DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 8/09/2024. Claims 1-19 are pending
in the application.
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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning
of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “radio units”, “distributed units”, and “central units” in claims 1, 4-6, and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/f)
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.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “radio units”, “distributed units”, and “central units” in claims 1, 4-6, and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations “radio units”, “distributed units”, and “central units” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim (e.g., the claims only recite certain functions and fail to set forth any structures involved in the functions). Without structural limitation, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these claims would extend to all ways of performing the functions, those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In particular, as noted above, claim limitations “radio units”, “distributed units”, and “central units” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Further, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification describes the function of these modules, but does not provide the required structural support. Thus, in addition to being indefinite (because the scope of the claim is not clear as articulated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), the claim is similarly rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. That is, the original disclosure does not provide a written description of the structure of the limitations “radio units”, “distributed units”, and “central units”. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by TAKEDA et al. (US 2023/0284134 Al, hereinafter “Takeda”).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda discloses:
A cellular communication network comprising (wireless communications system and an access network, Takeda: Fig. 1, [0008]):
a plurality of antennas (The base station and the UE may each include a plurality of antennas, such as antenna elements, antenna panels, and/or antenna arrays to facilitate beamforming, Takeda: [0044]);
a plurality of radio units coupled to the plurality of antennas and configured to input analog signals to the plurality of antennas (The communication links between the RUs and the UEs may include uplink (UL) (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE to an RU and/or downlink (DL) (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from an RU to a UE. The communication links may use multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology, Takeda: [0038]);
one or more distributed units coupled to the plurality of radio units and configured to control operation of the plurality of radio units (The network entity may include one or more of the CU, DU, and the RU, Takeda: [0108]);
one or more central units coupled to the one or more distributed units (CU may be implemented within a RAN node, and one or more DUs may be co-located with the CU. CU may communicate with one or more DUs via respective mid-haul links, such as an Fl interface, Takeda: [0028], [0030]); and
a near real time radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC) coupled to at least one of the one or more distributed units or the one or more central units by way of one or more E2 interfaces (The disaggregated base station architecture may include one or more CUs that can communicate directly with a core network via a backhaul link, or indirectly with the core network through one or more disaggregated base station units (such as a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) via an E2 link. The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via data collection and actions over an interface (such as via an E2 interface) connecting one or more CUs, one or more DUs, Takeda: [0030], [0036]),
the near real time RIC configured to invoke execution or enforcement of energy saving controls or policies by the at least one of the one or more distributed units or the one or more central units over the one or more E2 interfaces (Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling teclmiques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times. allowing for more scheduling flexibility for the UE at other times through use of a different scheduling technique, Takeda: [0036], [0067], [0083], [0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Takeda discloses:
A method for saving energy in a cellular communication network, the method comprising (method may be performed to conserve power at the UE, Takeda: [0090]):
receiving, by a near real time radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC), traffic data for a cellular communication network including (The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via data collection and actions over an interface (such as via an E2 interface) connecting one or more CUs, one or more DUs, Takeda: [0036]):
a plurality of antennas (The base station and the UE may each include a plurality of antennas, such as antenna elements, antenna panels, and/or antenna arrays to facilitate beamforming, Takeda: [0044]);
a plurality of radio units coupled to the plurality of antennas and configured to input analog signals to the plurality of antennas (The communication links between the RUs and the UEs may include uplink (UL) (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE to an RU and/or downlink (DL) (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from an RU to a UE. The communication links may use multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology, Takeda: [0038]);
one or more distributed units coupled to the plurality of radio units and configured to control operation of the plurality of radio units (The network entity may include one or more of the CU, DU, and the RU, Takeda: [0108]); and
one or more central units coupled to the one or more distributed units (CU may be implemented within a RAN node, and one or more DUs may be co-located with the CU. CU may communicate with one or more DUs via respective mid-haul links, such as an Fl interface, Takeda: [0028], [0030]); and
configuring, by the near real time RIC, at least one of the one or more distributed units or the one or more central units over one or more E2 interfaces to execute or enforce energy saving controls or policies (The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via data collection and actions over an interface (such as via an E2 interface) connecting one or more CUs, one or more DUs. Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling techniques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times. allowing for more scheduling flexibility for the UE at other times through use of a different scheduling technique, Takeda: [0030], [0036], [0067], [0083], [0086]).
Regarding claim 19, Takeda discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable code configured to execute in a cellular communication network comprising (Each computer-readable medium/memory may be non-transitory. The cellular baseband processor and the application processor are each responsible for general processing, including the execution of software stored on the computer readable medium/memory, Takeda: [0108]):
a plurality of antennas (The base station and the UE may each include a plurality of antennas, such as antenna elements, antenna panels, and/or antenna arrays to facilitate beamforming, Takeda: [0044]);
a plurality of radio units coupled to the plurality of antennas and configured to input analog signals to the plurality of antennas (The communication links between the RUs and the UEs may include uplink (UL) (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE to an RU and/or downlink (DL) (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from an RU to a UE. The communication links may use multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology, Takeda: [0038]);
one or more distributed units coupled to the plurality of radio units and configured to control operation of the plurality of radio units (The network entity may include one or more of the CU, DU, and the RU, Takeda: [0108]); and
a near real time radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC) coupled to the one or more distributed units by way of one or more E2 interfaces (The disaggregated base station architecture may include one or more CUs that can communicate directly with a core network via a backhaul link, or indirectly with the core network through one or more disaggregated base station units (such as a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) via an E2 link. The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via data collection and actions over an interface (such as via an E2 interface) connecting one or more CUs, one or more DUs, Takeda: [0030], [0036]),
wherein the executable code, when executed by the near real time RIC, causes the near real time RIC to invoke implementation of energy saving policies by the one or more distributed units over the one or more E2 interfaces (Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling teclmiques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times. allowing for more scheduling flexibility for the UE at other times through use of a different scheduling technique, Takeda: [0036], [0067], [0083], [0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Takeda further discloses:
The cellular communication network of claim 1, wherein the near real time RIC is configured to (The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources, Takeda: [0036]):
analyze traffic through the plurality of radio units using at least one of a machine learning model and an artificial intelligence model (The Non-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables non-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources, artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) (AI/ML) workflows including model training and updates, or policy-based guidance of applications/features in the Near-RT RIC. The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via data collection and actions, Takeda: [0036]); and
configure the at least one of the one or more distributed units or one or more central units according to the traffic according to an output of the at least one of the machine learning model and the artificial intelligence model (CU may be implemented within a RAN node, and one or more DUs may be co-located with the CU, or alternatively, may be geographically or virtually distributed throughout one or multiple other RAN nodes. the Non-RT RIC may monitor long-term trends and patterns for performance and employ AI/ML models to perform corrective actions, Takeda: [0028], [0037]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 above.
Takeda further discloses:
wherein the one or more distributed units are configured to adjust a scheduling policy and scheduling behavior according to the energy saving controls or policies (the base station may include a configuration component configured to transmit a configuration to switch between monitoring for DCI of a first type of scheduling based on a first condition of a scheduling cell and monitoring for the DCI of a second type of scheduling based on a second condition of a scheduled cell. Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling techniques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times, Takeda: [0047], [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Takeda further discloses:
wherein the one or more distributed units are configured to adjust the scheduling policy by selecting from a plurality of predefined energy saving scheduling policies according to an output of at least one of a machine learning model and an artificial intelligence model (configured to include a logical function that enables non-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources, artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) (AI/ML) workflows including model training and updates, or policy-based guidance of applications/features. Procedures associated with the diagram may be based on balancing PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling flexibilities. Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling techniques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times, Takeda: [0036], [0067]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 5 and 10 above.
Takeda further discloses:
wherein the near real time RIC is configured to guide at least a portion of the one or more distributed units to configure one or more open radio access network radio unit (O-RU) radio frequency (RF) channels of a carrier or cell or the entire carrier or cell into sleep mode via open radio access network front haul control plane (O-FH C-plane) or management (M)-plane for certain slots or symbols following a periodic pattern, or for a continuous sleep interval (Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling techniques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times where the UE does not have to monitor for PDCCH from the base station, while also allowing for more scheduling flexibility for the UE at other times through use of a different scheduling technique. decreased number of PDCCH monitoring occasions may allow the UE to perform an increased number of micro-sleep sessions, Takeda: [0030]-[0032], [0067], [0079]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 5 and 10 above.
Takeda further discloses:
wherein the near real time RIC is configured to guide the one or more distributed units with configuration of array patterns, multiple input multiple output (MIMO) layers, and precoding matrixes for improved energy efficiency and service coverage and performance during sleep periods (base station architecture may include one or more CUs that can communicate directly with a core network via a backhaul link, or indirectly with the core network through one or more disaggregated base station units (such as a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) via an E2 link. CU may communicate with one or more DUs via respective mid-haul links, such as an Fl interface. PUCCH carries uplink control information (UCI), such as scheduling requests, a channel quality indicator (CQI), a precoding matrix indicator (PMI). DCI may include MIMO-related indications for the individual PDSCH/PUSCH on each of the scheduled carriers/slots, Takeda: [0037], [0055], [0080]).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Takeda further discloses:
wherein the one or more distributed units are configured with performance and energy efficiency or energy consumption targets for cells, carrier, each radio unit of the plurality of radio units, and geographic area (CU may be implemented within a RAN node, and one or more DUs may be co-located with the CU, or alternatively, may be geographically or virtually distributed throughout one or multiple other RAN nodes. DCI used for multi-cell scheduling in the diagram may be associated with a power-saving state of the UE., Takeda: [0028], [0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Takeda further discloses:
The method of claim 10, wherein the near real time RIC is configured to analyze the traffic data using at least one of a machine learning model and an artificial intelligence model and determine the energy saving controls or policies according to an output of the at least one of the machine learning model and the artificial intelligence model (The Non-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables non-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources, artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) (AI/ML) workflows including model training and updates, or policy-based guidance of applications/features in the Near-RT RIC. The Near-RT RIC may be configured to include a logical function that enables near-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via data collection and actions. Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling techniques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times, Takeda: [0036]-[0037], [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Takeda further discloses:
further comprising adjusting, by the one or more distributed units, a scheduling policy and a scheduling behavior by selecting from a plurality of predefined energy saving scheduling policies according to an output of a machine learning model (configured to include a logical function that enables non-real-time control and optimization of RAN elements and resources, artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) (AI/ML) workflows including model training and updates, or policy-based guidance of applications/features. Procedures associated with the diagram may be based on balancing PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling flexibilities. Switching between different PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling techniques may provide a power savings at the UE based on allowing the UE to "sleep" at times, Takeda: [0036], [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Takeda further discloses:
further comprising configuring, by the near real time RIC, the one or more distributed units with performance and energy efficiency or energy consumption targets for cells, each radio unit of the plurality of radio units, and geographic area (CU may be implemented within a RAN node, and one or more DUs may be co-located with the CU, or alternatively, may be geographically or virtually distributed throughout one or multiple other RAN nodes. DCI used for multi-cell scheduling in the diagram may be associated with a power-saving state of the UE., Takeda: [0028], [0082]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that
are applied 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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of
Kodaypak et al. (US 2023/0362807 Al, hereinafter “Kodaypak”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 above.
Takeda does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more central units are configured to handle Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) Terrestrial Radio Access New Radio Network (E-UTRAN-NR) dual connectivity, carrier aggregation, connected mode mobility, idle mode mobility and radio access controls to steering user equipment (UE) traffic from a cell to another cell in order to create more sleeping opportunities for the cell while maintaining acceptable quality of service (QoS) for UEs potentially being affected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kodaypak teaches:
wherein the one or more central units are configured to handle Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) Terrestrial Radio Access New Radio Network (E-UTRAN-NR) dual connectivity, carrier aggregation, connected mode mobility, idle mode mobility and radio access controls to steering user equipment (UE) traffic from a cell to another cell in order to create more sleeping opportunities for the cell while maintaining acceptable quality of service (QoS) for UEs potentially being affected (in response to cell-level energy consumption configuration, RAN-DAF initiates a trigger to RAN to enable at least a portion of the energy consumption configuration at RAN (e.g., cell switching, band switch off, band-PA off, carrier off, flow redirection based on bearer/QoS/density etc.). RAN-DAF may also instruct the specific network functions within RAN such as the RU/DU/CU that could be running on independent hardware/infrastructure platforms to appropriately trigger their internal power savings and/or sleep mode activations based on the dynamics of switching off the RF carriers, Kodaypak: [0097]-[0100] );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Kodaypak in order to further modify the one or more central units which are configured to handle Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) Terrestrial Radio Access New Radio Network (E-UTRAN-NR) dual connectivity, carrier aggregation, connected mode mobility, idle mode mobility and radio access controls to steering user equipment (UE) traffic from a cell to another cell in order to create more sleeping opportunities for the cell while maintaining acceptable quality of service (QoS) for UEs potentially being affected from the teachings of Kodaypak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the services rely on reliable connections that can deliver enhanced mobile broadband, ultra-low latency, massive IoT, automotive, conversational voice/video flow requirements in terms of their SLAs, (Kodaypak: [0097).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of
ABOTABL et al. (US 2025/0081284 Al, hereinafter “Abotabl”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Takeda teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 above.
Takeda does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more central units are configured to handle cell and UE discontinuous transmission (DTX) and discontinuous reception (DRX) configurations as well as common channel configurations to create more deep sleep opportunities.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Abotabl teaches:
wherein the one or more central units are configured to handle cell and UE discontinuous transmission (DTX) and discontinuous reception (DRX) configurations as well as common channel configurations to create more deep sleep opportunities (CU, DU, or RU, may include a NW signal alignment component that is configured to send, to a UE, a signal configuration indicating periodicity and offset information configured to align periodic transmission occasions of the signal or the channel within an on duration of a cell DRX cycle or a cell DTX cycle. To save power, the UE may be informed of the cell DRX or DTX operation to align its transmission and reception activities with cell DRX or DTX, Abotabl: [0055], [0075]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takeda in view of Abotabl in order to further modify the one or more central units which are configured to handle cell and UE discontinuous transmission (DTX) and discontinuous reception (DRX) configurations as well as common channel configurations to create more deep sleep opportunities from the teachings of Abotabl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the network may enhance periodic or SPS communication efficiency, reduce latency, and facilitate energy savings through cell DRX or DTX, ultimately improving overall network performance, (Abotabl: [0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
JAMADAGNI et al. (US_20260136296_A1); See Fig. 2A-2B, [0078]-[0082].
SHARMA et al. (US_20240298252_A1); See Fig. 3, [0047]-[0049], [0056]-[0058].
JAIN et al. (US_20260136296_A1); See Fig. 2, [0063]-[0069].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights