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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12108298 in view of US 2016/0021503 (Tapia).
Claim 1 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 3 of the pending application.
Claims 2 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claim 2 of the pending application.
Claims 3 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claim 4 of the pending application.
Claims 4 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claim 5 of the pending application.
Claims 5 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claim 6 of the pending application.
Claims 7 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claim 7 of the pending application.
Claims 8 of the patent anticipates most of the limitations recited in claim 8 of the pending application.
What is lacking from claims 1-5 and 7-8 of the patent is the performance parameters including signal strength and quality. In analogous art Tapia teaches wireless network performance parameters comprising signal strength and quality (see paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to the patented claims so as to optimize the evaluation of network performance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of geographic locations" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0281497 (Nieminen) in view of US 2016/0021503 (Tapia) in view of US 2017/0142595 (Ljung et al.).
As to claim 1, Nieminen teaches a method comprising using at least one hardware processor to:
for each of a plurality of network layers (16-18, fig 1) receive quality information for that network layer, wherein the quality information comprises cell load level, both signal quality and strength indications or throughput at the plurality of geographic locations in at least one cell of the network layers (see paragraphs 53 and 75, load, signal strengths and throughputs for cells serving overlapping area obtained as part of network modelling);
for each of the plurality of network, receive one or more objectives. These objectives can represent target values, which are used in determining an optimal transfer of demand between the plurality of network layers at one or more of the plurality of geographic locations at which the plurality of network layers overlap (see paragraphs 32 and 48, network optimalization and load balancing for cells in an overlapping area is the desired outcome for the network modeler);
generate an optimal transfer of demand between the plurality of networks at one or more of the plurality of geographic locations at which the plurality of networks overlap, wherein the optimal transfer of demand is determined based on the load level, differences between signal strength and one or more objectives using the at least one hardware processor and powerful computing tools, over a plurality of iterations until one or more objectives are satisfied (see paragraphs 48-50 and 62-73 and figure 4, the load balancing process is repeated for every cell until all cells are processed based on loads, signal strength differences and desired outcomes);
determine one or more parameters to be used by at least one of the plurality of network layers to produce the optimal transfer of demand between the plurality of network layers at the one or more geographic locations at which the plurality of networks overlap (see paragraph 68, network parameter values needed to achieve load balancing determined and saved);
deliver the set of one or more parameters to the at least one network layer through an interface with at least one network layers (see paragraph 70, cells are informed of the network parameter values needed to achieve load balancing).
What is lacking from Nieminem of the differences between signal strength and quality.
In analogous art Tapia teaches wireless network performance parameters comprising signal strength and quality (see Tapia, paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Nieminem so as to optimize the evaluation of network performance.
What is lacking from Nieminen is including massive parallel cloud computing
In analogous art, Ljung teaches load balancing in an area served by multiple cells by using massive parallel cloud computing (see Ljung, paragraphs 45-46 and 52-54).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Nieminen so as to exploit the increased capacity of cloud based computing.
As to claim 2, Nieminen further teaches wherein quality information for that network layer is an available signal parameter that indicates the quality or strength of the connection that can be achieved (see paragraph 53).
As to claim 3, Nieminen further teaches wherein noise plus interference difference in signal quality and strength between cells in different network layers can be estimated by subtracting the SINR value from the RSRP values and averaging across each network layer (note that this wherein statement does not further limit any of the claimed steps of the method recited in claim 1).
As to claim 5, Nieminen further teaches where the signal parameters include at least one of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), channel quality indicator (CQI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), reference signal received power (RSRP), and received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (see paragraph 34, parameters for load balancing may include threshold signal strengths [~RSSI]).
As to claim 6, Nieminen further teaches where the one or more objectives include network speed or speed distribution (see paragraph 75, throughput~network speed).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0281497 (Nieminen) in view of US 2016/0021503 (Tapia) in view of US 2017/0142595 (Ljung et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0111575 (Lei et al.).
As to claim 4, what is further lacking is where the powerful computing tools utilize artificial intelligence (e.g., machine learning).
In analogous art, Lei teaches using AI to execute traffic steering in a wireless network (see Lei, paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Nieminen so as to exploit the superior and self learning computing capability of AI.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0281497 (Nieminen) in view of US 2016/0021503 (Tapia) in view of US 2017/0142595 (Ljung et al.) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2016/0219478 (Huang-Fu et al.).
As to claim 7, what is lacking is wherein the set of one or more parameters include parameters to be used in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message.
In analogous art, Huang-Fu teaches traffic steering parameters being sent to a user device via a RRC signaling (see Huang-Fu, paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Nieminen so as to preserve resources by using available signaling to load manage a network.
As to claim 8, what is lacking is wherein the set of one or more parameters include parameters to be used in a System Information Block (SIB).
In analogous art, Huang-Fu teaches traffic steering parameters being sent to a user device via a SIB (see Huang-Fu, paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Nieminen so as to preserve resources by using available signaling to load manage a network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights