DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 1/13/2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekalim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0239086) in view of Johansson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0332532) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0413459)
Referring to Claim 1, Shekalim et al. disclose a computer-implemented method, comprising: estimating a dominance area of a cell of a communication network (Fig. 1 and par 26, cell with its own pre-defined coverage range; Also, pars 32-38, optimum cell); identifying a plurality of devices transferring data via the cell wherein the plurality of devices are outside the dominance area of the cell and primarily use at least one other cell of the communication network for data transfer (Fig. 1 and par 26, users/user equipment in a range beyond a pre-defined coverage range, e.g. beyond range of 102A; user equipment in coverage range of/in communication with another cell, e.g. 102B); determining that the cell is overshooting based on at least one of: a number of the plurality of devices, distances of the plurality of devices to an access node of the cell, or a number of intervening cells overlapping in frequency with the cell and being located between the access node of the cell and the plurality of devices; automatically initiating, in response to the determining that the cell is overshooting, at least one corrective network action comprising remotely adjusting the cell and/or reducing the cell (pars 26-30, serving cell identifier as overshooting cell, replace); and outputting an indication of the cell being overshooting (par 26, overshooting cell identified, number of users).
Shekalim et al. also disclose adjusting antenna tile and reducing transmit power (par 20).
However, Shekalim et al. do not disclose determining that a device in a plurality of devices is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson et al. discloses determining that a device in the plurality of devices is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period (pars 8 and 9, a UE detects stationary mobility state when camping on one cell for a predefined duration).
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 incorporate determining that a device in the plurality of devices is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period, as taught by Johansson et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., for the purpose of improving power consumption and optimizing cell measurements (Johansson et al., Abstract).
However, Shekalim et al. as modified do not explicitly disclose automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon et al. disclose automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of the cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell (par 12, tilt; pars 16 and 62, power).
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 incorporate automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell, as taught by Yoon et al., in the method of Shekalim et al. and Johansson et al., for the purpose of modifying parameters of an overshooter cell to reduce interference between cells (Yoon et al., Abstract).
Referring to Claim 2 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method, further comprising: determining that the cell is overshooting, if the number of the plurality of devices exceeds a first threshold overshooting (Shekalim et al., par 26, overshooting cell identified, number of users exceeds value).
Referring to Claim 5 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method, further comprising: estimating the dominance area of the cell based on a radio propagation model configured to take as input: a location of the access node of the cell and a location of at least one access node of the at least one other cell, and/or an antenna direction of the access node of the cell and at least one antenna direction of the at least one access node of the at least one other cell (Shekalim et al., Fig. 1 and par 26, cell layout for pre-defined coverage area; Also, pars 32-38, optimal area/cell, tilt, distance).
Referring to Claim 6 as applied to Claim 5 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method, wherein estimating the dominance area comprises estimating a distance and/or a direction of a border of the dominance area from the access node of the cell (Shekalim et al., pars 32-38, optimal area/cell, distance).
Referring to Claim 12 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method, further comprising: in response to determining that the cell is overshooting, remotely adjusting an antenna tilt of the cell (Shekalim et al., pars 32-38, tilt).
Referring to Claim 14, Shekalim et al. disclose an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: estimate a dominance area of a cell of a communication network (Fig. 1 and par 26, cell with its own pre-defined coverage range; Also, pars 32-38, optimum cell); identify a plurality of devices transferring data via the cell, wherein the plurality of devices are outside the dominance area of the cell and primarily use at least one other cell of the communication network for data transfer (Fig. 1 and par 26, users/user equipment in a range beyond a pre-defined coverage range, e.g. beyond range of 102A; user equipment in coverage range of/in communication with another cell, e.g. 102B); determine that the cell is overshooting based on at least one of: a number of the plurality of devices, distances of the plurality of devices to an access node of the cell, or a number of intervening cells overlapping in frequency with the cell and being located between the access node of the cell and the plurality of devices; automatically initiate, in response to the determining that the cell is overshooting, at least one corrective network action comprising remotely adjusting the cell and/or reducing the cell (pars 26-30, serving cell identifier as overshooting cell, replace); and outputting an indication of the cell being overshooting (par 26, overshooting cell identified, number of users).
However, Shekalim et al. do not disclose determining that a device is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson et al. discloses determining that a device is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period (pars 8 and 9, a UE detects stationary mobility state when camping on one cell for a predefined duration).
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 incorporate determining that a device is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period, as taught by Johansson et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., for the purpose of improving power consumption and optimizing cell measurements (Johansson et al., Abstract).
However, Shekalim et al. as modified do not explicitly disclose automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon et al. disclose automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of the cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell (par 12, tilt; pars 16 and 62, power).
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 incorporate automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell, as taught by Yoon et al., in the method of Shekalim et al. and Johansson et al., for the purpose of modifying parameters of an overshooter cell to reduce interference between cells (Yoon et al., Abstract).
Referring to Claim 15, Shekalim et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to: estimate a dominance area of a cell of a communication network (Fig. 1 and par 26, cell with its own pre-defined coverage range; Also, pars 32-38, optimum cell); identify a plurality of devices transferring data via the cell, wherein the plurality of devices are outside the dominance area of the cell and primarily use at least one other cell of the communication network for data transfer (Fig. 1 and par 26, users/user equipment in a range beyond a pre-defined coverage range, e.g. beyond range of 102A; user equipment in coverage range of/in communication with another cell, e.g. 102B); determine that the cell is overshooting based on at least one of: a number of the plurality of devices, distances of the plurality of devices to an access node of the cell, or a number of intervening cells overlapping in frequency with the cell and being located between the access node of the cell and the plurality of devices; automatically initiate, in response to the determining that the cell is overshooting, at least one corrective network action comprising remotely adjusting the cell and/or reducing the cell (pars 26-30, serving cell identifier as overshooting cell, replace); and output an indication of the cell being overshooting (par 26, overshooting cell identified, number of users).
However, Shekalim et al. do not disclose determining that a device is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson et al. discloses determining that a device is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period (pars 8 and 9, a UE detects stationary mobility state when camping on one cell for a predefined duration).
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 incorporate determining that a device is substantially stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, or stability of at least one timing advance value of the device during the time period, as taught by Johansson et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., for the purpose of improving power consumption and optimizing cell measurements (Johansson et al., Abstract).
However, Shekalim et al. as modified do not explicitly disclose automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon et al. disclose automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of the cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell (par 12, tilt; pars 16 and 62, power).
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 incorporate automatically, in response to determining that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell, as taught by Yoon et al., in the method of Shekalim et al. and Johansson et al., for the purpose of modifying parameters of an overshooter cell to reduce interference between cells (Yoon et al., Abstract).
Referring to Claim 16 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method, wherein the dominance area of the cell comprises a geographical area (Shekalim et al., par 26 cell with its own pre-defined coverage range; Also, pars 32-38, optimum cell).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose dominance area of cell comprises geographical in which cell has strongest signal compared to other cells.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon et al. discloses dominance area of cell comprises geographical area in which cell has strongest signal compared to other cells (pars 15 and 16, strongest signal, cell).
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 incorporate dominance area of cell comprises geographical in which cell has strongest signal compared to other cells, as taught by Yoon et al., in the apparatus of Shekalim et al. and Johansson et al., for the purpose of modifying parameters of an overshooter cell to reduce interference between cells (Yoon et al., Abstract).
Claims 3, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekalim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0239086) in view of Johansson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0332532) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0413459) further in view of Tan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0165462)
Referring to Claim 3 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not disclose determining that the cell is overshooting, if a scaled number of the plurality of devices exceeds a second threshold, wherein the number of the plurality of devices is scaled based on distances of the plurality of devices to the access node of the cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Tan et al. disclose determining that the cell is overshooting, if a scaled number of the plurality of devices exceeds a second threshold, wherein the number of the plurality of devices is scaled based on distances of the plurality of devices to the access node of the cell (pars 130-142 and 236, overshooting cell – distance, normalized, number of UEs).
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 incorporate determining that the cell is overshooting, if a scaled number of the plurality of devices exceeds a second threshold, wherein the number of the plurality of devices is scaled based on distances of the plurality of devices to the access node of the cell, as taught by Tan et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of mitigating coverage and capacity issues (Tan et al., par 9).
Referring to Claim 4 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose determining that the cell is overshooting, if a number of the intervening cells exceeds a third threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Tan et al. disclose determining that the cell is overshooting, if a number of the intervening cells exceeds a third threshold (pars 130-142 and 236, overshooting cell – threshold, number of neighbors/cells).
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 incorporate determining that the cell is overshooting, if a number of the intervening cells exceeds a third threshold, as taught by Tan et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of mitigating coverage and capacity issues (Tan et al., par 9).
Referring to Claim 7 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose determining that a device is located outside the dominance area of the cell, if the distance of the device from the access node exceeds the distance of the border of the dominance area by at least a margin.
In the same field of endeavor, Tan et al. disclose determining that a device is located outside the dominance area of the cell, if the distance of the device from the access node exceeds the distance of the border of the dominance area by at least a margin (pars 130-142 and 236, overshooting cell – threshold, number of neighbors/cells).
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 incorporate determining that a device is located outside the dominance area of the cell, if the distance of the device from the access node exceeds the distance of the border of the dominance area by at least a margin, as taught by Tan et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of mitigating coverage and capacity issues (Tan et al., par 9).
Referring to Claim 8 as applied to Claim 6 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose normalizing the distances of the plurality of devices with the distance of the border of the dominance area from the access node of the cell; and scaling the number of the plurality of devices based on the normalized distances of the plurality of devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Tan et al. disclose normalizing the distances of the plurality of devices with the distance of the border of the dominance area from the access node of the cell; and scaling the number of the plurality of devices based on the normalized distances of the plurality of devices (pars 130-142 and 236, distance, normalized, number of UEs).
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 incorporate normalizing the distances of the plurality of devices with the distance of the border of the dominance area from the access node of the cell; and scaling the number of the plurality of devices based on the normalized distances of the plurality of devices, as taught by Tan et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of mitigating coverage and capacity issues (Tan et al., par 9).
Referring to Claim 9 as applied to Claim 8 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose limiting the normalized distances to an upper limit before scaling the number of the plurality of devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Tan et al. disclose limiting the normalized distances to an upper limit before scaling the number of the plurality of devices (pars 130-142 and 236, distance, normalized, top neighbors, number of UEs).
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 incorporate limiting the normalized distances to an upper limit before scaling the number of the plurality of devices, as taught by Tan et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of mitigating coverage and capacity issues (Tan et al., par 9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekalim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0239086) in view of Johansson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0332532) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0413459) further in view Pezeshki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0336687)
Referring to Claim 11 as applied to Claim 1 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose retrieving subscriber data of a device; and determining that the device is substantially stationary, if a building identifier associated with a current location of the device corresponds to an address included in the subscriber data.
In the same field of endeavor, Pezeshki et al. disclose retrieving subscriber data of a device; and determining that the device is substantially stationary, if a building identifier associated with a current location of the device corresponds to an address included in the subscriber data (par 145, identify a room in building, stationary).
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 incorporate retrieving subscriber data of a device; and determining that the device is substantially stationary, if a building identifier associated with a current location of the device corresponds to an address included in the subscriber data, as taught by Pezeshki et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of enabling efficient communication (Pezeshki et al., par 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekalim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0239086) in view of Johansson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0332532) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0413459) further in view Brooks et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0078582)
Referring to Claim 13 as applied to Claim 12 above, Shekalim et al. as modified disclose the method (Sheikalim et al., par 26).
However, Shekalim et al. do not explicitly disclose indication of the cell being overshooting comprises an automated service ticket.
In the same field of endeavor, Pezeshki et al. disclose indication of the cell being overshooting comprises an automated service ticket (pars 13 and 35, overshoot, alert).
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 incorporate indication of the cell being overshooting comprises an automated service ticket, as taught by Brooks et al., in the method of Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al., for the purpose of mitigating mismatch between cell boundaries (Brooks et al., par 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that Johansson et al. do not disclose determining that device is stationary based on a number of cells accessed by the device during the time period. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In pars 8 and 9, Johansson et al. disclose UE detecting/determining based on when the UE has been camping on same serving cell for a predefined duration. i.e. on the same one serving cell amongst the cells for a predefined duration. i.e. based on a number of cells accessed by the device during a time period, as claimed.
Applicant argues in pages 11-13 of the Remarks that Johansson et al. do not disclose overshooting and that the Shekalim et al., Johansson et al., and Yoon et al. references cannot be combined. The Examiner would like to point out that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Johansson et al. from the same field was further used to show a UE detects stationary mobility state when camping on one cell for a predefined duration (pars 8 and 9) for the purpose of improving power consumption and optimizing cell measurements (Johansson et al., Abstract), and Yoon et al. also from the same field was used to show that a cell is overshooting, adjusting antenna tilt of the cell and/or reducing a transmit power setting of the cell (par 12, tilt; pars 16 and 62, power) for the purpose of modifying parameters of an overshooter cell to reduce interference between cells (Yoon et al., Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHAIL KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7187. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8:30am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 5712727915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Suhail Khan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights