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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 12-16,20-23,31-35, 39 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
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 1-4, 12-16, 20-23, 31-35, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lunardi (2024/0244484) over Ahmed (12279156).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Lunardi discloses a method performed by a second node for communication in a wireless communication network (para 108, Figure 4) comprising: detecting that an operation is to be executed at a second node (Figure 9), the execution causing an interruption of the wireless communication (paused or delayed measurements), upon detecting the operations are to be executed, receiving an indication from one or more first nodes whether or not to execute the operation (para 60, pause, delay or resume measurements) and determining to execute the operation based on the received indication (para 60-62). Lunardi discloses that the messaging can be related to a wireless communication to from a user equipment and implies to prevent interruption (para 118 – related to handover/configuration of tracking, etc.). Lunardi does not disclose that the operations are one or more management operations or the indication controlling the execution of one or more management operations.
However, Ahmed teaches in an analogous art, the use of signaling in which one or more management operations (delay management profiles signaling in the M-plane) is used to be communicated between nodes (Figure 1, O-Ran network) Ahmed teaches that the indication for stopping management processing is sent between network nodes (Col; 4;40-58, Col; 6;55-7;12, Col; 19;1-20;10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use management signaling in order to correctly communicate control signaling in the wireless network.
Regarding claim 2 and 13, Lunardi further discloses indication to one of the first nodes that one or more operations are to be executed at the second node (Figure 5, signaling between eNB1 and eNB2 indicate operations that must be performed between the two nodes).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Lunardi doesn’t disclose transmitting a request message to the one or more first nodes to indicate the execution of management operations. However, Ahmed teaches that management device transmits an indication to a first node indicating to execute the management operations (M plane signaling – Col; 9;8-22 and Col. 19;1-20;10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an indication signal in order to timely process the measurements by the network nodes.
Regarding claim 4 and 15 , Lunardi further discloses awaiting a pre-configured time interval (Figure 9, example 3 -waiting 5 reporting periods) after receiving the request to report back on whether to execute the one or more operations.
Regarding claim 12, Lunardi discloses a method performed by a second node for communication in a wireless communication network (para 108, Figure 4) comprising: detecting that an operation is to be executed at a second node (Figure 9), the execution causing an interruption of the wireless communication, upon detecting the operations are to be executed, receiving an indication from one or more first nodes whether or not to execute the operation (para 60, pause, delay or resume measurements) and determining to execute the operation based on the received indication (para 60-62). Lunardi discloses that the messaging can be related to a wireless communication to from a user equipment and implies to prevent interruption (para 118 – related to handover/configuration of tracking, etc.). Lunardi does not disclose that the operations are one or more management operations or the use of priority-based data.
However Ahmed teaches in an analogous art, the use of signaling in which one or more management operations (delay management profiles signaling in the M-plane) is used to be communicated between nodes (Figure 1, O-Ran network) Ahmed teaches that the indication for stopping management processing is sent between network nodes (Col; 4;40-58, Col; 6;55-7;12, Col; 19;1-20;10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use management signaling in order to correctly communicate control signaling in the wireless network.
Regarding claim 16, Lunardi doesn’t disclose the use of continuous feedback on whether a communication is going to be continued. Tsai further teaches that priority-based data is continuously evaluated (para 65, 69, feedback during the emergency operation back to the network management) on the communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include feedback to allow for continuous improvement of the communications quality as suggested by Tsai.
Regarding claims 20-23, the combination of Lunardi and Ahmed disclose the second node as described in the rejection of the method claims 1-4 above, and are rejected given the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 31-35, the combination of Lunardi and Ahmed disclose the first node in a wireless system as described in the rejection of the method claims 12-16 above and are rejected given the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 39, Lunardi discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (para 261) having stored thereon a computer program comprising program instructions that when run by a data processing unit perform a method, the method comprising: detecting that an operation is to be executed at a second node (Figure 9), the execution causing an interruption of the wireless communication, upon detecting the operations are to be executed, receiving an indication from one or more first nodes whether or not to execute the operation (para 60, pause, delay or resume measurements) and determining to execute the operation based on the received indication (para 60-62). Lunardi discloses that the messaging can be related to a wireless communication to from a user equipment and implies to prevent interruption (para 118 – related to handover/configuration of tracking, etc.). Lunardi does not disclose that the operations are one or more management operations.
Ahmed teaches in an analogous art, the use of signaling in which one or more management operations (delay management profiles signaling in the M-plane) is used to be communicated between nodes (Figure 1, O-Ran network) Ahmed teaches that the indication for stopping management processing is sent between network nodes (Col; 4;40-58, Col; 6;55-7;12, Col; 19;1-20;10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use management signaling in order to correctly communicate control signaling in the wireless network.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (2023/0308942) discloses suspension of management operations (QoE reports) in a wireless network with reporting between nodes to suspend and reinstate the management operations.
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 WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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 Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights