DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending (amended claim set 11/18/2024).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 and 5/06/2026 have been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 11/18/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the computer program recited is directed to software, per se. Moreover, “software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment” (See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007)). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. The Examiner suggests adding least one structural limitation to claim 17 to limit the claim scope to encompass only statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the carrier recited is directed to a propagated signal. Any claim referring to a signal or electronic waveform does not meet the requirements as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 and therefore are impermissible claims. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to only recite non-transitory computer-readable storage medium(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO 2019226085 to Berg et al., published November 28, 2019. Examiner cites portions from United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0211940 A1 to Berg et al. (hereinafter “Berg”).
Regarding Claim 1, Berg discloses a method performed by one or more network entities of a wireless communication network, the communication network comprising
a base station system (Berg: Figure 1 with [0005-0006] – corresponds to a system comprising a centralized unit (CU).) that comprises a Digital Unit (DU) (Berg: Figures 1 and 2 with [0005-0006] – “…the central unit (CU) is comprised of IRU, CPRI and DU.”), a Hub (Berg: Figures 1 and 2 with [0005-0006] – “…the central unit (CU) is comprised of IRU, CPRI and DU” which corresponds to an indoor radio unit.), and a plurality of Radio Heads (RH) (Berg: Figure 1 with [0003] – corresponds to TRP, or radio heads. See also Figure 5 with [0020].),
the Hub being connected to the DU the plurality of RHs being connected to the Hub via a fronthaul connection (Berg: Figure 2 with [0003], [0005] – the one or more IRUs are connected to one or more baseband units (BBU), or DUs, wherein a number of dots (TRPs) are connected to IRUs.),
wherein the plurality of RHs comprises a first set of RHs logically arranged in a first cell and a second set of RHs logically arranged in a second cell (Berg: [0002-0006], Figure 5 with [0020-0021] – corresponds to a plurality cells of the DAS, wherein each cell is served by an individual IRU for the purpose of operating a plurality of TRP (heads).), the method comprising:
obtaining, for an individual of the first set of RHs, interference information on estimated interference experienced in an area served by the individual of the first set of RHs from signals sent by the plurality of RHs excluding the first set of RHs (Berg: [0020], [0025-0029], [0150-0151], [0061-0066] – each set of TRPs may be separated by cell/frequency band(s) and may experience interference (SINR) from other sets of TRPs in another cell/frequency band.);
determining, based on the obtained interference information, that a first RH of the first set of RHs suffers from intercell interference (Berg: [0020], [0025-0029], [0061-0066], [0150-0151] – corresponds to a level of interference, or SINR, being experienced in a frequency of cell comprising a TRP.); and
initiating change of the logical arrangement of the first RH from the first cell to the second cell (Berg: [0061-0066], [0150-0156, [0164] – corresponds to adjusting a cell coverage. Berg discloses changing the cell coverage of a frequency band linked to a TROP of a cell experiencing interference, including adjusting an association of TRP.).
Regarding Claim 2, Berg discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, for each of the individual of the first set of RHs, the interference information is based on interference estimated by a set of User Equipments (UEs) being in the area served by the individual of the first set of RHs on signals sent from the plurality of RHs excluding the first set of RHs and received at the set of UEs (Berg: [0150-0152] – corresponds to adjusting the frequency (an interference that is determined) based on a signal quality measured by a wireless device, or UE. See also Figure 12 with [0083].).
Regarding Claim 7, Berg discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
after the initiation of change of the logical arrangement of the first RH from the first cell to the second cell, determining whether performance of the base station system is a above a threshold (Although one embodiment of a cell shift (adjustment) of frequencies disclosed (Berg: Figure 23-25 with associated paragraphs), Examiner equates the cell shift/adjustment to a shift to any at any time the level of interference is high (above a threshold). See in particular the corresponding paragraphs to Figures 23-25 [0150-0179] describing determining a level of interference and shifting the cell boundaries are changing the placements of TRPs “to minimize a common interference area of the two frequency bands”.); and
in case the performance of the base station is below the threshold, initiating an action (Examiner equates the cell shift/adjustment to a shift to any at any time the level of interference is high (above a threshold). See in particular the corresponding paragraphs to Figures 23-25 [0150-0179] describing determining a level of interference and shifting the cell boundaries are changing the placements of TRPs “to minimize a common interference area of the two frequency bands”. The action associated with determining a level of interference/quality includes at least shifting the cell borders.) [with the aim to improve performance] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the processor. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction.).
Claims 9, 10, and 15, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claims 1, 2, and 7, recite similar features as claims 1, 2, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 1, 2, and 7. Please see above rejections of claims 1, ,2 and 7. Berg discloses the apparatus as a system comprising a base station and a user equipment in at least Figure 12 with [0082-0085].
Claim 17, directed to a program, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Berg disclose the program in at least [0097].
Claim 18, directed to a carrier, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Berg disclose the carrier in at least [0097].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0298198 A1 to Ibrahim et al. (hereinafter “Ibrahim”).
Regarding Claim 3, Berg discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the signals sent by the plurality of RHs excluding the first set of RHs and onto which the interference is measured by the set of UEs (Berg: [0150-0152] – corresponds to adjusting the frequency (an interference that is determined) based on a signal quality measured by a wireless device, or UE. See also Figure 12 with [0083].), but does not expressly disclose that the signals are sent in first communication resources defined as first Channel State Information-Interference Measurement (CSI-IM), resources in the first cell, the method further comprising: instructing the set of UEs to measure interference on the first CSI-IM resources and to report the measured interference on the first CSI-IM resources to the one or more network entities, and wherein the obtained interference information comprises the measured interference reported on the first CSI-IM resources.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Ibrahim. Ibrahim is similarly concerned with reporting interference to a network based on a configuration (Ibrahim: [0005]). Ibrahim further discloses sending measurements of interference in first communication resources defined as first Channel State Information-Interference Measurement (CSI-IM), resources in the first cell (Ibrahim: [0005-0006] – “…The method may include receiving, from a base station, a configuration for cross-link interference (CLI) reporting associated with one or more channel state information interference measurement (CSI-IM) resources. The method may include generating a CLI report based on the configuration for CLI reporting. The method may include transmitting the CLI report to the base station. In some implementations, the CSI-IM resources are defined with respect to a sub-band full-duplex (SBFD) configuration on which the UE is configured to receive on two downlink sub-bands separated by an uplink sub-band.”.), the method further comprising:
instructing the set of UEs to measure interference on the first CSI-IM resources and to report the measured interference on the first CSI-IM resources to the one or more network entities (Ibrahim: [0005-0022] – corresponds to one or more resources, set in a configuration by a base station, for reporting one or more cross-link interference (CLI) on one or more channel state information interference measurements (CSI-IM).), and wherein the obtained interference information comprises the measured interference reported on the first CSI-IM resources (Ibrahim: [0005-0022] – the CLI report includes one or more interference measurements, CSI-IM.).
Claim 11, dependent upon 10, dependent upon claim 9, recites similar features as claim 3 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 3. Please see above rejection of claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to the interference measurement of Berg in view of the interference measurement of Ibrahim to include resources for measurement for the reasons of mitigating interference between a plurality of UEs (Ibrahim: [0097]).
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 4-6, 8, 12-14, and 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.
Conclusion
17. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights