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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026, with respect to independent claim 13, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 2/2/2026, page 4, lines 3+):
“With respect to the alleged disclosure of a user equipment operating in a low telecom service area, Ganesh does not describe or identify any "low telecom service area," either explicitly or implicitly.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ganesh discloses (claim 7): “… defining a traffic map for the cellular network; and identifying geographical areas in the cellular network with low or minimal traffic according to the defined traffic map.”
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 2/2/2026, page 4, 2nd full paragraph):
“Ganesh does not disclose that such processing is performed by a user equipment operating in the manner recited in Claim 13. The computations described in Ganesh, including interference analysis and PN offset optimization, are performed by a network planning or optimization system, not by a user equipment operating in the field..”;
and similar argument in 3rd full paragraph.
Response: Examiner agrees with Applicant’s statement that the above is performed by the network and not by the UE.
However, claim 13, 1st limitation recites “… cause the UE to: transmit data pertaining to a set of one or more telecom sites operating in a predefined area to a system”. Examiner stated in CTNF (10/31/2025, page 4, 1st paragraph) that Ganesh discloses the above in column 5, lines 29 – 32, which is repeated here for convenience:
“Interference analysis module 2100 gathers information from the CDMA network, computes the interference possible between every base station and every mobile unit in the network, and identifies all sets of constraints for each sector.”
Interference analysis module is part of the network, as both Applicant and Examiner agree. “Gathers information from the CDMA network” inherently means that the UEs are transmitting information to the Interference analysis module, which then processes the information. This meets the requirements of the 1st limitation of claim 1: “UE to transmit data …”
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 2/2/2026, page 5, lines 2+):
“The cited passages describe the use of calculated C/I values within the PN offset planning process to optimize network configuration. Ganesh does not disclose a user equipment receiving a response from a system and executing instructions in response thereto, as required by Claim 13.”
Response: Though the cited paragraphs may not explicitly state “a user equipment receiving a response from a system …”, Ganesh discloses communication between the base station and mobile units (e.g. column 1, lines 14 – 29). Since the PN offsets calculated by the network using the C/I data are ultimately used by the mobile units, it is inherent that the PN offsets are communicated to the mobile units. This would correspond to “a user equipment receiving a response from a system and executing instructions in response thereto” in claim 13.
The above responses are repeated in claim 13 rejection for completeness.
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)(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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganesh et al. (US 6058136 A)
Regarding claim 13, Ganesh discloses a User Equipment (UE) (column 11, lines 18 – 25) discloses user, operating in a low telecom service area (Fig. 3; column 5, lines 43+; claim 7 discloses “… defining a traffic map for the cellular network; and identifying geographical areas in the cellular network with low or minimal traffic according to the defined traffic map.”), the UE comprising:
one or more processors coupled with a memory, wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more processors (column 5, lines 17 – 23 discloses computer; memory is inherent) causes the UE to:
transmit data pertaining to a set of one or more telecom sites operating in a predefined area to a system (column 5, lines 29 – 32 disclose “Interference analysis module 2100 gathers information from the CDMA network, computes the interference possible between every base station and every mobile unit in the network, and identifies all sets of constraints for each sector.”; . “Gathers information from the CDMA network” inherently means that the UEs are transmitting information to the Interference analysis module, which then processes the information; ; Fig. 2, block 2100; wherein transmitting is done in the data gathering process);
and execute one or more instructions pertaining to a response received from the system corresponding to the one or more telecom sites (column 6, lines 7 – 17; wherein the execution is of the C/I; communication between the base station and mobile units is disclosed in e.g. column 1, lines 14 – 29; Since the PN offsets calculated by the network using the C/I data are ultimately used by the mobile units, it is inherent that the PN offsets are communicated to the mobile units).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (2/2/2026, page 5 bottom onwards) with respect to independent claims 1, 14, 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 26 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 12, 14 - 26 allowed.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to identifying utilization of networks:
Kumar et al. (US 20230370867 A1) discloses systems and methods for optimizing supply demand in a telecommunication network.
Fries (US 10013281 B2) discloses Controlling Network Utilization.
Anderson et al. (US 9608917 B1) discloses Systems And Methods For Achieving High Network Link Utilization.
Krishamurthy (US 20090193122 A1) discloses methods and systems for migrating network resources to improve network utilization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights