radio access network (RAN) resource, or another service in the cellular network.” ([¶ 0021]: “The network load can be measured for example, based on physical resource block (PRB) consumption at one or more access nodes or based on a number of wireless devices connected to the one or more access nodes.”)
Regarding claim 8, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “wherein the plurality of parameters further comprises a parameter characterizing a state of each UE of the plurality of UE connected to the base station.” ([¶ 0021]: “The network load can be measured for example, based on physical resource block (PRB) consumption at one or more access nodes or based on a number of wireless devices connected to the one or more access nodes.”)
Claims 9-10, 14-16, and 20 are substantially similar to claims 1-2 and 6 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2 and 6 are directed towards a method while claims 9-10 and 14 are directed towards a system containing generic hardware and 15-16 and 20 are directed towards computer-readable storage media. Such hardware and storage media is taught by Lu in paragraph 31. Thus, claims 9-10, 14-16, and 20 are rejected for substantially similar reasons to claims 1-2 and 6.
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12, and 17-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20240357420 A1) in view of Li (US 20200337004 A1) and further in view of Naghshvar (US 20170063484 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “…wherein dynamically generating, based on the plurality of parameters, the value of the periodicity parameter of the signal further comprises at least one of: generating a value higher than a default value of a periodicity of a synchronization signal block (SSB) or turning off broadcasting the SSB.” ([¶ 0023]: “For example, embodiments set forth herein may utilize a default periodicity of 20 ms, but may increase the periodicity to 40 ms, 80 ms, or 160 ms during lighter load and decrease periodicity to 10 ms or 5 ms during periods of heavier load.”)
Lu does not explicitly disclose “determining that the signal is transmitted through a supplemental downlink channel connected to the first UE”
However, Naghshvar discloses the missing feature “determining that the signal is transmitted through a supplemental downlink channel connected to the first UE” ([¶ 0058]: “In either case, carrier aggregation may be employed to manage the different component carriers, with one carrier serving as the Primary Cell (PCell) for the corresponding user (e.g., an anchor licensed carrier in LTE SDL or a designated one of the unlicensed carriers in LTE Standalone) and the remaining carriers serving as respective Secondary Cells (SCells).”; [¶ 0083]: “For example, short and long CSAT cycles can be defined, and can be used based on determining whether signal strength(s) of signals received over the resources achieve one or more thresholds, whether signals received over the resources relate to a primary or secondary channel of the first RAT (e.g., Wi-Fi), etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lu and Naghshvar, to modify the technique as disclosed by Lu, to be based on channel type as disclosed by Naghshvar. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility and ability to adapt to network conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lu with Naghshvar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “…wherein dynamically generating, based on the plurality of parameters, the value of the periodicity parameter of the signal further comprises increasing a default value of periodicity of a synchronization signal block (SSB).” ([¶ 0023]: “For example, embodiments set forth herein may utilize a default periodicity of 20 ms, but may increase the periodicity to 40 ms, 80 ms, or 160 ms during lighter load and decrease periodicity to 10 ms or 5 ms during periods of heavier load.”)
Lu does not explicitly disclose “determining that the signal is transmitted through a primary channel connected to the first UE”
However, Naghshvar discloses the missing feature “determining that the signal is transmitted through a primary channel connected to the first UE” ([¶ 0058]: “In either case, carrier aggregation may be employed to manage the different component carriers, with one carrier serving as the Primary Cell (PCell) for the corresponding user (e.g., an anchor licensed carrier in LTE SDL or a designated one of the unlicensed carriers in LTE Standalone) and the remaining carriers serving as respective Secondary Cells (SCells).”; [¶ 0083]: “For example, short and long CSAT cycles can be defined, and can be used based on determining whether signal strength(s) of signals received over the resources achieve one or more thresholds, whether signals received over the resources relate to a primary or secondary channel of the first RAT (e.g., Wi-Fi), etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lu and Naghshvar, to modify the technique as disclosed by Lu, to be based on channel type as disclosed by Naghshvar. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility and ability to adapt to network conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lu with Naghshvar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 11-12 and 17-18 are substantially similar to claims 3-4 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20240357420 A1) in view of Li (US 20200337004 A1) and further in view of Rico (US 20160374109 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lu in view of Li discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lu further discloses “wherein dynamically generating, based on the plurality of parameters, the value of the periodicity parameter of the signal further comprises at least one of: generating a value higher than a preset value of a periodicity of a system information block or turning off broadcasting the system information block…” ([¶ 0023]: “For example, embodiments set forth herein may utilize a default periodicity of 20 ms, but may increase the periodicity to 40 ms, 80 ms, or 160 ms during lighter load and decrease periodicity to 10 ms or 5 ms during periods of heavier load.”)
Lu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the system information block comprises at least one of: system information block type 2 (SIB2), system information block type 3 (SIB3), system information block type 4 (SIB4), or system information block type 5 (SIB5).”
However, Rico discloses the missing feature “wherein the system information block comprises at least one of: system information block type 2 (SIB2), system information block type 3 (SIB3), system information block type 4 (SIB4), or system information block type 5 (SIB5).” ([¶ 0066]: “The periodicity of SIB2 can be dynamic, (e.g., it may be set to 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 or 512 radio frames).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lu and Rico, to modify the technique as disclosed by Lu, to be used with SIB2-5 as disclosed by Rico. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility and ability to adapt to network conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lu with Rico to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 13 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights