DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
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, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/18/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims of the Patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims, and the claims of this instant application are therefore and obvious variant thereof.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
receiving, by a processing system of a radio access network controller device, the processing system comprising a processor, capability data representative of respective capabilities of a group of candidate node devices;
receiving, by a processing system of a radio access network controller device, the processing system comprising a processor, capability data representative of respective capabilities of a group of candidate node devices;
selecting, by the processing system, based on the capability data, a sub-group of candidate node devices of the group of candidate node devices that is able to be used as a parent node device for connectivity of a node device to a network;
selecting, by the processing system based on the capability data, a sub-group of candidate node devices of the group of candidate node devices that is able to be used as a parent node device for connectivity of a node device to a network, wherein each candidate node device of the sub-group of candidate node devices has associated therewith a number of hops between the sub-group of candidate node devices and the node device, the respective number of hops forming a selection set;
generating, by the processing system, a data structure that comprises policy data representative of a policy for selection of the parent node device from the sub-group of candidate node devices based on a service requirement of the node device, and that comprises the respective capabilities of the sub-group of candidate node devices, wherein the policy includes a service-aware cell association policy, and for supporting multiple services, the policy specifies that cell association is based on a most stringent service requirement of different services or which service is currently active for the node device; and
generating, by the processing system, a data structure that comprises policy data representative of a policy for selection of the parent node device from the sub-group of candidate node devices based on a service level of the node device, and comprises the respective capabilities of the sub-group of candidate node devices, wherein the policy specifies that: in response to determining that the service level of the node device comprises an ultra-reliable low-latency communication service, biasing the node device towards a first candidate node device of the sub-group of candidate node devices having a least number of the selection set, and in response to determining that the service level of the node device comprises an enhanced mobile broadband service, biasing the node device towards a second candidate node device of the sub-group of candidate node devices having a greatest number of the selection set; and
sending, by the processing system, the data structure to a central unit device that employs the data structure to provide control signals to the node device to facilitate selection of the parent node device based on the policy.
sending, by the processing system, the data structure to a central unit device that employs the data structure to provide control signals to the node device to facilitate selection of the parent node device based on the policy.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the data structure further comprises data representative of the parent node device and capability of the parent node device.
Claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the data structure further comprises data representative of the parent node device and capability of the parent node device.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 3, The method of claim 1, wherein the capability data comprises respective locations of the group of candidate node devices.
Claim 3,The method of claim 1, wherein the capability data comprises respective locations of the group of candidate node devices.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein the data structure further comprises hop order data representative of a hop number order of the sub-group of candidate node devices with respect to the node device.
Claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein the data structure further comprises hop order data representative of a hop number order of the sub-group of candidate node devices with respect to the node device.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 5, The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the processing system, the data structure to the node device for use in selecting the parent node device.
Claim 5, The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the processing system, the data structure to the node device for use in selecting the parent node device.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein the capability data comprises respective integrated access and backhaul functionality of the group of candidate node devices.
Claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein the capability data comprises respective integrated access and backhaul functionality of the group of candidate node devices.
Instant Application 18/950956
U.S. Patent No. 12,177,934
Claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the capability data comprises respective signal measurement metrics of the group of candidate node devices.
Claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the capability data comprises respective signal measurement metrics of the group of candidate node devices.
Claims 8-20 disclose similar limitations to claims 8-20 of the Patent and are therefore rejected for the same reason as indicated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barton et al., U.S. Publication No. 2020/0195528 discloses wherein the node scheduling driver 110 may generate a control group for each microservice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKIE ZUNIGA ABAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JACKIE ZUNIGA ABAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights