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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings are accepted.
IDS has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9 and 19 is/are 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.
Claims 9, and 19 both recite “retrieving historical instances of network usage and additional historical instances of carrier resource utilization at the base station; and updating the data model based on the additional historical instances of network usage and the additional historical instances of carrier resource utilization at the base station”, among other things. (Emphasis added)
As seen above, there are no antecedent basis established for “tthe additional historical instances of network usage”
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) 1-4, 6, 9-10, 11-14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 2022/0377610).
As to claims 1, 11:
Garcia discloses:
A computer-implemented method, and a carrier aggregation controller, comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors (Abstract, ¶0005, a load balancer apparatus, with processor coupled to memory with instructions to perform the method), the memory including one or more modules that are executable by the one or more processors to perform
comprising:
receiving, by the carrier aggregation controller, a data model associated with uplink transmissions at a base station;
(See at least Abstract, Fig. 3, ¶0050, 0071-0072, 0127 a RL load balancer 10 (i.e. “carrier aggregation controller”) that handles multi-carrier assignment and TDD frame configuration across aggregated/shared carrier. Additionally, see ¶0105-0108, 0071, 0092, a training process results to a trained model of DQN/DNNs received at the RL load balancer 10. See ¶0092-0093, Fig. 2, Fig. 10, the model to process load metrics from RAT, including UL/DL loads, therefore associated with uplink transmission at a RAN node, i.e. base station)
based on the data model, determining, by the carrier aggregation controller, a time division duplexing ratio for downlink transmissions and the uplink transmissions via an available spectrum; (See at least ¶0012, 0092-0093, 0109-0112, Fig. 10, the trained model (DNNs) determines an updated (optimized) TDD UL/DL split proportion (ratio) using the collected load data, configuration, and metrics for UL/DL associated with the carriers being examined)
generating, by the carrier aggregation controller, a message to adjust a current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio; and providing, for output by the carrier aggregation controller and to the base station, the message to adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio. (See at least Fig. 10-11, ¶0110-0112, the steps are performed by the load balancer device 10. Upon determining the update comprising update to uplink/downlink split proportions, the load balancer device communicate the update in a message to the communication network. Per ¶0114-0115, the update message is received at apparatus 20, which is a base station configured to deploy the update in accordance with the updated parameters as described, i.e. “at 210, applying the updated carrier assignment parameters, the updated uplink/downlink split proportions, and the updated resource pool split proportions to a communication network”)
As to claims 2, 12:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, wherein the data model is a carrier utilization data model that is based on historical instances of carrier resource utilization at the base station and over a predetermined time interval. (¶0049, 0063, 0140, historical load, i.e. resource utilization, 0094-0095, inputs are collected measurements over a recorded cyclical period of time)
As to claims 3, 13:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, wherein the data model is based on a combination of network usage and historical instances of carrier resource utilization. (Garcia, ¶0049, 0063, 0140, 0092-0093, new measured data, historic load , including predicted future loads are used by the load balancer to calculate the update split)
As to claims 4, 14:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, wherein determining the time division duplexing ratio for the downlink transmissions and the uplink transmissions comprises determining that the time division duplexing ratio prevents a usage level of bandwidth dedicated to the downlink transmissions and the uplink transmissions from being greater than a bandwidth usage level threshold. (¶0036-0037, bandwidth as resources, 0063-0067, 0071. Garcia determines the TDD UL/DL split from the load metrics so the allocated UL and DL resources track demand and stay within the constraints which may be imposed on the minimum, maximum, and sum of the resource pool share of each carrier K. See also ¶0049, 0063, 0092, LB calculates the split from historic loads and new calculated loads to satisfy the preset min-max resource threshold limits, thus preventing resource utilization from exceeding such thresholds.)
As to claims 6, 16:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, wherein the message to adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio comprises computer-executable instructions that automatically adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio. (Garcia, Abstract, ¶0072, Fig. 10, Fig. 11 all steps, the outbound configuration updates is a configuration that automatically update the current ratio split to the designated new ratio split)
As to claims 9, 19:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, comprising: retrieving, by the carrier aggregation controller, historical instances of network usage and additional historical instances of carrier resource utilization at the base station; and updating, by the carrier aggregation controller, the data model based on the additional historical instances of network usage and the additional historical instances of carrier resource utilization at the base station, wherein determining the time division duplexing ratio is based on the updated data model. (Garcia already has a trained model built from at least a historic load/utilized resources in at least ¶0049, 0063, 0107. See further ¶0095, 0107-0108, Garcia further retrieves consecutive update interval input data, i.e. latest loads/measurements. These additional data comprises new historical instances of network usage and resource utilization. See 0107-0108, training and continuous adaptation of the DNN/DQN model via further training to obtain updated weights for the model, which in turn are used to determine the next UL/DL split configuration)
As to claim 10:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1, wherein the data model is a trained machine-learning model. (See at least ¶0012, 0092-0093, 0109-0112, Fig. 10, the trained model (DNNs) determines an updated (optimized) TDD UL/DL split proportion (ratio) using the collected load data, configuration, and metrics for UL/DL associated with the carriers being examined)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 2022/0377610) in view of Mansour et al. (US 10,652,915).
As to claims 5, 15:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, and regarding: determining, by the carrier aggregation controller, that a carrier does not implement a given time division duplexing ratio, wherein the message to adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio includes an additional message for the carrier to implement the given time division duplexing ratio at the time division duplexing ratio.
Garcia already discloses generating a message to update, i.e. adjust, a current TDD UL/DL split for a given carrier. (See at least ¶0012, 0092-0093, 0109-0112, Fig. 10, the trained model (DNNs) determines an updated (optimized) TDD UL/DL split proportion (ratio) using the collected load data, configuration, and metrics for UL/DL associated with the carriers being examined)
Garcia does not explicitly disclose determining, by the carrier aggregation controller, that a carrier does not implement a given time division duplexing ratio, wherein the message to adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio includes an additional message for the carrier to implement the given time division duplexing ratio at the time division duplexing ratio.
Mansour, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in Col. 10, L1-25, 45-58, wherein Mansour to send a first message that instructs the network nodes to schedule and apply a ratio for resource carriers that are not on schedule yet (i.e. being determined as not yet implemented a ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to include Mansour’s first-time UL/DL ratio implementation message for a given carrier. Given that Garcia discloses sending an UL/DL ratio update message, it implies that there must have been another message that set the initial ratio to begin with, and thus Mansour fill in that narrative gap with the original ratio setup message.
As to claims 7, 17:
Garcia discloses all limitation of claim 1/11, however is silent on the message to adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio comprises a recommendation to adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio without including computer-executable instructions that automatically adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio.
Mansour sends a schedule of UL/DL ratios by time interval, se col. 9, table 1, also col. 8, lines 25-45, and col. 10, lines 1-8. This schedule merely list which ratios should be used in each interval. It is not a software program code to be executed at the base station to adjust the TDD ratio. The base station’s software itself applies the schedule locally.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to send Garcia’s determined split in a Mansour’s schedule form so the message recommends the target ratio for an interval without including executable code. This implementation advantageously allow for compact/lighter message payload since it only contains parameter values instead of a software program.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 18 is/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.
The references of record, while disclosing the claimed invention recited in the independent claims 1 and 11, however do not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the carrier aggregation controller, a confidence score that reflects a level of underutilization of downlink resources and that reflects a level of overutilization of uplink resources; comparing, by the carrier aggregation controller, the confidence score to multiple confidence score ranges; based on comparing the confidence score to multiple confidence score ranges, determining, by the carrier aggregation controller, that the confidence score is within a confidence score range of the multiple confidence score ranges; and based on determining that the confidence score is within the confidence score range of the multiple confidence score ranges, determining, by the carrier aggregation controller, whether to include, in the message, computer-executable instructions that automatically adjust the current time division duplexing ratio to the time division duplexing ratio.
Claim 20 is allowed. Specifically claim 20 is directed to similar limitation and is thus addressed by the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0294827 - adaptation of the link conditioning cycle, all changes can be logged, statistics can be updated and metadata can be generated and/or assigned to logged changes to ensure all changes can be understood and analyzed by personnel of a service provider. Such reports can also be used by future applications which can be adapted to “learn” from historical data generated from many cycles of the process described above. Implementing a link conditioning process based on real-world conditions as described above provides an enhanced and optimized RF physical layer performance. Ongoing link conditioning also enables operators to rely less on designing cell sites to worst-case conditions or anticipated network coverage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights