Patent Application 18171808 - Intelligent Near-RT-RIC Based RF Management

Title: Intelligent Near-RT-RIC Based RF Management

Application Information

Invention Title: Intelligent Near-RT-RIC Based RF Management
Application Number: 18171808
Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-21T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-02-21T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 370
National Sub-Class: 329000
Examiner Employee Number: 100186
Art Unit: 2468
Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 .

Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on 04/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.

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 pre-AIA 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.

Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kotaru et al. (US 2022/0408377), hereinafter "Kotaru".

Regarding claim 1, Kotaru teaches:
A method of providing near real time radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (near-RT RIC)-based radio frequency (RF) management for a network (see Kotaru, Fig. 4, par. [0056], lines 1-3: The centralized controller may include a radio access network (RAN) controller, for example, a radio access network intelligent controller (RIC). Also see Kotaru, par. [0021], lines 1-6: A centralized controller 199 can transmit instructions to adjust transmission power supplied to the first RU 102 and second RU 106 to better accommodate the UEs 1-12, for example, by one or more of balancing the load and reducing the overlapping coverage area between the first RU 102 and the second RU 106), the method comprising:
receiving a real time user equipment (UE)-reported event pattern fluctuation (see Kotaru, par. [0049], lines 1-5: The channel state feedback 350, 352, 354, and 356 may be provided to one or more of a RIC, DU, CU, and cloud server and may be used to control transmission power of RUs 302, 306. Channel state feedback may include data from UEs 330, 331, 332 and the RUs 302, 306 that indicate interference, and see Kotaru, par. [0023], lines 1-6: In at least one implementation, to determine the signal quality (e.g., interference and/or signal strength) experienced by UEs 1-12, channel state feedback may be monitored and/or generated at a centralized or distributed controller for each connection between a UE 1-12 and an RU 1-2, 106; in this case, the channel state feedback corresponds to a real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation);
determining, from the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation, one or more of a coverage inconsistency and a poor coverage area (see Kotaru, par. [0025], lines 1-6: A centralized controller 199 can determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a signal strength, a signal interference, and a coverage (e.g., assuring that all UEs have coverage in a particular radiofrequency range, and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-21: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage. The satisfaction of a channel state condition may be determined using channel state feedback from multiple UEs including the at least one UE and multiple RUs including the first RU, perhaps aggregated in an interference graph. For example, channel state feedback can include feedback from connections between UEs and RUs to determine whether a condition is satisfied. The condition may be based at least in part on an overall impression of coverage and connectivity in partially overlapping coverage areas to determine whether transmission power adjustments to one or more of RUs may provide better service to one or more of the UEs. The channel state condition may also include measures to prevent changing transmission power to RUs which may cause one or more UEs to have limited or no coverage from the RUs); and
taking dynamic corrective action to self-heal the one or more of the coverage inconsistency and the poor coverage area (see Kotaru, par. [0030], lines 8-11: the centralized controller 199 may transmit instructions to adjust transmission power supplied to the first RU 102 solely because it would improve performance of connections with the second RU 106, and see Kotaru, par. [0057], lines 1-7: Transmitting operation 408 transmits an instruction to adjust a transmission power in the transmitted frequency range of the at least one RU based at least in part on the satisfaction of the channel state condition. The centralized controller may be responsible for transmitting the transmission adjustment instruction and may do so responsively to the channel state feedback, and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-21: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage. The satisfaction of a channel state condition may be determined using channel state feedback from multiple UEs including the at least one UE and multiple RUs including the first RU, perhaps aggregated in an interference graph. For example, channel state feedback can include feedback from connections between UEs and RUs to determine whether a condition is satisfied. The condition may be based at least in part on an overall impression of coverage and connectivity in partially overlapping coverage areas to determine whether transmission power adjustments to one or more of RUs may provide better service to one or more of the UEs. The channel state condition may also include measures to prevent changing transmission power to RUs which may cause one or more UEs to have limited or no coverage from the RUs).

Regarding claim 2, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1. Kotaru further teaches:
…wherein determining, from the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation, one or more of the coverage inconsistency and the poor coverage area occurs at the near-RT RIC (see Kotaru, par. [0052], lines 3-5: In order to determine the interference and/or signal strength experienced by the at least one UE, channel state feedback may be generated at a centralized or distributed controller for each connection between UEs and Rus, and see Kotaru, par. [0056], lines 1-3: The centralized controller may include a radio access network (RAN) controller, for example, a radio access network intelligent controller (RIC) , and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-7: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage).

Regarding claim 10, Kotaru teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for providing near real time radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (near-RT RIC)-based radio frequency (RF) management for a network which, when executed, cause a system to perform steps (see Kotaru, Fig. 5, par. [0061]: The computing device 500 includes one or more processor(s) 502 and a memory 504. The memory 504 generally includes both volatile memory (e.g., RAM) and nonvolatile memory (e.g., flash memory). An operating system 510 resides in the memory 504 and is executed by the processor(s) 502. One or more of DUs, CUs, UEs, user devices, RUs, and cloud servers may be implementations of the computing device 500, and see Kotaru, par. [0062]: virtual software functions, and standard RAN tiered data center modules are loaded into the operating system 510 on the memory 504 and/or storage 520 and executed by processor(s) 502, and see Kotaru, Fig. 4, par. [0056], lines 1-3: The centralized controller may include a radio access network (RAN) controller, for example, a radio access network intelligent controller (RIC). Also see Kotaru, par. [0021], lines 1-6: A centralized controller 199 can transmit instructions to adjust transmission power supplied to the first RU 102 and second RU 106 to better accommodate the UEs 1-12, for example, by one or more of balancing the load and reducing the overlapping coverage area between the first RU 102 and the second RU 106), comprising:
receiving a real time user equipment (UE)-reported event pattern fluctuation (see Kotaru, par. [0049], lines 1-5: The channel state feedback 350, 352, 354, and 356 may be provided to one or more of a RIC, DU, CU, and cloud server and may be used to control transmission power of RUs 302, 306. Channel state feedback may include data from UEs 330, 331, 332 and the RUs 302, 306 that indicate interference, and see Kotaru, par. [0023], lines 1-6: In at least one implementation, to determine the signal quality (e.g., interference and/or signal strength) experienced by UEs 1-12, channel state feedback may be monitored and/or generated at a centralized or distributed controller for each connection between a UE 1-12 and an RU 1-2, 106; in this case, the channel state feedback corresponds to a real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation);
determining, from the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation, one or more of a coverage inconsistency and a poor coverage area (see Kotaru, par. [0025], lines 1-6: A centralized controller 199 can determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a signal strength, a signal interference, and a coverage (e.g., assuring that all UEs have coverage in a particular radiofrequency range, and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-21: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage. The satisfaction of a channel state condition may be determined using channel state feedback from multiple UEs including the at least one UE and multiple RUs including the first RU, perhaps aggregated in an interference graph. For example, channel state feedback can include feedback from connections between UEs and RUs to determine whether a condition is satisfied. The condition may be based at least in part on an overall impression of coverage and connectivity in partially overlapping coverage areas to determine whether transmission power adjustments to one or more of RUs may provide better service to one or more of the UEs. The channel state condition may also include measures to prevent changing transmission power to RUs which may cause one or more UEs to have limited or no coverage from the RUs); and
taking dynamic corrective action to self-heal the one or more of the coverage inconsistency and the poor coverage area (see Kotaru, par. [0030], lines 8-11: the centralized controller 199 may transmit instructions to adjust transmission power supplied to the first RU 102 solely because it would improve performance of connections with the second RU 106, and see Kotaru, par. [0057], lines 1-7: Transmitting operation 408 transmits an instruction to adjust a transmission power in the transmitted frequency range of the at least one RU based at least in part on the satisfaction of the channel state condition. The centralized controller may be responsible for transmitting the transmission adjustment instruction and may do so responsively to the channel state feedback, and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-21: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage. The satisfaction of a channel state condition may be determined using channel state feedback from multiple UEs including the at least one UE and multiple RUs including the first RU, perhaps aggregated in an interference graph. For example, channel state feedback can include feedback from connections between UEs and RUs to determine whether a condition is satisfied. The condition may be based at least in part on an overall impression of coverage and connectivity in partially overlapping coverage areas to determine whether transmission power adjustments to one or more of RUs may provide better service to one or more of the UEs. The channel state condition may also include measures to prevent changing transmission power to RUs which may cause one or more UEs to have limited or no coverage from the RUs).

Claim 11 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 11.

Regarding claim 19, Kotaru teaches:
A network component for radio frequency (RF) management for a network (see Kotaru, Fig. 5, par. [0061]: FIG. 5 illustrates an example computing device 500 for implementing the features and operations of the described technology), comprising:
a memory (see Kotaru, Fig. 5, par. [0061]: The computing device 500 includes one or more processor(s) 502 and a memory 504); and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured (see Kotaru, Fig. 5, par. [0061]: The computing device 500 includes one or more processor(s) 502 and a memory 504. The memory 504 generally includes both volatile memory (e.g., RAM) and nonvolatile memory (e.g., flash memory). An operating system 510 resides in the memory 504 and is executed by the processor(s) 502. One or more of DUs, CUs, UEs, user devices, RUs, and cloud servers may be implementations of the computing device 500, and see Kotaru, par. [0062]: virtual software functions, and standard RAN tiered data center modules are loaded into the operating system 510 on the memory 504 and/or storage 520 and executed by processor(s) 502, and see Kotaru, Fig. 4, par. [0056], lines 1-3: The centralized controller may include a radio access network (RAN) controller, for example, a radio access network intelligent controller (RIC). Also see Kotaru, par. [0021], lines 1-6: A centralized controller 199 can transmit instructions to adjust transmission power supplied to the first RU 102 and second RU 106 to better accommodate the UEs 1-12, for example, by one or more of balancing the load and reducing the overlapping coverage area between the first RU 102 and the second RU 106) to:
determine a real time equipment (UE)-reported event pattern fluctuation; and
provide the real time user equipment UE-reported event pattern fluctuation to another network component (see Kotaru, par. [0049], lines 1-5: The channel state feedback 350, 352, 354, and 356 may be provided to one or more of a RIC, DU, CU, and cloud server and may be used to control transmission power of RUs 302, 306. Channel state feedback may include data from UEs 330, 331, 332 and the RUs 302, 306 that indicate interference, and see Kotaru, par. [0023], lines 1-6: In at least one implementation, to determine the signal quality (e.g., interference and/or signal strength) experienced by UEs 1-12, channel state feedback may be monitored and/or generated at a centralized or distributed controller for each connection between a UE 1-12 and an RU 1-2, 106; in this case, the channel state feedback corresponds to a real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation, and see Kotaru, par. [0061]: An operating system 510 resides in the memory 504 and is executed by the processor(s) 502. One or more of DUs, CUs, UEs, user devices, RUs, and cloud servers may be implementations of the computing device 500, and see Kotaru, par. [0048]: The UE 302 may provide channel state feedback 356 to RU 302 to be transmitted to the centralized control system for the network or the local nodes thereof; in this case, a UE may generate and provide channel state feedback (corresponding to reported event pattern fluctuation));
wherein the other network component:
determines, from the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation, one or more of a coverage inconsistency and a poor coverage area (see Kotaru, par. [0025], lines 1-6: A centralized controller 199 can determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a signal strength, a signal interference, and a coverage (e.g., assuring that all UEs have coverage in a particular radiofrequency range, and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-21: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage. The satisfaction of a channel state condition may be determined using channel state feedback from multiple UEs including the at least one UE and multiple RUs including the first RU, perhaps aggregated in an interference graph. For example, channel state feedback can include feedback from connections between UEs and RUs to determine whether a condition is satisfied. The condition may be based at least in part on an overall impression of coverage and connectivity in partially overlapping coverage areas to determine whether transmission power adjustments to one or more of RUs may provide better service to one or more of the UEs. The channel state condition may also include measures to prevent changing transmission power to RUs which may cause one or more UEs to have limited or no coverage from the RUs); and
takes dynamic corrective action to self-heal the one or more of the coverage inconsistency and the poor coverage area (see Kotaru, par. [0030], lines 8-11: the centralized controller 199 may transmit instructions to adjust transmission power supplied to the first RU 102 solely because it would improve performance of connections with the second RU 106, and see Kotaru, par. [0057], lines 1-7: Transmitting operation 408 transmits an instruction to adjust a transmission power in the transmitted frequency range of the at least one RU based at least in part on the satisfaction of the channel state condition. The centralized controller may be responsible for transmitting the transmission adjustment instruction and may do so responsively to the channel state feedback, and see Kotaru, par. [0054], lines 1-21: Determining operation 406 determines that the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. Determining operation 406 may use a centralized controller to determine whether the channel state feedback satisfies a channel state condition. The channel state condition may reflect one or more of a UE signal strength, UE signal interference, and UE signal coverage. The satisfaction of a channel state condition may be determined using channel state feedback from multiple UEs including the at least one UE and multiple RUs including the first RU, perhaps aggregated in an interference graph. For example, channel state feedback can include feedback from connections between UEs and RUs to determine whether a condition is satisfied. The condition may be based at least in part on an overall impression of coverage and connectivity in partially overlapping coverage areas to determine whether transmission power adjustments to one or more of RUs may provide better service to one or more of the UEs. The channel state condition may also include measures to prevent changing transmission power to RUs which may cause one or more UEs to have limited or no coverage from the RUs).

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.

Claims 3-7, 9, 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaru in view of Zheng (US 2020/0374723), hereinafter “Zheng”.

Regarding claim 3, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes an A1 event.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes an A1 event (see Zheng, par. [0091], lines 2-6: In an LTE communications system, a terminal device 02 may report a plurality of types of measurement events to a network device 01 (that is, a network device, to which a serving cell on which the terminal device camps, belongs), for example, events A1 to A5, and see Zheng, par. [0092], lines 1-2: The A1 event indicates that signal quality of the serving cell is higher than a preset threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for near-RT RIC-based RF management for a network of Kotaru with the A1 event of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced power consumption (see Zheng, par. [0059], lines 1-10).

Regarding claim 4, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes an A2 event.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes an A2 event (see Zheng, par. [0091], lines 2-6: In an LTE communications system, a terminal device 02 may report a plurality of types of measurement events to a network device 01 (that is, a network device, to which a serving cell on which the terminal device camps, belongs), for example, events A1 to A5, and see Zheng, par. [0094], lines 1-2: The A2 event indicates that the signal quality of the serving cell is lower than the preset threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for near-RT RIC-based RF management for a network of Kotaru with the A2 event of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced power consumption (see Zheng, par. [0059], lines 1-10).

Regarding claim 5, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes a fluctuation between an A1 event and an A2 event.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes a fluctuation between an A1 event and an A2 event (see Zheng, par. [0130], lines 1-13: when signal quality of the serving cell is lower than a preset threshold, the terminal device may report an A2 event to a network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to measure the at least one inter-frequency cell. In a measurement process, when a report condition of any one of the foregoing events A3 to A5 and B1 to B2 is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, to trigger cell switching. Alternatively, when a report condition of the A1 event is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to stop measuring the at least one inter-frequency cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for near-RT RIC-based RF management for a network of Kotaru with fluctuation between an A1 event and an A2 event of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced power consumption (see Zheng, par. [0059], lines 1-10).

Regarding claim 6, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes an A5 event.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes an A5 event (see Zheng, par. [0091], lines 2-6: In an LTE communications system, a terminal device 02 may report a plurality of types of measurement events to a network device 01 (that is, a network device, to which a serving cell on which the terminal device camps, belongs), for example, events A1 to A5, and see Zheng, par. [0098], lines 1-4: The A5 event indicates that the signal quality of the serving cell is lower than the preset threshold, and signal quality of an intra-system neighboring cell is higher than the preset threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for near-RT RIC-based RF management for a network of Kotaru with the A5 event of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced power consumption (see Zheng, par. [0059], lines 1-10).

Regarding claim 7, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes A1, A2 event pattern fluctuations.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes A1, A2 event pattern fluctuations (see Zheng, par. [0130], lines 1-13: when signal quality of the serving cell is lower than a preset threshold, the terminal device may report an A2 event to a network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to measure the at least one inter-frequency cell. In a measurement process, when a report condition of any one of the foregoing events A3 to A5 and B1 to B2 is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, to trigger cell switching. Alternatively, when a report condition of the A1 event is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to stop measuring the at least one inter-frequency cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for near-RT RIC-based RF management for a network of Kotaru with fluctuation between an A1 event and an A2 event of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced power consumption (see Zheng, par. [0059], lines 1-10).

Regarding claim 9, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes repeating of a same event pattern fluctuation.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes repeating of a same event pattern fluctuation (see Zheng, par. [0130], lines 1-13: when signal quality of the serving cell is lower than a preset threshold, the terminal device may report an A2 event to a network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to measure the at least one inter-frequency cell. In a measurement process, when a report condition of any one of the foregoing events A3 to A5 and B1 to B2 is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, to trigger cell switching. Alternatively, when a report condition of the A1 event is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to stop measuring the at least one inter-frequency cell, and see Zheng, par. [0094], lines 1-7: The A2 event indicates that the signal quality of the serving cell is lower than the preset threshold. When the terminal device 02 reports this event to the network device 01, the network device 01 may instruct the terminal device 02 to measure an inter-frequency cell. That is, the A2 event is an event used to trigger the terminal device 02 to measure an inter-frequency cell; in this case, A1 and A2 events can be triggered based on the signal quality to stop or start measurement respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for near-RT RIC-based RF management for a network of Kotaru with fluctuation between an A1 event and an A2 event of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reduced power consumption (see Zheng, par. [0059], lines 1-10).

Claims 12-16 and 18 list all the same elements of claims 3-7 and 9, respectively, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 3-7 and 9 applies equally as well to claims 12-16 and 18, respectively.

Claim 20 lists all the same elements of claim 9, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 20.

Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotaru in view of Zheng, as applied to claims 3-7, 9, 12-16, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Kim et al.(US 2021/0022032), hereinafter “Kim”.

Regarding claim 8, Kotaru teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Kotaru does not teach:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes A1, A2 event pattern fluctuations and no A3 or A4 events detected.
Zheng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…wherein the real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation includes A1, A2 event pattern fluctuations (see Zheng, par. [0130], lines 1-13: when signal quality of the serving cell is lower than a preset threshold, the terminal device may report an A2 event to a network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to measure the at least one inter-frequency cell. In a measurement process, when a report condition of any one of the foregoing events A3 to A5 and B1 to B2 is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, to trigger cell switching. Alternatively, when a report condition of the A1 event is met, the terminal device may report the event to the network device, so that the network device triggers the terminal device to stop measuring the at least one inter-frequency cell)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the near-RT RIC of Kotaru with the A1 and A2 event pattern fluctuations of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved efficiency of data transmission between a terminal device and a serving cell (see Zheng, par. [0009], lines 6-10).
However, the combination of Kotaru in view of Zheng does not teach:
…and no A3 or A4 events detected.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
…and no A3 or A4 events detected (see Kim, par. [0178], lines 17-22: The uplink data split threshold value may be received from a first node (for example, the first node 410 of FIG. 4A) or a second node (for example, the second node 420 of FIG. 4A) connected to the electronic device 101. The uplink data split threshold value may be implemented as [Table 1] below).
In Table 1 of Kim, only events A1 and A2 are considered. There are no A3 nor A4 events to be detected. There are no neighbor or adjacent cells from which to detect events A3 or A4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reception of A1 and A2 event pattern fluctuations at the near-RT RIC of Kotaru in view of Zheng with the absence of A3 and A4 of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing power consumption (see Kim, par. [0019], lines 1-7).

Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 8, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 17.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Kotaru does not appear to disclose or suggest “a real time user equipment (UE)-reported event pattern fluctuation” as recited in the pending claims”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to par. [0023] which teaches “In at least one implementation, to determine the signal quality (e.g., interference and/or signal strength) experienced by UEs 1-12, channel state feedback may be monitored and/or generated at a centralized or distributed controller for each connection between a UE 1-12 and an RU 1-2, 106” and par. [0049] which teaches “The channel state feedback 350, 352, 354, and 356 may be provided to one or more of a RIC, DU, CU, and cloud server and may be used to control transmission power of RUs 302, 306. Channel state feedback may include data from UEs 330, 331, 332 and the RUs 302, 306 that indicate interference”.
These sections teach that UEs provide data for channel state feedback which indicates signal quality of connections. The channel state feedback may be monitored to determine the signal quality. This corresponds to a real time UE-reported event pattern fluctuation.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (US 2025/0031110) teaches a UE comparing an external and internal list of ping pong handovers or redirections.
R. Menon ("SON for Government Spectrum Applications") teaches an overview of Self Organizing Network technology and its main use cases.

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CALEB J BALLOWE whose telephone number is (571)270-0410. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5.
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, Ninos J Donabed can be reached at 571-272-8757. 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.

/C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/SYED ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468