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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed October 30, 2024. Claims 1, 8-16, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claims 21-26 have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 10/30/2024 has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy et al. (US 20170245176, hereinafter referred to as “Murphy.” NOTE: this is cited in the IDS filed 10/30/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches an apparatus (figure 3) comprising at least one processor (figure 3: processor 320) and at least one memory (figure 3: memory 330) including a computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving, from a management system, information indicating one or more priority values associated with a respective one or more cells (abstract - A device may detect a service condition associated with a network; Figure 1: network management device 130 receives subscriber, device, data, network characteristics); and
performing one or more network optimization processes based on the received information indicating the one or more priority values associated with the respective one or more cells (abstract - The device may determine a prioritization of cells of the network based on characteristics of one or more subscribers to the cells of the network. The characteristics may include at least one of: a service type characteristic, an application type characteristic, a mobility characteristic, a vector characteristic, an altitude characteristic, a position characteristic, a location type characteristic, a device type characteristic, a device capability characteristic, a connection characteristic, a subscription characteristic, a call type characteristic, a user profile characteristic, a terrain characteristic, or an operator relationship characteristic. The device may perform an alteration to one or more network parameters based on the prioritization of cells of the network to reduce an impact of the service condition; figure 1: network management device 103 determines and cause alternation to the network parameter).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more network optimization processes comprise at least one of: determining a workflow sequence optimization; determining an opportunity window for a maintenance activity associated with the one or more cells; determining a self-optimizing network exclusion list; and determining a list of cells to be scheduled to operate with reduced energy requirement ([0043] As shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include determining a service condition relating to a first portion of a network (block 410). For example, network management device 230 may determine a service condition relating to a first portion of network 250. In some implementations, the service condition may be an expected service condition, such as based on scheduled network maintenance activity, energy saving activity, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the service condition may be an unexpected service condition, such as based on a power loss, a wire being severed, an atmospheric condition, a device crashing, or the like. [0078] In some implementations, network management device 230 may perform a combination of techniques to alter network parameters. For example, network management device 230 may perform a combination of two or more of preemptive self-healing, weighted subscriber-centric optimization, location-aware coverage and capacity optimization, subscriber centric mobility robustness optimization, automatic neighbor relations, and subscriber centric problem and opportunity detection.).
Regarding claim 6, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the performing comprises: determining the list of cells for energy saving scheduling based on the information indicating the one or more priority values; and sending, to the management system, the determined list of cells for energy saving scheduling ([0043] As shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include determining a service condition relating to a first portion of a network (block 410). For example, network management device 230 may determine a service condition relating to a first portion of network 250. In some implementations, the service condition may be an expected service condition, such as based on scheduled network maintenance activity, energy saving activity, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the service condition may be an unexpected service condition, such as based on a power loss, a wire being severed, an atmospheric condition, a device crashing, or the like.).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the determining comprises: determining, for each cell of the one or more cells, a respective priority value ([0021] threshold priority); comparing the determined priority value against a threshold ([0022] As further shown in FIG. 1, based on receiving the characteristic information, network management device 130 may determine an alteration to a network parameter and cause the alteration to the network parameter. For example, when network management device 130 detects an outage (or degraded network performance that satisfies a threshold, such as a critical zone detection for a portion of the network) based on the network characteristic information, network management device 130 may selectively alter one or more parameters of base station 120 based on the priority parameter to mitigate the outage.); and including the cell in the list of cells for energy saving scheduling if the comparison indicates that the priority value is below the threshold ([0043] As shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include determining a service condition relating to a first portion of a network (block 410). For example, network management device 230 may determine a service condition relating to a first portion of network 250. In some implementations, the service condition may be an expected service condition, such as based on scheduled network maintenance activity, energy saving activity, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the service condition may be an unexpected service condition, such as based on a power loss, a wire being severed, an atmospheric condition, a device crashing, or the like.).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the performing comprises: receiving, from the management system, a request for an opportunity window for a maintenance activity associated with the one or more cells ([0012] When a first portion of the network is associated with an apparent or predicted inability to deliver a required level of service or when an opportunity to improve a level of service to the set of user devices or a subset of user devices is detected (e.g., a portion of the network may have triggered a critical zone detection threshold that may also take into account the geolocated subscriber distribution), a network operator may select a second portion of the network for utilization in relieving the service requirement associated with the first portion of the network.); determining the opportunity window for the maintenance activity associated with the one or more cells based on the information indicating the one or more priority values ([0012] When a first portion of the network is associated with an apparent or predicted inability to deliver a required level of service or when an opportunity to improve a level of service to the set of user devices or a subset of user devices is detected (e.g., a portion of the network may have triggered a critical zone detection threshold that may also take into account the geolocated subscriber distribution), a network operator may select a second portion of the network for utilization in relieving the service requirement associated with the first portion of the network.); and at the start of the determined opportunity window, sending, to the management system, a notification for causing the maintenance activity to be performed ([0078] In some implementations, network management device 230 may perform a combination of techniques to alter network parameters. For example, network management device 230 may perform a combination of two or more of preemptive self-healing, weighted subscriber-centric optimization, location-aware coverage and capacity optimization, subscriber centric mobility robustness optimization, automatic neighbor relations, and subscriber centric problem and opportunity detection.).
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 2, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving information indicating that a maintenance activity is required for the one or more cells ([0043] As shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include determining a service condition relating to a first portion of a network (block 410). For example, network management device 230 may determine a service condition relating to a first portion of network 250. In some implementations, the service condition may be an expected service condition, such as based on scheduled network maintenance activity, energy saving activity, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the service condition may be an unexpected service condition, such as based on a power loss, a wire being severed, an atmospheric condition, a device crashing, or the like.);
responsive to receiving the information indicating that the maintenance activity is required for the one or more cells, sending, to the network optimization function, a request for an opportunity window for performing the maintenance activity associated with the one or more cells ([0043] As shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include determining a service condition relating to a first portion of a network (block 410). For example, network management device 230 may determine a service condition relating to a first portion of network 250. In some implementations, the service condition may be an expected service condition, such as based on scheduled network maintenance activity, energy saving activity, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, the service condition may be an unexpected service condition, such as based on a power loss, a wire being severed, an atmospheric condition, a device crashing, or the like.); at
the start of the opportunity window, receiving, from the network optimization function, a notification for causing the maintenance activity to be performed; and causing the maintenance activity to be performed in response to receiving the notification ([0017] Moreover, implementations described herein may pre-emptively determine an effect of a network outage to (or degraded network performance for) a portion of the network, and may pre-emptively calculate an alteration to the network (e.g., allocating additional resources, altering signal strengths, or selecting portions of a network to which traffic from other portions of the network may be directed) to mitigate the effect of the network outage. In this case, the network management device may utilize the prioritization to reduce a likelihood that the calculated alteration has a negative impact to network performance relative to calculating the alteration without determining the prioritization. Based on pre-emptively calculating the alteration, the network management device may reduce a quantity of time required to alter the network to compensate for a subsequent network outage, thereby improving network performance relative to calculating alterations after a network outage occurs.).
Claim 14 is similar to claim 1, therefore is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 14 differs slightly in that it recites strategy for cell periodization. Nevertheless, this is taught by Murphy (see abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: periodically performing the determining and the sending, wherein the received input further comprises information indicating a periodicity for performing the determining and the sending; and/or performing the determining and the sending in response to detecting a trigger event ([0046] As further shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include determining a prioritization for a set of portions of the network based on determining the service condition relating to the first portion of the network (block 420). For example, network management device 230 may determine a prioritization for a set of portions of network 250 based on determining the service condition relating to the first portion of network 250. Additionally, or alternatively, network management device 230 may periodically determine a prioritization for the set of portions of network 250, and may obtain the prioritization (e.g., a most recently determined prioritization) based on determining the service condition. In some implementations, the set of portions of network 250 may include the first portion of network 250.).
Regarding claim 16, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: obtaining, from an analytics function and based on the information indicating the strategy for cell prioritization, analytics information associated with the one or more cells (abstract - The device may determine a prioritization of cells of the network based on characteristics of one or more subscribers to the cells of the network. The characteristics may include at least one of: a service type characteristic, an application type characteristic, a mobility characteristic, a vector characteristic, an altitude characteristic, a position characteristic, a location type characteristic, a device type characteristic, a device capability characteristic, a connection characteristic, a subscription characteristic, a call type characteristic, a user profile characteristic, a terrain characteristic, or an operator relationship characteristic. The device may perform an alteration to one or more network parameters based on the prioritization of cells of the network to reduce an impact of the service condition.).
Regarding claim 17, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the analytics information associated with the one or more cells comprises one or more of: predicted traffic information for the one or more cells; and predicted revenue information associated with the one or more cells ([0045] In some implementations, the service condition may be an actual service condition (e.g., a network outage, degraded network performance, or the like). Additionally, or alternatively, the service condition may be a simulated service condition (e.g., to simulate performance of the network and pre-configure responses to an actual service condition). In this case, network management device 230 may generate the simulated service condition. In some implementations, the simulated service condition may be a predicted service condition for the first portion of network 250.).
Regarding claim 18, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the information indicating the one or more priority values defines a relative priority of the one or more cells ([0015] Moreover, implementations described herein may alter network parameters iteratively. An initial response may be performed more rapidly than a subsequent response (e.g., using an omission mechanism for network portions and/or historic calculation), and may provide a lesser remediation of the service condition. The subsequent response may be performed less rapidly (e.g., based on relatively greater computing resource requirements and/or based on more accurate data being collected), such as determining an omitted network portion where high priority subscribers are still provided with sufficient service by that or other network portions, and may provide a greater remediation of the service condition.).
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.
Claim(s) 3, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Tan et al. (US 20230042276, hereinafter referred to as “Tan”).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the performing comprises: receiving, from the management system, a request for a workflow sequence based on the one or more priority values associated with the respective one or more cells; determining the workflow sequence based on the request and the information indicating the one or more priority values; and sending, to the management system, the determined workflow sequence.
In an analogous art, Tan teaches wherein the performing comprises: receiving, from the management system, a request for a workflow sequence based on the one or more priority values associated with the respective one or more cells ([0053] Alternatively, when the UE receives the system information corresponding to the candidate coverage category, the UE may continue to determine whether the signal quality of the serving cell satisfies the mode transition trigger preparation condition. Based on the determination result indicating that the signal quality no longer satisfies the mode transition trigger preparation condition, the UE may immediately interrupt the system information being received currently and enter a sleep preparation state, in other words, the UE may stop receiving the system information being received currently, and enter an idle state workflow.); determining the workflow sequence based on the request and the information indicating the one or more priority values; and sending, to the management system, the determined workflow sequence ([0075] if the measurement parameter of the serving cell does not meet the mode transition trigger preparation condition, the UE in the idle state may maintain a normal idle state workflow to perform tasks such as monitoring paging and cell reselection evaluation, where normal task sequences such as idle state sleep, wake-up, synchronization resumption, paging monitoring, and measurement are included.).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Tan into the priority-based network optimization of Murphy because both reference address efficient allocation of network management resources based on relative priority. Therefore, apply an established workflow scheduler to prioritized network elements would have predictably improved the offering of maintenance or optimization activities, reduced operational overhead, and minimized disruption to network services.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 3, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20160127923, hereinafter referred to as “Matsunaga”).
Regarding claim 4, Murphy does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the performing comprises: determining at least one cell to be included in the self-optimizing network exclusion list based on the information indicating the one or more priority values; and sending, to the management system, the self-optimizing network exclusion list, wherein the exclusion list comprises the determined at least one cell.
Matsunaga teaches determining at least one cell to be included in the self-optimizing network exclusion list based on the information indicating the one or more priority values; and sending, to the management system, the self-optimizing network exclusion list, wherein the exclusion list comprises the determined at least one cell ([0047] The exclusion processing unit 105 may create an exclusion list in which one or more neighboring cell pairs excluded from the MRO processing are recorded. In this case, the MRO execution unit 101 may refers to the exclusion list to determine whether to execute the MRO processing on each neighboring cell pair.).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the cell priority information of Murphy as an input to the SON exclusion of Matsunaga because both seek to improve automated network optimization while minimizing adverse effects on network performance.
Regarding claim 5, Murphy teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the determining comprises: determining, for each cell of the one or more cells, a respective priority value ([0079] In some implementations, network management device 230 may alter the one or more network parameters to prioritize one or more subscribers and/or one or more cells based on representative samples of data from connections rather than data from all connections. For example, network management device 230 may use samples of high value connections (i.e., connections associated with subscribers satisfying a threshold level of prioritization) or samples of high value connections in combination with samples of connections not considered high value.); comparing the determined priority value against a threshold ([0022] As further shown in FIG. 1, based on receiving the characteristic information, network management device 130 may determine an alteration to a network parameter and cause the alteration to the network parameter. For example, when network management device 130 detects an outage (or degraded network performance that satisfies a threshold, such as a critical zone detection for a portion of the network) based on the network characteristic information, network management device 130 may selectively alter one or more parameters of base station 120 based on the priority parameter to mitigate the outage. In this case, network management device 130 may determine that user devices 110-1 through 110-N are associated with a threshold subscriber level (e.g., a relatively high priority level) and transmitting a particular type of data (e.g., requiring a relatively high level of network performance), and may determine that base station 120 is to be omitted from a set of base stations 120 receiving one or more other user devices 110. Network management device 130 may cause the one or more other user devices 110 to be transferred to utilizing another one of the set of base stations 120 (e.g., associated with a relatively lower priority).).
However, Murphy does not teach including the cell in the self-optimizing network exclusion list if the comparison indicates that the priority value associated with the cell is above the threshold.
Matsunaga teaches including the cell in the self-optimizing network exclusion list if the comparison indicates that the priority value associated with the cell is above the threshold ([0040] The optimization objective of the MRO is defined using one or more handover performance indices (e.g., a handover failure rate or a ping-pong handover rate). The optimization objective of the MRO is, for example, “to reduce the handover failure rate to equal or lower than a predetermined threshold”, or “to reduce the ping-pong handover rate to equal or lower than a predetermined threshold”. The optimization objective of the MRO may be expressed using an objective function depending on one or more handover performance indices.). The motivation to combine is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Murphy does not teach the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from the network optimization function, a self-optimizing network exclusion list, wherein the exclusion list comprises at least one of the one or more cells; and causing one or more self-optimizing network operations to be performed for cells other than the cells included in the self-optimizing network exclusion list.
Matsunaga teaches receiving, from the network optimization function, a self-optimizing network exclusion list, wherein the exclusion list comprises at least one of the one or more cells; and causing one or more self-optimizing network operations to be performed for cells other than the cells included in the self-optimizing network exclusion list ([0040] The optimization objective of the MRO is defined using one or more handover performance indices (e.g., a handover failure rate or a ping-pong handover rate). The optimization objective of the MRO is, for example, “to reduce the handover failure rate to equal or lower than a predetermined threshold”, or “to reduce the ping-pong handover rate to equal or lower than a predetermined threshold”. The optimization objective of the MRO may be expressed using an objective function depending on one or more handover performance indices.). The motivation to combine is the same as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record does not teach the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the information indicating the one or more priority values comprises a cell operational priority index.
Claim 20 depends on objected claim 19, therefore is objected to for its dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hussein et al., US 8665835 - a system that monitors network performance, and makes changes to network parameters to enhance performance.
Morris et al., US 8583467 - optimizing scheduling and resource allocation for a workflow.
Ouyang et al., US 20190239095 - A Self-Organizing Network (SON) collects data pertaining to a first number of cells of a wireless network.
Mukhopadhyay, US 20120307697 - A SON may be configured by building intelligence and automation into the network to enable network operators to address various challenges associated with operation of the network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA N BOUTAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3908. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at (571) 270-3037. 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.
ALINA BOUTAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2458
/ALINA A BOUTAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights