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 .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-18, 20 & 21 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being clearly anticipated by NPL (Coordinated energy management in resilient microgrids for wireless communication network—Youngsung Kwon).
Regarding claim 1, NPL discloses a method performed by a network node, in a wireless communications network, for charging a rechargeable power source in the network node (Abstract: Wireless communications network, node, charging a rechargeable power source-battery & Page 1161 Col 2: power management and charging the base station based on traffic), the method comprising obtaining an operational parameter to an operation of the network node (Abstract & Page. 1168 col 2: distributes stored energy among cell sites based on weather forecast and other operational conditions), wherein the operational parameter is based on an output of a computational model (Para. 1168 2nd col. operational parameter & Fig. 5: computational model), and wherein the computational model is based on a state of charge of the rechargeable power source (Page. 1168 Col. 2: Battery charge and discharged & Fig. 7: the computational model for maximize energy storage) & (Page. 1165. Col. 1), a parameter related to outage of a power grid (Page. 1160. Col 2: main power grid outage), and a quality of service, QoS (Page. 1160. Col 2: user perception of service quality. Such a QoE depends on the type of traffic and on the network QoS, which are measures of network performance), parameter relating to radio communication in the wireless communications network (Page. 1160. Col 2: wireless network traffic for the radio communication) & (Abstract);
and applying, during a charging of the rechargeable power source, the operational parameter to the operation of the network node (Page. 1160. Col 2: Load control based on base station power consumption depends on traffic and radio signal power. & Page. 1166 Col. 1: Charge battery based on the node operational parameter-traffic condition).
Regarding claim 2 & 14, NPL remains as applied above and continue to discloses evaluating application of the operational parameter based on whether the application of the operational parameter fulfills a condition or not (Fig. 5 & 7 & Page 1160 Col. 2 & 1165. Col. 1: operational parameter & power condition).
Regarding claim 3 & 15, NPL remains as applied above and continue to discloses the condition is fulfilled, when the operational parameter is applied to the operation of the network node, the rechargeable power source is fully charged within a time interval and a level of QoS in the wireless communications network is upheld within the time interval, wherein the time interval is defined by a time when an outage of the power grid occurs (1162 Col. 2: time interval for power management) & (Page. 1160. Col 2: user perception of service quality. Such a QoE depends on the type of traffic and on the network QoS, which are measures of network performance).
Regarding claim 4 & 16, NPL remains as applied above and continue to discloses computational model is further based on a type of rechargeable power source, an environmental parameter, criticality of network slice (Abstract & Fig. 5: load optimization based on the weather condition).
Regarding claim 5 & 17, NPL remains as applied above and continue to discloses the state of charge indicates a percentage or a level of a fully charged rechargeable power source (Page. 1167: fully charged & percentage of charge).
Regarding claim 6 & 18, NPL discloses parameter related to outage of the power grid comprises one or more parameters indicating outages duration of one or more of the outages (Page. 1171: electric power grid outage lasts at least a week).
Regarding claim 8 & 20, NPL discloses the QoS parameter relating to communication in the wireless communications network is associated with a radio access technology used (Page. 1160. Col 2).
Regarding claim 9 & 21, NPL discloses rewarding the computational model when the rechargeable power source is fully charged before an outage of the power grid and when a set QoS in the wireless communications network is maintained (Fig. 5 & 7 & Page 1160-1161).
Regarding claim 13, NPL discloses a network node for charging a rechargeable power source in the network node, wherein the network node, is configured to obtain an operational parameter to an operation of the network node (Abstract & Page. 1168 col 2: distributes stored energy among cell sites based on weather forecast and other operational conditions),
wherein the operational parameter is based on an output of a computational model (Para. 1168 2nd col. operational parameter & Fig. 5: computational model), and wherein the computational model is based on a state of charge of the rechargeable power source (Page. 1168 Col. 2: Battery charge and discharged & Fig. 7: the computational model for maximize energy storage), a parameter related to outage of a power grid (Page. 1160. Col 2: main power grid outage), and a quality of service, QoS (Page. 1160. Col 2: user perception of service quality. Such a QoE depends on the type of traffic and on the network QoS, which are measures of network performance), parameter relating to radio communication in the wireless communications network (Page. 1160. Col 2: wireless network traffic for the radio communication) & (Abstract); and apply, during a charging of the rechargeable power source, the operational parameter to the operation of the network node (Page. 1160. Col 2: Load control based on base station power consumption depends on traffic and radio signal power. & Page. 1166 Col. 1: Charge battery based on the node operational parameter-traffic condition).
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (Coordinated energy management….) and further in view of Rodriquez et al (Pub No. 2011/0021248).
Regarding claim 7 & 19, NPL is silent regarding the operational parameter is related to balancing load between radio units of one or more radio access technologies or to deactivation of one or more radio units to achieve faster charging of the rechargeable power source.
Rodriquez et al discloses the operational parameter is related to balancing load between radio units of one or more radio access technologies or to deactivation of one or more radio units to achieve faster charging of the rechargeable power source (Para. 41 & 44-45: balance load and charge faster during sunny day).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the fast-charging system to charge the battery of the station to power the station regularly without interruption.
Claims 10 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (Coordinated energy management….) and further in view of Yoon et al (Pub No. 2018/0332483).
Regarding claim 10 & 22, NPL does not explicitly discloses the computational model is a reinforcement learning model, a machine learning model, and/or a deep neural network function.
Yoon discloses the computational model is a reinforcement learning model, a machine learning model, and/or a deep neural network function (Para. 10: Machine learning algorithm & Para. 112: rechargeable battery for the BS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use rechargeable charging system to charge the battery of the station to power the station regularly without interruption by using machine learning algorithm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights