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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed July 9, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 15, and 22 have been amended; claims 23-25 have been added; claims 10, 11, and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22-25 are pending and are examined herein. Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 3, and 15 and the addition of claims 23-25 necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed July 9, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 15, and 22 have been amended; claims 23-25 have been added; claims 10, 11, and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22-25 are pending and are examined herein. Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 3, and 15 and the addition of claims 23-25 necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The Office has not identified any connection manager in Bousia, and the predictions of the traffic load are not traffic usage information received from a connection manager regarding mobile devices operating in the second wireless network” (Remarks, page 11, paragraph 5, continued on page 12), Bousia is not relied on for this limitation. Resch teaches a management module that “receives CM usage event usage records and CM location event records from the UEs” (Resch, para [0055]). The connection-manager applications on the user equipment are the claimed connection manager, and the user equipment operates on a partner operator’s network that the provider does not control, which is the claimed second wireless network (Resch, para [0060]).
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “Bousia determines which base stations are switched off but does not generate a power on list to turn on power to base stations that were previously powered off” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 1), Bousia is not relied on for the power on list. Resch identifies, from the connection-manager traffic, the base station locations where capacity is needed and sends instructions identifying them (Resch, para [0056]; Resch, para [0075]). Gong turns a powered-off base station unit back on when its high threshold is met (Gong, para [0079]; Gong, para [0080]). In the combination, the base stations Resch identifies are the power on list, and Gong turns on power to them.
As to Applicant’s argument that “the reservation price determines whether a bid is accepted in the auction” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 2, continued on page 13), the reservation price is not relied on. For claims 1 and 15, the cost power on threshold is Gong’s high threshold for turning a base station unit back on (Gong, para [0079]); those claims recite only that the threshold is met or exceeded, not how it is derived. For claims 13 and 22, which recite the cost basis of the threshold, Bousia is relied on only for its statement that the operator’s profit is the revenue from switching off a base station minus the amount paid for third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173), which is a different teaching from the reservation price.
Turning to Applicant’s argument that “The addition of Song does not remedy the deficiencies of Gong and Bousia with respect to amended claim 1” (Remarks, page 14, paragraph 2), Song is not relied on for the connection manager or power on list limitations; Resch is. Song is relied on only for the power off list of the claim 3, the mobility factor and cluster limitations of claims 4-6, 17, and 18, and the handoff grace period of claim 14.
Applicant’s remaining arguments that the dependent claims are allowable by dependency (Remarks, page 13, paragraphs 2 and 5; page 14, paragraphs 2 and 3) fall with the rejections of claims 1 and 15 below. Each dependent claim is separately rejected on its own limitations.
The prior Office action stated that net present value is a well-known financial valuation technique for comparing present costs against present savings and applying it to the cost comparison framework (Non-Final Rejection mailed April 9, 2026, pages 7 and 15). Applicant did not traverse that statement, so it is taken as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C). The rejections of claims 8, 9, and 20 rely on it together with Bousia’s cost model.
The grounds below are new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 3, and 15 and the addition of claims 23-25. The dependent claims incorporate the amended limitations of their base claims, so the new grounds applied to them are likewise necessitated by the amendment.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2022/0346004 A1) in view of Bousia (IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 9168-9180, Nov. 2016) and further in view of Resch (US 2024/0137736 A1)
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Gong discloses: A method for power savings in a wireless network, the method comprising:, because Gong teaches a base-station control method that reduces energy use and operating expense: (Gong, para [0006] “optimize power supply control on a base station through cooperative working of the OSS, the base station, and a power supply in the DBS”).
Furthermore, Gong discloses: receiving, by a cost power engine from an operations support system, traffic usage information from one or more base stations of the first wireless network, wherein the traffic usage information from the operations support system is used to turn off power to one or more base stations in the first wireless network;, because Gong’s OSS obtains running data from a base station unit, decides from that data whether the unit has low bearing capacity, and then powers the unit off or puts it to sleep; the deciding part of the OSS, which receives the running data, is the claimed cost power engine: (Gong, para [0007] “the OSS determines, based on the first running data, whether the first base station unit is in a low bearing capacity state; and if the first base station unit is in the low bearing capacity state, the OSS controls the first base station unit to enter a second state, where the second state includes a power-off state or a sleep state”).
Moreover, Gong discloses: meeting or exceeding a cost power on threshold;, because Gong compares running data with a high threshold before making the turn-on decision: (Gong, para [0079] “the OSS determines, by setting a corresponding high threshold, whether the third base station unit is in the high bearing capacity state”).
Although Gong teaches an OSS-based, threshold-controlled base-station power-saving method: (Gong, para [0007]), Gong does not explicitly disclose a service provider employing both its own wireless network and a second wireless network that it does not control.
However, Gong in view of Bousia discloses employing, by a service provider, a first wireless network and a second wireless network, wherein the first wireless network is controlled by the service provider and the second wireless network is not controlled by the service provider; operators that control their own base stations and lease capacity from a small-cell network owned by a third party (Bousia, p. 9169, “an offloading mechanism, where the operators lease the capacity of an SC network owned by a third party, to be able to switch off their BSs and maximize their energy efficiency, when the traffic demand is low. The MNOs request capacity from several SCs and can only switch off their BSs if all their requests are satisfied, enabling them to offload all their traffic to the SC network.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use Gong’s OSS-based power control in Bousia’s arrangement of an operator network plus a leased third-party network. Bousia gives the reason: offloading traffic at low-demand times lets the operator switch off its own base stations and save energy and cost while its users are still served. Each reference performs its known function, and the result is predictable.
Even though Gong in view of Bousia teaches threshold-based power control across provider-controlled and third-party wireless networks: (Gong, para [0017], Bousia, p. 9169), Gong in view of Bousia does not explicitly disclose obtaining mobile-device traffic from a connection manager and using that traffic to select the base stations for reactivation.
Nevertheless, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch discloses receiving, by the cost power engine from a connection manager, traffic usage information from one or more mobile devices operating in the second wireless network; because Resch’s management module receives usage records from connection-manager applications on mobile devices, and those devices operate on a partner operator’s network (Resch, para [0055], “receives CM usage event usage records and CM location event records from the UEs”).
Furthermore, Resch discloses generating, by the cost power engine, a power on list based on the traffic usage information from the connection manager because Resch’s planning module uses the connection-manager usage records to determine traffic by location and to identify the base station locations where capacity is needed (Resch, para [0056], “determines one or more locations at which to deploy an access point, e.g., a CBSD base station based on the traffic determination(s) . . . [0077] “for determining deployment locations of one or more wireless network devices, e.g., CBSD base stations, from a combination of: i) second service provider network, e.g. mobile network operator (MNO), data usage records, and ii) first service provider network, e.g. mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), connection manager (CM) usage event records and CM location event records.”)
Moreover, Resch discloses and sending, by the cost power engine to service provider components, the power on list to turn on power to base stations on the power on list. because Resch’s management node sends instructions identifying the selected base station locations; in the combination, Gong’s service provider components use those instructions to turn on power to the identified base stations (Resch, para [0075], “the management node generates and sends instructions and/or a work order to deploy one or more network devices at one or more of the determined placement locations”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to add Resch’s connection-manager traffic and traffic-based base station selection to the Gong and Bousia system. Resch uses device-reported traffic to decide where base station capacity is needed. Feeding that information into Gong’s turn-on decision lets the system restore the powered-off base stations that off-network device demand calls for, which is a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Gong discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: subscribing, by the cost power engine with the operations support system, to messages including the traffic usage information., as Gong further discloses that the OSS obtains the running data of the base station unit and may repeat its determination periodically and continuously, so the deciding part of the OSS receives the running data on a recurring basis (Gong, para [0054] “the OSS obtains the first running data that is used to reflect the bearing capacity state of the first base station unit”; Gong, para [0083] “the OSS may periodically continuously perform a determining process in step 402, step 405, and/or step 408”). Arranging to receive those recurring running-data messages is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, subscribing with the operations support system to messages including the traffic usage information.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: subscribing, by the cost power engine with the connection manager, to messages including the traffic usage information from the one or more mobile devices., as Resch further discloses that its management module keeps an interface with the connection-manager applications on the user equipment, through which the usage event records arrive (Resch, para [0055], “Connection manager management module 160 interfaces with the CM APPs”). Keeping that interface in order to receive the usage event records is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, subscribing with the connection manager to messages including the traffic usage information from the mobile devices.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Gong in view of Bousia discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the cost power on threshold is a point where a cost to power a base station is substantially offset by savings gained by offloading traffic from the second wireless network to the first wireless network., as Bousia further discloses the operator’s cost gain as the revenue from switching off its base station minus the price paid for third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”). Gong supplies the threshold for turning the base station back on. The point where Bousia’s gain is zero is the point where the cost of powering the base station is offset by the third-party capacity payments avoided. Setting Gong’s threshold at that break-even point is a predictable use of Bousia’s own cost model.
Regarding claim 15, (Currently Amended) Gong discloses: A service provider system, comprising:, because Gong teaches a distributed base-station system with an OSS, a power supply, and a base station: (Gong, para [0019] “The DBS includes a power supply, a base station, and an operations support system OSS”).
Furthermore, Gong discloses: a cost power controller configured to: obtain, from an operations support system, traffic utilization data from the one or more base stations;, because Gong’s OSS obtains the base station running data, and the deciding part of the OSS, which receives that running data, is the claimed cost power controller: (Gong, para [0053] “the first running data is used to reflect a bearing capacity state of the first base station unit”).
Moreover, Gong discloses: determine which of the one or more base stations have traffic utilization data that breaches a cost power off threshold; notify service provider components to turn off power for a base station having traffic utilization data that breaches the cost power off threshold;, because Gong’s OSS decides from the running data whether the base station unit has low bearing capacity and then controls its power supply to power it off or put it to sleep: (Gong, para [0007] “if the first base station unit is in the low bearing capacity state, the OSS controls the first base station unit to enter a second state, where the second state includes a power-off state or a sleep state”; Gong, para [0019] “control a power supply state of the power supply supplying power to the first base station unit to enter a second state”).
Although Gong teaches a service-provider power-control system using base-station traffic data and thresholds: (Gong, para [0019]), Gong does not explicitly disclose using a wireless network owned by a third party.
Nonetheless, Gong in view of Bousia discloses a service provider network including one or more base stations; a wireless network used by the service provider; and because Bousia teaches an operator with its own base stations that also uses capacity in a third-party small-cell network (Bousia, p. 9169, “the operators lease the capacity of an SC network owned by a third party, to be able to switch off their BSs”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to combine Gong and Bousia as explained for claim 1. The combination lets the provider reduce the energy cost of its own base stations while preserving service through available third-party capacity.
Even though Gong in view of Bousia teaches the claimed provider and third-party network arrangement with threshold-based base-station power control: (Gong, para [0017], Bousia, p. 9169), Gong in view of Bousia does not explicitly disclose obtaining the second-network mobile-device traffic from a connection manager.
Conversely, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch discloses obtain, from a connection manager, traffic utilization data from mobile devices operating in the wireless network; because Resch’s management module receives usage records from connection-manager applications on mobile devices that operate on a partner operator’s network (Resch, para [0055], “receives CM usage event usage records and CM location event records from the UEs”).
Furthermore, Resch discloses determine which of the one or more base stations have traffic utilization data from the connection manager that meets or exceeds a cost power on threshold; because Resch uses the connection-manager traffic to determine traffic by location and to select the base station locations where capacity is needed, which identifies the base stations for Gong’s threshold-triggered turn-on (Resch, para [0056], “determines one or more locations at which to deploy an access point, e.g., a CBSD base station based on the traffic determination(s)”).
Moreover, Resch discloses and notify the service provider components to turn on power for a base station having traffic utilization data from the connection manager that meets or exceeds the cost power on threshold. because Resch sends instructions identifying the selected base station locations; in the combination, Gong’s power controller turns on the identified base station (Resch, para [0075], “the management node generates and sends instructions and/or a work order to deploy one or more network devices at one or more of the determined placement locations”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Resch with Gong and Bousia as explained for claim 1. The connection-manager records give device-level traffic by location, and Gong already restores powered-off capacity when traffic is high. Using the former as the input to the latter is a predictable use of Resch’s traffic model.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, (Original) Gong discloses The system of claim 15, the cost power controller further configured to: subscribe to traffic utilization data from the operations support system., as Gong further discloses that the OSS obtains the running data of the base station unit and may repeat its determination periodically and continuously, so the deciding part of the OSS receives the running data on a recurring basis (Gong, para [0054] “the OSS obtains the first running data that is used to reflect the bearing capacity state of the first base station unit”; Gong, para [0083] “the OSS may periodically continuously perform a determining process in step 402, step 405, and/or step 408”). Arranging to receive that recurring running data is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, subscribing to traffic utilization data from the operations support system.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 15, (Original) Gong in view of Bousia discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the cost power off threshold is a point where a cost to power a base station is substantially offset by savings gained by offloading traffic from the wireless network to the service provider network., as Bousia further discloses the operator’s cost gain as the base-station switch-off revenue minus the amount paid for third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”). Gong supplies the threshold for the power-off decision. The point where Bousia’s gain is zero is the point where the cost of powering the base station is offset by the savings from offloading, and it would have been obvious to use that point as Gong’s threshold because it directly identifies which option costs less.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 15, (Original) Gong in view of Bousia discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the cost power off threshold is a net present value power off threshold and the cost power controller further configured to: determine a net present value of traffic utilization data; and send notification to the service provider components when the net present value breaches the net present value power off threshold., as Bousia further discloses that the operator’s switch-off decision turns on a financial comparison of the revenue from switching off the base station against the price paid for third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”). Gong supplies the threshold-triggered power-off control. Net present value is a well-known way to compare present costs against present savings, as stated in the prior Office action and not traversed by Applicant. Computing Bousia’s comparison as a net present value of the traffic-dependent cost and savings, and triggering Gong’s power-off control when that value breaches the threshold, applies a known valuation technique to Bousia’s own comparison with predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 15, (Currently Amended) Gong in view of Bousia discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the cost power on threshold is a point where a cost to power a base station is substantially offset by savings gained by offloading traffic from the wireless network to the service provider network., as Bousia further discloses the cost relationship between operating the provider’s base station and purchasing third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”). Gong supplies the threshold for turning the base station back on. It would have been obvious to set that threshold at Bousia’s break-even point, so that the base station is turned back on when the third-party capacity payments avoided offset the cost of powering it.
Claims 3-9, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Song (US 2012/0244869 A1).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Gong, Bousia, and Resch are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In spite of the fact that Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch teaches the threshold-controlled hybrid-network power system of claim 1: (Gong, para [0007], Bousia, p. 9169, Resch, para [0055]), Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch does not explicitly disclose a power-off list sent to the base stations.
Nonetheless, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Song discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the cost power engine, a power off list based on the traffic usage information from the operations support system falling below a cost power off threshold; because Song identifies a set of candidate cells to power down using performance thresholds (Song, para [0060], “The ranking module 910 may use performance thresholds to identify the set of candidate cells”).
Furthermore, Song discloses and sending, by the cost power engine to service provider components, the power off list to turn off power to base stations on the power off list. because Song’s control module powers off selected candidate cells and its transmitter sends their identification to the respective base stations (Song, para [0061], “The transmitter 920 may transmit the identification of candidate cells to power down to respective base stations”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use Song’s candidate set and transmitted station identifications as the power off list in the combined system. Song shows how to turn a low-load threshold decision into commands sent to the selected base stations, and the result, coordinated power reduction, is predictable.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 3, (Original) Song discloses The method of claim 3, the generating further comprising: applying, by the cost power engine, mobility issue factors during generation of the power off list., as Song further discloses ranking the candidate cells using traffic load, cell size, transmit power, and the uplink and downlink coverage and connection quality of each cell, which are the factors that determine whether the devices served by a cell can be carried elsewhere if it is powered down (Song, para [0060], “The ranking module 910 may use performance statistics to rank the set of candidate cells, such as traffic load, cell size, transmit power”; Song, para [0060], “or the uplink coverage, downlink coverage, call quality, or connection quality”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4, (Original) Song discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the mobility issue factors prevent powering off a base station which is a middle base station in a cluster of base stations., as Song further discloses classifying sites into coverage sites, which are kept to ensure basic signal coverage across the service area, and capacity sites (Song, para [0039], “Coverage sites may ensure the basic signal coverage in the planned service area, and capacity sites may be needed to handle traffic hot spots”). A base station in the middle of a cluster provides the coverage that ties the surrounding stations together. Treating it as a coverage site that stays on is Song’s classification applied to the cluster, and it predictably avoids opening a coverage gap inside the cluster.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 4, (Original) Song discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the mobility issue factors permit powering off a base station which is an edge base station in a cluster of base stations., as Song further discloses that the traffic of a switched-off site is absorbed by the surrounding sectors and that capacity sites may be switched off when traffic demand is low (Song, para [0039], “Traffic load from the switched off sites are absorbed by the surrounding sectors”; Song, para [0039], “It may be desirable to switch off capacity sites in the absence of high traffic demand during the off-peak hours”). A base station at the edge of a cluster, whose traffic the neighbouring stations and the second wireless network can absorb, is a capacity site in Song’s classification, and permitting its power-off is the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 3, (Original) Bousia discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the cost power off threshold is a point where a cost to power a base station is substantially offset by savings gained by offloading traffic from the second wireless network to the first wireless network., as Bousia further discloses the operator’s profit as the base-station switch-off revenue minus the price of leased third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 3, (Original) Bousia discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the cost power off threshold is a net present value of a cost to power a base station as compared to savings gained by offloading traffic from the second wireless network to the first wireless network., as Bousia further discloses that the operator’s switch-off decision turns on a financial comparison of the revenue from switching off the base station against the price paid for third-party capacity (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”). Net present value is a well-known way to compare present costs against present savings, as stated in the prior Office action and not traversed by Applicant. Expressing Bousia’s comparison of the cost to power the base station against the savings from offloading as a net present value applies a known valuation technique to Bousia’s own comparison with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, (Original) Bousia discloses The method of claim 3, wherein a net present value is determined from the traffic usage information, the cost power off threshold is a net present value power off threshold, and the generating further comprising: comparing the net present value to the net present value power off threshold to generate the power off list., as Bousia further discloses that the operator’s switch-off decision turns on a financial comparison of the revenue from switching off the base station against the price paid for the third-party capacity requested for its traffic (Bousia, p. 9173, “the revenue from switching off its BS minus the winning bids for leasing the requested capacity from the third party”). Net present value is a well-known way to compare present costs against present savings, as stated in the prior Office action and not traversed by Applicant. Computing Bousia’s traffic-dependent comparison as a net present value and comparing that value to the threshold when Song’s candidate list is generated applies a known valuation technique to the combined system’s existing threshold comparison with predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Gong, Bousia, and Resch are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In spite of the fact that Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch teaches checking the terminals served by a provider-controlled base station before reducing its power, with a second wireless network available to the provider: (Gong, para [0014], Bousia, p. 9169, Resch, para [0060]), Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch does not explicitly disclose the claimed grace period for handoff.
However, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Song discloses The method of claim 1, wherein a grace period is used because Song allows a period of T seconds for active connections to end before the power-down sequence proceeds (Song, para [0119], “Allow time for most active calls/connections to naturally end (T seconds)”).
Furthermore, Song discloses to enable mobile devices to handoff to the second wireless network from the one or more base stations. because Song performs inter-frequency or inter-radio-access-technology handover of remaining user equipment before switching off the cell, which in the combination moves the devices to the second wireless network (Song, para [0122], “Slow cell wilting. This will naturally trigger inter-frequency or inter-RAT handover for any remaining active UEs”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to insert Song’s finite waiting interval and handoff procedure before the combined system powers down a selected base station. Doing so predictably gives active devices time to move to the available second network and avoids dropping ongoing sessions.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 15, (Original) Gong, Bousia, and Resch are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
In spite of the fact that Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch teaches identifying a station for cost-based power reduction: (Gong, para [0007], Bousia, p. 9173, Resch, para [0056]), Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch does not explicitly disclose withholding the notification when a mobility issue affects the station.
Nevertheless, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Song discloses The system of claim 15, for the base station, the cost power controller further configured to: forego notification to the service provider components if the base station is impacted by a mobility issue factor. because Song cancels a selected cell when the adjacent sectors that must absorb its users show consistent performance degradation, so no power-down notification is sent for that cell (Song, para [0103], “If consistent performance degradation is monitored in any of the adjacent sectors during the energy savings window, the cell selection may be canceled”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to use Song’s cancellation rule in the combined system. Dropping a mobility-affected base station before the power-down list is sent predictably keeps the system from turning off a station whose removal would hurt mobility or adjacent-cell performance.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17, (Original) Song discloses The system of claim 17, wherein mobility issue factors prevent powering off a base station which is a middle base station in a cluster of base stations and the mobility issue factors permit powering off a base station which is an edge base station in a cluster of base stations., as Song further discloses classifying sites into coverage sites, which are kept to ensure basic signal coverage across the service area, and capacity sites, which may be switched off when traffic demand is low and whose traffic is absorbed by the surrounding sectors (Song, para [0039], “Coverage sites may ensure the basic signal coverage in the planned service area, and capacity sites may be needed to handle traffic hot spots”; Song, para [0039], “It may be desirable to switch off capacity sites in the absence of high traffic demand during the off-peak hours”). As explained for claims 5 and 6, a base station in the middle of a cluster is a coverage site that ties the surrounding stations together, and a base station at the edge of the cluster, whose traffic the neighboring stations and the wireless network can absorb, is a capacity site. Applying Song’s classification to the cluster gives the claimed rules with predictable results.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Chen (US 2015/0237497 A1)
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 1, (New) In spite of the fact that Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch teaches turning off provider-controlled base-station capacity while a second network remains available: (Gong, para [0007], Bousia, p. 9169, Resch, para [0060]), Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch does not explicitly disclose that the mobile devices are DSDS devices that automatically transition between the networks.
However, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Chen discloses The method of claim 1, wherein one or more mobile devices provisioned as dual subscriber identity module (SIM) and dual subscription (DSDS) devices automatically transition to the second wireless network when power to the one or more base stations in the first wireless network is turned off. because Chen teaches a dual-SIM dual-standby device that automatically switches from one SIM’s network to the other SIM’s network as it leaves the radio coverage of the first (Chen, para [0040], “automatically switch to the other SIM 100b to continue the YouTube video download as the Dual-SIM Dual Standby device 110 moves out from the radio coverage of the SIM 100a and into the radio coverage of the SIM 100b”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use Chen’s automatic DSDS network selection in the combined system. Turning off a provider base station removes that station’s radio coverage, and Chen’s device predictably maintains service by selecting the other subscribed network that remains available.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 1, (New) Gong, Bousia, and Resch are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In spite of the fact that Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch teaches restoring a powered-off base station when traffic meets the reactivation threshold: (Gong, para [0080], Bousia, p. 9173, Resch, para [0056]), Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch does not explicitly disclose a DSDS device that transitions back to that network.
Nevertheless, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Chen discloses The method of claim 1, wherein one or more mobile devices provisioned as dual subscriber identity module (SIM) and dual subscription (DSDS) devices transition to the first wireless network when power to base stations on the power on list is turned on. because Chen repeatedly reevaluates the available SIM connections and switches the active SIM in response to a change in the radio environment (Chen, para [0050], “the wireless device 10 may switch the active SIM more frequently, and the SIM switching may be more responsive to a radio environment change”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Chen’s DSDS device to select the provider’s subscription again after Gong turns the base station back on. The restored signal changes the radio environment Chen evaluates, and choosing the newly available subscription is the predictable reverse of Chen’s automatic move to the other network.
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 15, (New) Gong, Bousia, and Resch are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
In spite of the fact that Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch teaches the claimed service-provider system with base-station power-off and power-on decisions: (Gong, para [0017], Bousia, p. 9169, Resch, para [0055]), Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch does not explicitly disclose automatic DSDS transitions in both directions.
Yet, Gong in view of Bousia and further in view of Resch and further in view of Chen discloses The system of claim 15, wherein one or more mobile devices provisioned as dual subscriber identity module (SIM) and dual subscription (DSDS) devices automatically transition to the wireless network when power to the base station is turned off, because Chen’s dual-SIM dual-standby device automatically switches to its other SIM as it leaves the radio coverage of the first (Chen, para [0040], “automatically switch to the other SIM 100b to continue the YouTube video download as the Dual-SIM Dual Standby device 110 moves out from the radio coverage of the SIM 100a and into the radio coverage of the SIM 100b”).
Furthermore, Chen discloses and wherein the one or more mobile devices provisioned as DSDS devices transition to the service provider network when the base station is powered on. because Chen resets the selection information and repeats the automatic selection process, permitting the restored network to be selected when it again provides the preferred connection (Chen, para [0053], “preparing for the next round of SIM selection (S512). The SIM selection method 5 returns to Step S500, waiting the SIM selection timer to expire and restart the automatic SIM selection method 5”). The same predictable-results rationale discussed for claims 23 and 24 applies here.
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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights