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
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 1/5/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Rappoport in view of Froehlich does not teach “determine a color of a pixel, and determine, based on the color, a KPI value for at least one KPI from a lookup table” (Page 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Froehlich teaches “A data processing system (e.g., video session analyzer 110) may generate user interface 400 to include heat map 402 and a map legend 404”. (Page 11 [0084]) The generated heatmap, Fig. 4 [402], consists of subcells (i.e. analogous to pixels) of various colors. (Page 11 [0084]) The system has determined, based on the color, a KPI value for at least one KPI from a lookup table by displaying the corresponding map legend together with the sub-cells because that is the information presented on the display. (Fig. 4 [404] and Page 11 [0084])
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the “claim does not recite an ability for a human to read a color-coded map to identify KPI values” (Page 15), the Examiner agrees.
The Examiner would note that claim 8 has no specific structure that is being claimed to perform the method steps.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport et al. (US-2006/0015814 hereinafter, Rappaport) in view of Froehlich et al. (US-2022/0159347 hereinafter, Froehlich).
Regarding claim 1, Rappaport teaches a system for implementing geolocation-based key performance indicator (KIP) visualization in a polygon-defined geolocation area of a telecommunications network (Page 2 [0017-0018]), the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; (Page 4 [0036]) and
at least one processor (Page 4 [0036]) configured to execute the instructions to:
based on the polygon-defined geolocation area, receive data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area; (Page 2 [0017] and Page 4 [0037] “The vector database specifies the boundaries of the vector space used, often giving a transformation matrix to convert points in the database vector space with a physical units system such as inches or meters.”)
based on the received data, generate pixel coordinates of a polygon circumscribing the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area from a pixel map; (Fig. 5 [38], Page 4 [0037-0038], Page 5 [0051-0052] and Page 10 [0077])
determine, for each generated pixel coordinate of the polygon, one or more pixel tiles that intersect with the generated pixel coordinate of the polygon from the pixel map, wherein a pixel tile represents an array of pixels form the pixel map; (Fig. 6B, Page 2 [0017], Page 4 [0037-0038] and Page 5 [0052])
determine, for each pixel tile among the pixel tiles that intersect with the generated pixel coordinate of the polygon, one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon (Page 2 [0017]) and for each pixel among the one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon, and
output, for each pixel among the one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon, the at least one KPI value for each of the at least one KPI. (Page 10 [0077])
Rappaport teaches the ability to determine a color of the pixel (Page 2 [0017]) and can relate a color to a KPI value for at least one KPI from a lookup table (Page 4 [0038-0040] and Page 10 [0077]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting determine, based on the color, a KPI value for at least one KPI from a lookup table, wherein the at least one KPI is either one of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Signal to Interference Noise Ratio (SINR).
In an analogous art, Froehlich teaches a system and method for improving network performance (Abstract) that includes a heatmap with pixel tiles (Fig. 4 [402]) that includes a data processing system that can generate a heat map (Fig. 4 [402] and Page 11 [0084] i.e. determine a color of a pixel) and determine, based on the color, a a KPI value for at least one KPI from a lookup table (Fig. 4 [404] and Page 11 [0084-0085] “may generate user interface 400 to include heat map 402 and a map legend 404, which may illustrate a code of colors for a KPI that correspond to the colors of subcells of heat map 402” and “Map legend 404 may include colors that each correspond to a different number or range of RRC connection requests”),
wherein the at least one KPI is either one of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Signal to Interference Noise Ratio (SINR). (Page 7 [0054] RSRP & SINR)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Rappaport after modifying it to incorporate the ability to determine based on the color, a KPI value for at least one KPI from a lookup table with the KPI representing RSRP or SINR of Froehlich since it enables a user to visually inspect the map and recognize what colors represent what KPI values. (Froehlich Page 11 [0084])
Regarding claim 3, Rappaport in view of Froehlich teaches wherein while receiving the data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a data file comprising geolocation data of the at least one polygon-defined geolocation area defining the boundaries of the at least one polygon-defined geolocation area; (Rappaport Page 4 [0034], Page 5 [0043] and Pages 5-6 [0051-0052])
for each polygon-defined geolocation area, based on the received data, generate pixel coordinates of a polygon circumscribing the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area from the pixel map. (Rappaport Page 4 [0034 & 0037], Page 5 [0043] and Pages 5-6 [0051-0052])
Regarding claim 4, Rappaport in view of Froehlich teaches wherein while receiving the data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area from a graphical user interface (GUI); (Rappaport Page 2 [016-0017])
based on the received data, generate pixel coordinates of a polygon circumscribing the boundaries of the GUI-defined geolocation area from a pixel map. (Rappaport Page 2 [0016-0017], Pages 5-6 [0050-0052], Page 7 [0063] and Page 10 [0077])
Regarding claim 5, Rappaport in view of Froehlich wherein while receiving the data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation by a viewport area; (Rappaport Page 2 [0016-0017] and Pages 5-6 [0050-0052])
generate pixel coordinates of a polygon circumscribing the boundaries of the viewport area from the pixel map. (Rappaport Page 2 [0016-0017], Pages 5-6 [0050-0052], Page 7 [0063] and Page 10 [0077])
Regarding claim 6, Rappaport in view of Froehlich teaches wherein while outputting the at least one KPI value for each of the at least one KPI, the at east one processor is further configured to execute instructions to:
for each polygon, receive, via a graphical user interface, at least one polygon identification data; (Rappaport Page 10 [0077])
based on the received at least one polygon identification data, store polygon data in a geography service database (Rappaport Page 7 [0062-0063] & Page 8 [0067]), wherein the polygon data comprises polygon coordinates of the polygon-defined geolocation area. (Page 4 [0034 & 0037-0038])
Regarding claim 7, Rappaport in view of Froehlich teaches wherein while receiving data defining the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to:
receive, via a graphical user interface, the at least one polygon identification data for a polygon stored in the geography service database; (Rappaport Page 4 [0034], Pages 5-6 [0049-0051])
request the polygon data from the geography service database; (Rappaport Page 4 [0034] and Page 8 [0067])
generate the pixel coordinates from the polygon coordinates of the geography service database. (Rappaport Page 4 [0034 & 0037-0038] and Page 8 [0067])
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-14, the limitations of claims 10-14 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 3-7.
Regarding claims 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 17-20, the limitations of claims 17-20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 3-7.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport in view of Froehlich as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Ghinamo et al. (US-2017/0219681 hereinafter, Ghinamo).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Rappaport in view of Froehlich teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output the at least one KPI value by:
for each of the at least one KPI, generating coverage information of the polygon-defined geolocation area (Page 2 [0015], Page 4 [0037-0038] and Pages 5-6 [0049-0051]), wherein while generating, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine the total number of pixels among the one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon; (Page 2 [0017] and Pages 5-6 [0051-0052])
sum, for each pixel among the one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon, the KPI value for the KPI of each pixel, (Page 2 [0017], Page 4 [0038] and Page 8 [0070]) and
outputting, for each of the at least one KPI, the coverage information of the polygon-defined geolocation area. (Page 2 [0015 & 0017], Page 4 [0037-0038])
Rappaport in view of Froehlich differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting divide the sum of the KPI values of all pixels among the one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon by the total number of pixels and the coverage information represents an area average of the one KPI within the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area.
In an analogous art, Ghinamo teaches a positioning method and system for wireless communication networks for producing visual representations of signal strengths (Abstract) that includes divide the sum of the KPI values of all pixels among the one or more pixels that intersect with the polygon by the total number of pixels (Page 5 [0064] and alternatively, Page 6 [0082]) and the coverage information represents an area average of the one KPI within the boundaries of the polygon-defined geolocation area. (Page 5 [0064-0065 & 0069])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Rappaport in view of Froehlich after modifying it to incorporate the ability to divide the sum of KPI values and representing the area average visually of Ghinamo since it enables providing the user with the average service measurements for an area.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646