DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9. 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mahimkar et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0167277 A1, hereinafter, ‘Mahimkar’.
Consider Claim 8 and as applied to the Method of Claim 1 and the One or more computer storage devices having computer-executable instructions stored thereon of Claim 15. Mahimkar teaches a system comprising: a processor (e.g., see at least the computing environment illustrated by figure 11 and described in at least 0115); and a computer-readable medium(e.g., see at least the computing environment illustrated by figure 11 and described in at least 0115 ) storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to: receive, by an orchestrator, an indication that a network service activity is to be performed for a first radio site of a plurality of radio sites within a geographic region (e.g., see at least figure 6 – “Once the schedule (e.g., upgrade schedule data 108) is ready and approved by the operations team, such can be passed to an orchestrator 606 that prepares for the execution of the upgrades. The orchestrator 606 can query the scheduler 604 in run-time (e.g., minutes or hours before an upgrade) and can obtain the schedule to be followed for executing the upgrades across multiple AP devices in the communication (e.g., cellular) network”); identify a set of radio sites including the first radio site and neighbor radio sites of the first radio site for which the network service activity is also to be performed (e.g., see at least figure 7 – 708 – “determine upgrade schedule data representative of a schedule to upgrade the access point devices.”), the neighbor radio sites having coverage zones overlapping with or adjacent to a coverage zone of the first radio site(e.g., this is met based on at least the grid coverage illustrate and explained with respect to figure 2b – “coverage area that is partitioned into grids” – see 0041 ); generate a traffic prediction for each radio site of the set of radio sites (e.g., this is met based on at least determined “traffic demands, utilization etc. – 0032-0035); based on at least the traffic predictions, select a radio site from the set of radio sites for performing the network service activity, such that performing the network service activity for the selected radio site results in a lower predicted traffic disruption than performing the network service activity for a non-selected radio site of the set of radio sites(i.e., this limitation also reads on a lower bound of 0. Selecting no APs out of service versus selecting at least 1 or All as an upper bound ); and perform the network service activity for the selected radio site (i.e., utilizing an optimization algorithm in order to ensure less disruptions and coverage holes - The disclosed subject matter, in some embodiments, can lead to minimal or reduced service disruptions, faster execution of upgrades, better utilization of operational resources, and significant cost reduction.).
Examiner Note: The Examiner suggest adding clarity to the limitations – The limitations currently read on a general network planning optimization problem- see conclusion and 892 of Example sited art that would further read on the claim as whole. The claim language can essentially read on deciding to take down a network or not. See e.g., 0062 – “We observe if a grid is covered by two APs (e.g., A and B), then these two APs cannot be upgraded at the same time to ensure coverage. In general, for a grid that is covered by N APs, these N APs cannot all be upgraded at the same time”.
Consider claims 2, 9, and 16, Mahimkar teaches the claimed invention further comprising: determining, for each radio site of the set of radio sites, traffic as a function of time within a prediction window, wherein selecting the radio site from the set of radio sites further comprises selecting a time for performing the network service activity, such that performing the network service activity for the selected radio site at the selected time results in a lower predicted traffic disruption than performing the network service activity for a non-selected radio site of the set of radio sites and/or at a different time within the prediction window (e.g., see at least figure 4A and 0055-0057 – “Upgrade scheduling device 100 can select members” ).
Consider claims 4, 11, and 18, Mahimkar teaches the claimed invention further comprising: prior to selecting the radio site, adjusting the traffic prediction, for each radio site of the set of radio sites, using current traffic of the radio site (e.g., this is made based on iteratively adjusting based on the algorithm as noted in at least 0066).
Consider claims 5, 12, and 19, Mahimkar teaches the claimed invention further further comprising: removing the selected radio site from the set of radio sites; and iterating generating traffic predictions, selecting a new radio site from the set of radio sites for performing the network service activity based on at least the traffic predictions, performing the network service activity for the newly selected radio site, and removing the newly selected radio site from the set of radio sites until the set of radio sites is empty(e.g., see iterative algorithm – see coverage constraints and algorithms noted in at least 00033- see also 0066 – “we can partition all APs that require upgrade into the minimum number of partitions, where after removing each partition the coverage and capacity constraints should still be satisfied. As in the previous formulation, to minimize the number of partitions (or upgrade rounds), we try to maximize the size of schedulable set in each round by sorting nodes in an increasing order of their node degrees and adding them iteratively as long as all traffic demands are satisfied after their removal. The only issue remaining is computing the amount of traffic that can be served by a given set of AP devices, which can be formulated as a logical problem to compute maximum traffic that can be served by a given set of APs according to the below linear program”).
Consider claims 6, 13, and 20, Mahimkar teaches the claimed invention further wherein the network service activity comprises an activity selected from the list consisting of: frequency retuning, a software upgrade, maintenance, and a hardware upgrade (e.g., see upgrades noted in at least 0036).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3,10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahimkar et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0167277 A1, hereinafter, ‘Mahimkar’ in view of Keeler et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2008/0152104 A1, hereinafter, ‘Keeler’.
Consider Claims 3, 10 and 17, Mahimkar teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: prior to performing the network service activity, triggering a handover for each user equipment (UE) being served by the selected radio site and having available coverage from another radio site.
In analogous art, Keeler teaches in a least 0085 and “forced handoff” – 0086 “In accordance with another embodiment of the present invention, the subscriber devices are instructed by the network to switch from a first BTS to which they are communicating through, to an alternative second BTS prior to a scheduled taking of the first BTS off-line”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try prior to performing the network service activity, triggering a handover for each user equipment (UE) being served by the selected radio site and having available coverage from another radio site for the purpose of intelligently improving planned outages.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahimkar et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2018/0167277 A1, hereinafter, ‘Mahimkar’ in view of Challita et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2023/0217264 A1, hereinafter, ‘Challita’.
Consider Claims 7 and 14, Mahimkar teaches the claimed invention except wherein the traffic predictions are weighted traffic predictions, and wherein: traffic for a fixed wireless access (FWA) device is weighted differently than traffic for an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) device; or traffic for an eMBB device having WiFi and/or WiFi calling available is weighted differently than traffic for an eMBB device not having WiFi access; or traffic for a user equipment (UE) having a prioritized network slice is weighted differently than traffic for a UE not having a prioritized network slice.
In analogous art, Challita teaches in 0047, “many scheduling functions maintain a weight associated with each wireless device. The weight indicates an urgency in assigning communications resources to the wireless device. A wireless device associated with high QoS wanting to transmit or to receive delay sensitive traffic will be associated with a high weight in case the data of the wireless device is left too long in the buffers, while a wireless device wanting to transmit or to receive non-delay sensitive data will not be associated with as large weight in case its data is left for some time in the buffers of the wireless access network 100.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the traffic predictions are weighted traffic predictions, and wherein: traffic for a fixed wireless access (FWA) device is weighted differently than traffic for an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) device; or traffic for an eMBB device having WiFi and/or WiFi calling available is weighted differently than traffic for an eMBB device not having WiFi access; or traffic for a user equipment (UE) having a prioritized network slice is weighted differently than traffic for a UE not having a prioritized network slice for the purpose of dynamically assigning communication resources during outage and/or maintenance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170012856 A1 - generating an optimization set of failures (F.sub.o) (step 304). In some implementations, the optimization set of failures (F.sub.o) indicate a random selection of failures in the physical network, such as one or more physical links failing, that are used to design a network model. – as noted by the Examiner above, at least independent claims read on an optimization problem.
US 20230110983 A1 teaches a network planning and optimization tool that may allow for network capacity planning using key network failures for an arbitrary pair of network topology and demands. Performing network capacity planning with key network failures, instead of using other techniques, may avoid over-building the topology of a network. In particular, key network failures may be generated from the probabilistic failures, and the impact of these failures on a network may be computed. Expected flow availability SLO or a function thereof may be computed, using this information, and used by the tool to design a robust network. With an embedded flow availability calculation and updated risk framework, the capacitated cross-layer network topologies output by the tool may meet network demands/flows with their respective SLO type at the lowest cost.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights