CTNF 18/901,681 CTNF 81971 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 6 recites the limitation " the current user location distribution and the current timing advance (TA) distribution based on the cell-related data and the user-related data " in lines 1-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, 10-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by US 2018/0160345 (Levinkron et al.) . As to claims 1, 17 and 20 , Levinkron teaches a network node ( 205, fig 3 ) comprising: a transceiver; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory comprising one or more storage medium, storing instructions ( see figure 3 ), wherein the instructions, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the network node to: detect an overshooting cell which has an actual coverage range larger than a planned coverage range ( see paragraphs 11, 24 and 31, cells compared to a non-overshooting baseline to determine if they’re overshooting cells ); determine an adjustment step corresponding to the overshooting cell based on a coverage situation of the overshooting cell; and adjust the actual coverage range of the overshooting cell based on the determined adjustment step ( see paragraphs 11 and 38, remedy measures determined and implemented to correct overshooting cells ). As to claims 2 and 18 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the instructions, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the network node to: acquire real-time transmission environment information of a cell; and determine whether the cell is the overshooting cell based on the real-time transmission environment information of the cell ( see paragraphs 11-23 and 37, real time network performance and/or configuration data reported by UEs and cells used to determine if cell environment indicates overshooting cell ). As to claims 3 and 19 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the instructions, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the network node to: acquire cell-related data and/or user-related data; and acquire the real-time transmission environment information of the cell based on the cell-related data and/or the user-related data ( see paragraphs 11-23 and 37, real time network performance and/or configuration data reported by UEs and cells used to determine if cell environment indicates overshooting cell ). As to claim 5 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the cell-related data comprises at least one of cell configuration information and cell historical TA data; and/or the user-related data comprises measurement information reported by a served user in the cell ( see paragraphs 11-23 and 37, real time network performance and/or configuration data reported by UEs and cells used to determine if cell environment indicates overshooting cell ). As to claim 10 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the determining of the adjustment step corresponding to the overshooting cell based on the coverage situation of the overshooting cell comprises: determining the adjustment step corresponding to the overshooting cell according to the actual coverage range and the planned coverage range of the overshooting cell ( see paragraphs 11, 24, 31 and 38, cells compared to a non-overshooting baseline to determine if they’re overshooting cells, and remedy measures determined and implemented to correct overshooting cells ). As to claim 11 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the determining of the adjustment step corresponding to the overshooting cell based on the coverage situation of the overshooting cell comprises: constructing a cell group according to related information between cells, wherein the cell group comprises the overshooting cell; and determining the adjustment step corresponding to the overshooting cell according to overshooting related information between the overshooting cell and other cells in the cell group ( see paragraphs 11-23 and 38, overshooting determined on the basis of data collected from and in relation to neighboring cells, and the overshooting is remedied accordingly ). As to claim 12 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the related information between the cells comprises at least one of neighbor cell information, handover information, and interference information ( see paragraphs 11-23, overshooting determined on the basis of data collected from and in relation to neighboring cells, including handover information ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinkron in view of US 2024/0422717 (Shimoda et al.) . As to claim 7 , what is lacking from Levinkron is wherein the real-time transmission environment information includes a ratio of line-of-sight (LOS) transmissions and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) transmissions in the cell . In analogous art, Shimoda teaches determining the integrity of wireless network data from wireless communications between a UE and base station using a ratio of LOS and NLOS communications ( see Shimoda, paragraph 354 ). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching into Levinkron so as to improve the reliability of the reported network performance data . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinkron in view of US 2011/0070908 (Garcia Cabezas et al.) . As to claim 8 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the determining of whether the cell is the overshooting cell based on the real-time transmission environment information of the cell comprises: obtaining the actual coverage range of the cell; obtaining the planned coverage range of the cell based on the real-time transmission environment information; and determining whether the cell is the overshooting cell according to the actual coverage range of the cell and the planned coverage range of the cell ( see paragraphs 11-23 and 37, real time network performance and/or configuration data reported by UEs and cells used to determine if cell environment indicates an overshooting cell on the basis of an expected non-overshooting cell ). What is lacking from Levinkron is obtaining the actual coverage range of the cell based on a current user location distribution of the cell . In analogous art, Garcia Cabezas teaches determining an actual coverage range being determined on the basis of the distribution of UE positions ( see Garcia Cabezas, paragraphs 53-58 ). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching into Levinkron so as to improve the quality of the actual coverage range determination. As to claim 8 , Levinkron further teaches wherein the obtaining of the planned coverage range of the cell based on the real-time transmission environmental information comprises: determining a theoretical coverage range of the cell based on cell related data; and predicting, using a fourth artificial intelligence network, the planned coverage range based on the real-time transmission environmental information and the theoretical coverage range of the cell ( see paragraphs 30 and 31 ) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4 and 13-16 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0224775 (Choi et al.). US 2024/0276348 (Ertimo et al.). US 2014/0162682 (Tafreshi et al.). US 2019/0306775 (Duan). US 2019/0246292 (Shekalim et al.). US 2020/0413459 (Yoon et al.) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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. /MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 2 Art Unit: 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 3 Art Unit: 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 4 Art Unit: 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 5 Art Unit: 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 6 Art Unit: 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 7 Art Unit: 2641 Application/Control Number: 18/901,681 Page 8 Art Unit: 2641
Prosecution Insights