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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 44 and 53 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claims 44 and 53, the claims do not add more new features to the features of their dependent claims 42 and 51, respectively. The Applicant may add new features in the future amendment.
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) 42, 49-51 and 60-61 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0239465, “Lee”) in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0135104, “Lau”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Lee unless otherwise mentioned.
Lee comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 42, a method performed by a network node configured to operate as a source network node of a reconfiguration procedure, the method comprising:
receiving, from a candidate target network node of the reconfiguration procedure ([0035] “The decision is then transmitted to the serving base station 12 via a handover pre-notification response message (HO-pre-notification-response) (step S109).”, and [0046] “The serving base station 22 selects one base station appropriate for the handover execution from the target base stations 23 and 24.”), information predicted to characterize service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure ([0035] “The handover pre-notification response message (HO-pre-notification-response) may include information indicating estimated service levels of the admitted service flows which can be provided to the current mobile subscriber station 11 from the target base stations 13.”),
wherein the information is predicted to characterize a performance of service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (See aforesaid [0035], and [0034] “the required information for maintaining the respective admitted service flow includes a service flow identifier (SFID), a service class name, QoS parameters corresponding to each service flow, and specific values corresponding to the QoS parameters, respectively. For example, the QoS parameters may be maximum latency, minimum reserved traffic rate, minimum tolerable traffic rate, maximum sustained traffic rate, etc.”),
wherein the information is predicted to characterize the performance at an application layer, wherein the information is predicted to characterize the performance in terms of one or more of: throughput; delay; jitter; packet error rate; block error rate; or traffic pattern (These will be discussed in view of Lau.); and
making a decision based on the received information ([0046] “The serving base station 22 selects one base station appropriate for the handover execution from the target base stations 23 and 24.”).
It is noted that while disclosing a handover procedure with a target node based on QoS, Lee does not specifically teach about an application layer. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lau as follows;
wherein the information is predicted to characterize the performance at an application layer ([Lau, 0020] “The techniques may enable a telecommunication carrier to use quality of experience metrics that measure the performance of user device applications at multiple radio cells of a carrier network to manage user device handovers.”),
wherein the information is predicted to characterize the performance in terms of one or more of: throughput (This alternative is not examined.); delay ([Lau, 0043] “the quality metric value for a gaming application may be calculated based on network latency in response to user input. The network latency may be a time between when a request for data is initiated at the game application and response data is received by the game application.”); jitter; packet error rate; block error rate; or traffic pattern (These alternatives are not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Lee by using the features of Lau in order to provide uninterrupted transferring of services among eNBs such that “A telecommunication carrier may use quality of experience metrics to manage user device handovers.” [Lau, Abstract].
Regarding claim 51, it is a method claim performed by a candidate target node corresponding to the method claim 42 in a reciprocal way, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 42.
Regarding claim 60, it is a network node claim corresponding to the method claim 42, except the limitations, “communication circuitry; and processing circuitry” (See [Lau, Fig. 3] for 302 “Communication Interface” and 304 “Processor(s)”, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 42.
Regarding claim 61, it is a network node claim corresponding to the method claim 51, except the limitations, “communication circuitry; and processing circuitry” (See [Lau, Fig. 3] for 302 “Communication Interface” and 304 “Processor(s)”, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 51.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 49, the method of claim 42 , further comprising
transmitting, to the candidate target network node, a request for the information ([0034] “the serving base station 12 transmits a handover pre-notification message (HO-pre-notification) to the target base stations 13 (step S108).”), and
wherein the information is received in response to the request ([0035] “Each of the target base stations 13 having received the handover pre-notification message (HO-pre-notification) decides whether it is capable of admitting a new mobile subscriber station 11. The decision is then transmitted to the serving base station 12 via a handover pre-notification response message (HO-pre-notification-response) (step S109). The handover pre-notification response message (HO-pre-notification-response) may include information indicating estimated service levels of the admitted service flows which can be provided to the current mobile subscriber station 11 from the target base stations 13.”),
wherein the request indicates:
one or more capabilities of the wireless communication device;
results of one or more radio measurements of the wireless communication device; a trajectory of the wireless communication device; one or more cells for which the information is requested (These alternatives are not examined.);
one or more service types for which the information is requested ([0034] “The handover pre-notification message (HO-pre-notification) may include required information for maintaining the respective admitted service flows. Preferably, the required information for maintaining the respective admitted service flow includes a service flow identifier (SFID), a service class name, QoS parameters corresponding to each service flow, and specific values corresponding to the QoS parameters, respectively.”); and/or
one or more candidate device configurations for which the information is requested (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claim 50, the method of claim 42, wherein the decision is:
a decision about whether the candidate target network node is to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (This alternative is not examined.);
a decision about which of one or more candidate target network nodes is to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure ([0046] “The serving base station 22 selects one base station appropriate for the handover execution from the target base stations 23 and 24.”);
a decision about whether the wireless communication device is to perform the reconfiguration procedure; or a decision about how to configure one or more parameters governing mobility of, or traffic steering of, the wireless communication device (These alternatives are not examined.).
Claim(s) 43-48 and 52-58 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0239465, “Lee”) in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0135104, “Lau”) and further in view of Sienkiewicz et al. (US 2020/0205070, “Sienkiewicz”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Lee unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 43 and 52, it is noted that while disclosing a handover procedure with a target node based on QoS, Lee does not specifically teach about a mobility procedure. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Sienkiewicz as follows;
the method of claim 42 and the method of claim 51, respectively, wherein the reconfiguration procedure is a mobility procedure ([Sienkiewicz, 0045] “The target eNB prepares mobility control information for the incoming UE(s), and sends this to the source eNB for inclusion in the handover command (RRC connection reconfiguration) (block 160)”), a multi-connectivity procedure, a PSCell addition or change procedure, or a conditional reconfiguration procedure (These alternatives are not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Lee by using the features of Sienkiewicz in order to provide uninterrupted transferring of services among eNBs such that “The network node determines a timing for initiating the change in power management for the radio equipment, taking into account a predicted time for when the UEs are expected to enter the service area, and triggers the change in power management for the radio equipment” [Sienkiewicz, Abstract].
Regarding claims 44 and 53, the method of claim 42 and the method of claim 51, respectively,
wherein the information is predicted to characterize a performance of service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (See aforesaid [Sienkiewicz, 0043] “capacity”),
wherein the information is predicted to characterize the performance at an application layer ([0025] “This feature exploits the fact that Long Term Evolution (LTE) operation does not require any continuous system information or signals. This feature can also be used for applications such as machine type communication (MTC)/enhanced MTC (eMTC) or narrowband internet of things (NB-IoT), where the traffic is expected to be more bursty than a connected call.”),
wherein the information is predicted to characterize the performance in terms of one or more of: throughput (See aforesaid [Sienkiewicz, 0043] “capacity”); delay; jitter; packet error rate; block error rate; or traffic pattern (These alternatives are not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sienkiewicz are the same as for claim 43.
Regarding claims 45 and 54, the method of claim 42 and the method of claim 51, respectively, wherein the information is predicted to characterize a duration of time for which the candidate target network node would provide service to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure ([Sienkiewicz, 0040] “a network node receives an indication on inbound UEs, with needed capacity at a predicted point in time, and determines the total capacity needed at the predicted point in time (existing traffic plus inbound traffic). … The network node determines the power saving operation mode needed at the predicted point in time, based on the needed capacity and the capacity provided by each of the power saving feature alternatives.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sienkiewicz are the same as for claim 43.
Regarding claims 46 and 55, the method of claim 42 and the method of claim 51, respectively, wherein the information is predicted to characterize:
radio configuration that the candidate target network node would use to provide service to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure ([Sienkiewicz, 0040] “The network node then configures the radio equipment (e.g., RRU circuitry) to achieve the determined power saving operation mode at the predicted point in time, taking into account the time needed to go from a first operational mode to a second operational mode, where the time may depend on the first and the second operational modes. The network node predicts the point in time at which the UEs will enter a neighboring cell, which neighboring cell, and the needed capacity for the UEs. The network node then sends an indication either directly to the neighboring cell, or to a centrally located network node containing a mobility detection unit. When the batch of UEs has left the cell, the network node determines the needed capacity for remaining UEs. The network node configures the radio equipment to achieve the determined power saving operation mode as soon as the batch of UEs have left the cell.”); and/or
radio resources used by service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sienkiewicz are the same as for claim 43.
Regarding claims 47 and 56, the method of claim 42 and the method of claim 51, respectively,
wherein the information is predicted to characterize energy consumption attributable to service that the candidate target network node would provide to the wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (See aforesaid [Sienkiewicz, 0040], Fig. 4 140, and [Sienkiewicz, 0044] “After having predicted the capacity that will be needed when the UEs enter the cell, the target eNB determines whether the capacity provided under the current power saving scheme will be enough, or whether the capacity will have to be modified.”),
wherein the information is predicted to characterize the energy consumption in terms of energy consumed by the candidate target network node (See aforesaid [Sienkiewicz, 0040 and 0044] “target eNB”) and/or energy consumed by the wireless communication device (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sienkiewicz are the same as for claim 43.
Regarding claims 48 and 57, the method of claim 42 and the method of claim 51, respectively, wherein the information comprises:
for each of one or more serving cells of the candidate target network node, information predicted to characterize service that the serving cell of the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the serving cell of the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure ([Sienkiewicz, 0070] “a network node is configured to act as a source network node that is providing coverage in a coverage area or cell that may be along a part of a set path along which vehicles move (e.g., railway, highway). The network node is configured to perform a method for dynamic selection of power saving scheme. The method includes determining that a group of UEs is approaching the coverage of a neighbor cell and indicating to a neighbor cell that the group of UEs is incoming. The method may include indicating what capacity is needed to serve the UEs.”);
for each of one or more candidate device configurations, information predicted to characterize service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device configured with that candidate device configuration if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure; or
for each of one or more service types, information predicted to characterize the service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (These alternatives are not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sienkiewicz are the same as for claim 43.
Regarding claim 58, the method of claim 51, further comprising
predicting the information as characterizing service that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure (See aforesaid [Sienkiewicz, 0040]), and
wherein the information transmitted is the predicted information ([Sienkiewicz, 0045] “The target eNB prepares mobility control information for the incoming UE(s), and sends this to the source eNB for inclusion in the handover command (RRC connection reconfiguration) (block 160). When preparing the mobility control information, the target eNB may take into account information related to the power saving mode.”, and see aforesaid [Sienkiewicz, 0044] for predicted information.).
Claim(s) 59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0239465, “Lee”) in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0135104, “Lau”) and Sienkiewicz et al. (US 2020/0205070, “Sienkiewicz”), and further in view of Ali et al. (US 2025/0261052, “Ali”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Sienkiewicz unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 59, it is noted that while disclosing a handover procedure with a target node based on QoS, Lee does not specifically teach about a ML model. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ali as follows;
the method of claim 58, further comprising:
training a machine learning model to predict the information; and predicting the information using the machine learning model ([Ali, 0383] “the target network node may comprise at least one of the prediction, the model of the target network node transfer function, a level of confidence or reliability of the prediction or the model of the target network node transfer function or an indication that the prediction or the model of the target network node transfer function is only valid for some user equipment configuration or an indication that the prediction or the model of the target network node transfer function is only valid for a given period of time.”, and [Ali, 0386] “The training host may be configured to compute the model of the target network node transfer function based on user equipment capability received by the target training node and user equipment configuration generated by the target training node over time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Lee by using the features of Ali in order to provide a predicted outcome by using a machine learning model such that “to compute a prediction of an outcome of the network procedure involving the source network node and the target network node” [Ali, 0005].
Claim(s) 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0239465, “Lee”) in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0135104, “Lau”) and Singh et al. (US 2015/0031367, “Singh”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Sienkiewicz unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 62, it is noted that while disclosing a handover procedure with a target node based on QoS, Lee does not specifically teach about a threshold. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Singh as follows;
the method of claim 42, wherein the information indicates whether the performance of service, that the candidate target network node would provide to a wireless communication device if the candidate target network node were to be a target of the reconfiguration procedure, is predicted to be above or below a specified threshold ([Singh, 0048] “events may include: W1: AP becomes better than a threshold--traffic steering to AP, W2: AP becomes worse than a threshold--traffic steering from AP, W3: BS radio quality becomes worse than threshold 1 and AP radio quality becomes better than threshold2--traffic steering to WLAN, and W4: AP radio quality becomes worse than threshold 1 and BS radio quality becomes better than threshold 2--traffic steering from WLAN. In response to such triggering events (although others are envisioned), the MS may transmit a measurement report.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Lee by using the features of Ali in order to support more efficient way of a handover such that “The MS may determine one or more network quality values associated with the AP. The MS may compare the network quality values to the device-specific threshold values.” [Singh, Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights