DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, it is not clear whether the UE refers back to the first UE or the second UE of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, “the predetermined bandwidth” has no antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9,967,776 B1, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Clegg (US 2013/0337821 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, Kim teaches a system for dynamically optimizing wireless communication networks, the system comprising: a first node configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one user equipment (UE) in a geographic service area (figs. 1, 5, col. 5, lines 22-53); and one or more processors (fig. 6, col. 5, lines 54-56: Access nodes 110, 115, 120 can comprise a processor and associated circuitry to execute or direct the execution of computer-readable instructions to obtain information) configured to perform operations comprising: determining that a first UE is connected to the first node using a first band (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 11-12: wireless device 131 may be served by band B41 deployed by access node 115. Col. 8, lines 32-33: wireless device 131 may be served by band B26 deployed by access node 110); receiving/acquiring performance information of a second band located in the geographic service area (fig. 1, col. 6, lines 37-50. Col. 6, line 63-col. 7, line 10: these default priorities may be modified or adjusted based on real-time load conditions for each frequency band B41, B25, B26 deployed by one or more of access nodes 110, 115, 120. When a congested band is detected, for example via, physical resource block (PRB) utilization metrics, number of connected users, or any other load-determination technique, loads across the various bands may be compared with a load threshold, and the priority of each band adjusted accordingly. Depending on load measurements, each frequency band B26, B25, B41 may be classified into a band type, such as congested bands (CB), target bands (TB), non-congested bands (NB)); and based on the performance information, instructing the first UE to adjust a time frame that the first UE is allowed to identify and connect to the second band ( figs. 1, 2, col. 10, line 15-col. 11, line 17. Col. 11, lines 27-29: When a wireless device attempts to resume a connection from idle mode, the wireless devices is forced to access one of the other two bands).
Kim does not explicitly teach receiving a performance report of a second band from a second UE, wherein the second UE is located in the geographic service area.
However, it is well known in the art to receive a performance report of different bands form difference UEs located in the service area, as evidenced by ¶ [0044] (a UE may measure channel and interference information for each band and select or prioritize the bands according to good performance (e.g., a high signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR)). The UE may then transmit the information for each band back to the small cell eNodeB. The small eNodeB may use such information received from one or more UEs to coordinate communication among several UEs. It should be appreciated that in addition to information received from the UE, the small cell eNodeB may utilize additional information available at the base station, e.g., the traffic load information on each band, amount of traffic requests queued at the base station for each frequency band, whether frequency bands are overused, and/or how long a UE has been waiting to send information ) and ¶ [0045] (At block 302 the small cell eNodeB prioritizes available licensed bands and unlicensed bands for communication with the UE) of Clegg.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive a performance report of a second band from a second UE, located in the geographic service area, in the system of Kim to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising assigning a priority ranking to the second band (Kim: figs. 2, 3, col. 10, tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first band comprises one or more of band n41, band n71, band n25, 5G, and LTE (Kim: col. 6, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the UE is operating in a dual connectivity network.
Clegg teaches wherein the UE is operating in a dual connectivity network (fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the UE in a dual connectivity network in the system of Kim in view of Clegg to further improve industrial applicability.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a time frame length that the first UE is allowed to identify and connect to the second band is increased based on the performance report received from the second UE (Kim: figs. 2, 3, col. 10, tables 1 and 2. Col. 11, lines 27-29: the wireless devices is forced to access one of the other two bands. In other words, when e.g., a first band is demoted or lowered, based on being congested, in priority relative to the other two bands and the wireless device is forced to access one of the other bands, the time frame length that the UE is allowed to identify and connect to the first band is increased).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the time frame length that the first UE is allowed to identify and connect to the second band is decreased based on the performance report received from the second UE (Kim: figs. 2, 3, col. 10, tables 1 and 2. Col. 10, line 65-col. 11, line 17: In case #1, B25 and B41 are both determined to be congested. In this case, the relative priorities of both bands B41 and B25 relative to B26 are lowered by a single value, such that the relative priority of band B26 relative to both bands B25 and B41 is higher by a single value. Col. 11: lines 27-29: the wireless devices is forced to access one of the other two bands. In other words, the time frame length that the UE is allowed to identify and connected to the band B26 is decreased).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising receiving data in the geographic service area and optimizing the time frame for based on an aggregated performance report (Kim: figs. 2, 3. Col. 6, line 64-col. 7, line 15: these default priorities may be modified or adjusted based on real-time load conditions for each frequency band B41, B25, B26 deployed by one or more of access nodes 110, 115, 120. When a congested band is detected, for example via, physical resource block (PRB) utilization metrics, number of connected users, or any other load-determination technique, loads across the various bands may be compared with a load threshold, and the priority of each band adjusted accordingly. Depending on load measurements, each frequency band B26, B25, B41 may be classified into a band type, such as congested bands (CB), target bands (TB), non-congested bands (NB). Col. 11, line 51-52: the priority table may be iteratively adjusted using real-time measurements of each band. ).
Kim does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving data from multiple UEs in the geographic service area and optimizing the time frame for all UEs based on an aggregated performance report.
Clegg teaches further comprising receiving data from multiple UEs in the geographic service area and optimizing the band priority for all UEs based on an aggregated performance report (¶ [0044], Such evaluations or comparisons can be performed at either the small cell eNodeB, the UE, or controller and may be based on various metrics. For example, a UE may measure channel and interference information for each band and select or prioritize the bands according to good performance (e.g., a high signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR)). The UE may then transmit the information for each band back to the small cell eNodeB. The small eNodeB may use such information received from one or more UEs to coordinate communication among several UEs. The small cell eNodeB may utilize additional information available at the base station, e.g., the traffic load information on each band, amount of traffic requests queued at the base station for each frequency band, whether frequency bands are overused, and ¶ [0045], At block 302 the small cell eNodeB prioritizes available licensed bands and unlicensed bands for communication with the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive data from multiple UEs in the geographic service area and to optimize the time frame for all UEs based on an aggregated performance report in the system of Kim in view of Clegg to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the method of claim 11.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the performance report comprises one or more key performance indicators for the second band.
Clegg teaches wherein the performance report comprises one or more key performance indicators for each band (¶ [0045], a UE may measure channel and interference information. The UE may then transmit the information for each band back to the small cell eNodeB )
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include one or more key performance indicators for the second band in the performance report in the system of Kim in view of Clegg to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the system further determines a number of UEs connected to the first band (Kim: figs. 2, 3, col. 6, line 63-col. 7, line 15: these default priorities may be modified or adjusted based on real-time load conditions for each frequency band B41, B25, B26. When a congested band is detected, for example via, physical resource block (PRB) utilization metrics, number of connected users. Col. 10).
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Clegg as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0322351 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 4.
Kim does not explicitly tach wherein the predetermined bandwidth is assigned based on having a highest predetermined bandwidth among a plurality of available bands.
However, it is well known in the art, to assign the predetermined bandwidth based on having a highest predetermined bandwidth among a plurality of available bands, as evidenced by figs. 9, 10, ¶ [0059], ¶ [0060] of Wang.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to assign the predetermined bandwidth based on having a highest predetermined bandwidth among a plurality of available bands in the system of Kim in view of Clegg to further enhance system efficiency.
10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Clegg as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Busch (US 2009/0157447 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 17.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the performance report comprises historical key performance indicator data.
Busch teaches wherein the performance report comprises historical key performance indicator data (¶ [0025], The key performance indicator report can, for example, provide information about the KPI, including performance history, root cause analysis, status updates, or other information. ¶ [0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include historical key performance indicator data in the performance report in the system of Kim in view of Clegg. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice (¶ [0025] of Busch).
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Clegg as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0068012 A1, hereinafter “Kim’12”).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Clegg teaches the system of claim 17.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the time frame is adjusted higher based on the performance report indicating that the second band is performing above a pre-determined threshold.
Kim teaches assigning higher priority to a band based on performance thresholds (col. 2, lines 33-45).
Kim’12 teaches wherein the time frame is adjusted higher for high priority band (¶ [0007], According to 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) TS 36.133, it may take maximum Thigher_priority_search time to reselect a cell corresponding to a frequency having a priority higher than a serving cell. Alternatively, according to 3GPP TS 36.133, for reselecting a cell corresponding to a frequency having a priority lower than or equal to the serving cell, a measurement value (e.g., Srxlev and/or Squal) for the serving cell needs to be less than or equal to a threshold value (e.g., SnonIntraSearchP and/or SnonIntraSearchQ), ¶ [0103], the electronic device 101 may preferentially search for the at least one band (e.g., the B5 band). Setting a search priority of the specific band to a priority higher than other bands, an example of setting search time of the specific band to search time longer than the other bands, or an example of setting the number of searches of the specific band to the number of searches greater than the other bands).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to adjust the time frame higher for second/higher priority band (i.e., determined based on the performance report indicating that the second band is performing above a pre-determined threshold) in the system of Kim in view of Clegg to further enhance system efficiency and reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 8, 9, 12 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8 and 9, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “ wherein the system further determines whether the number of instances in which the first UE connects to the second band is below a predetermined threshold value” in combination with limitations specified in the base claim.
Regarding claims 12 and 14-16, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “determining that the number of instances in which each UE within the first UE connected to the high priority band is below a predetermined instance threshold” in combination with limitations specified in the base claim.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,297,619 B1, US 11,399,306 B1 and WO 2021/213217 A1.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights