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 .
Invite to Interview
The examiner has inherited this case and therefore would like to note on the record that if the attorney believes it would be beneficial to do a phone interview, the examiner would appreciate the attorney’s time to discuss the case and the previous prior art used as well as possible paths forward, thank you.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INOUE (WO 2021059842 A1), Blake (US 20220078645 A1) and in view of Buer et al. (US 20180324606 A1), hereinafter Buer, and further in view of Kottkamp et al. (US 20210136603 A1, published 5/6/2021; hereinafter Kot).
Regarding Claim 1, Inoue discloses A local 5G monitoring system that monitors a local 5G system (monitoring system of FIG. 2 includes a wireless LAN system 200 to 202, a base station 300 (supports local 5G), a core network 400, an Internet 500, a cloud server 600, and a database server 610. [page 3, lines 7-9]), comprising:
a plurality of measuring devices that measure radio waves from a base station of the local 5G system; (Inoue discloses monitoring system of FIG. 2 with a base station 300, and the base station 300 supports local 5G. The base station 300 sets a local 5G line between the measuring devices 110 to 140 [page 3, line 8-9, 15-18], indicates a plurality of measuring devices. Inoue discloses that the data measurement is performed by the measuring device 110 (as example). [page 5, line 24-32]. The measuring device 110 has a data extraction unit 103 [page 3, line 30-31]. The data extraction unit 103 extracts data, referred to as monitoring data that can include RSSI (RSSI stands for Received Signal Strength Indicator for the radio waves/signals), band occupancy rate, number of data transmission packets, number of retransmission packets, retransmission rate, throughput, etc. [page 6, lines 7-11])
and a server device that collects measurement data from the measuring device, (Inoue discloses the measuring devices 110 to 140 perform bidirectional communication with the cloud server 600. [page 3, line 14]. Inoue discloses the extracted data transmission unit 104 transmits the data extracted by the data extraction unit 103 (104/103 are within measuring devices 110) to the database server 610. Alternatively, when the cloud server 600 is configured to include the database server 610, the extraction data transmission unit 104 may transmit the data to the cloud server 600. [page 4, lines 23-27, Fig. 3, Fig. 4]. The data extracted by the data extraction unit 103 is referred to as monitoring data, like RSSI, which is measurement data. [page 6, lines 7-11])
Though Inoue discloses a plurality of measuring devices in the local 5G for monitoring and transmitting to a server ([pg. 3, ll. 8-9, 15-18; pg. 4, ll. 23-27, Fig. 3, Fig. 4], Inoue does not explicitly teach:
wherein the server device uses the measurement data from the measuring device when installation of the local 5G system is completed, as reference information,
and determines that an abnormal state occurs when the measurement data from a predetermined number of the plurality of measuring devices during an operation of the local 5G system exceeds a threshold from the reference information,
Blake, however, discloses:
wherein the server device uses the measurement data from the measuring device when installation of the local 5G system is completed, as reference information, (Blake teaches determining that there is an anomaly if the difference between the first measurement and the second measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold [¶0020]. The first measurement (reference) may represent normal performance of the communications network. For example, it may have been measured at a first time when it was known that there were no faults in the network. [¶0015], indicates a reference baseline information for determining anomaly later.)
and determines that an abnormal state occurs when the measurement data from a predetermined number of the plurality of measuring devices during an operation of the local 5G system exceeds a threshold from the reference information, (Blake FIG. 3 illustrates a method 300 in which a plurality of network performance characteristics, as measured by a plurality of UEs 100, are used to identify anomalies in a network ¶[0117]. The measurements provided by the UE are transmitted to a network monitoring system 140. The monitoring system 140 comprises a memory 141 for storing measurements from UEs 100 connected to the network 110 ¶[0104]. In Fig. 4, At step 404, it is determined that there is an anomaly in the communications network within the identified region. Step 404 may comprise comparing the measurement to previous measurements (reference) of the network performance characteristic associated with the same region ¶[0140]. Determining that there is an anomaly may comprise determining if the difference between the first measurement (reference) and the second measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold ¶[0020]. The method may comprise comparing each identified difference to a respective threshold, and determining that there is an anomaly in the communications network if a predetermined proportion of identified differences exceed their respective threshold ¶[0027]. It may then be determined that there is an anomaly in the network if a predetermined number, or predetermined proportion of UEs exhibit a change in the performance characteristic that is indicative of reduced network performance. ¶[0035])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Inoue with the ability to identify abnormal state as taught by Blake. Doing so allows identifying failures as quickly as possible, both to fix the problem and to inform users of the network of the situation and likely time until normal service is restored. (Blake ¶0003)
Though Blake discloses comparing second measurement (during operation) with an earlier measurement representing normal performance (reference) (¶¶0015,0020), and Blake discloses the measurements may be network performance characteristic for example be a data throughput rate, a packet latency ¶[0016], Inoue and Blake do not explicitly disclose the reference measurement collected during installation:
wherein the server device uses the measurement data from the measuring device when installation of the local 5G system is completed, as reference information,
wherein the measurement data is measured during the installation of the local 5G system and installation is complete when a designed throughput and designed communication delay are satisfied.
Buer, however, discloses:
wherein the server device uses the measurement data from the measuring device when installation of the local 5G system is completed, as reference information, (Buer discloses At step 415, the exemplary method 400 may include measuring signal quality information corresponding to an installation procedure ¶[0062]. At step 420, determining whether an installation procedure was successful based at least in part on the measured signal quality information ¶[0063], indicates the reference information from installation completion.)
wherein the measurement data is measured during the installation of the local 5G system and installation is complete when a designed throughput and designed communication delay are satisfied. (Buer Fig. 4, ¶0063 At step 420, the exemplary method 400 may include determining whether an installation procedure was successful based at least in part on the measured signal quality information and the determined signal quality threshold. For example, the success of the installation procedure may be determined based on a comparison between the measured signal quality information and the determined signal quality threshold)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Inoue and Blake to determine an optimal reference information based on measured signal quality when there has been a successful installation as taught by Buer. Doing so allows adjustments made for successful installation, if the installation is determined to be unsuccessful. (Buer ¶0003)
Inoue-Blake-Buer does not explicitly teach the server device uses installation measurement data from the plurality of measuring devices from an installation phase of the local 5G system, and wherein the installation measurement data is measured at a conclusion of the installation phase of the local 5G system.
However, Kot teaches the server device (Kot FIG. 2, processing unit 5) uses installation measurement data (Kot [0013] a processing unit obtains the spectrum and/or the physical measurement values of the spectrum and processes it to detect a spectral anomaly information in relation to [0030] it is desirable to identify/detect such interferences in the 5G private network as soon as possible, in order to take appropriate countermeasures. [0031] the result of the detection respectively the detected spectral anomaly can be presented/shown on an output unit, like a display or monitor in relation to [0038] the detection of the error-free communication is based on the recognition of always available signal components, such as the SSB blocks and [0042] power values over frequency per time unit may be used to detect a spectral anomaly) from the plurality of measuring devices from an installation phase of the local 5G system (Kot [0006] the installation and operation of a 5G private network, is, however, associated with regulatory requirements, as the compliance with maximum sender output power at property borders, the planning and technical characterization of base stations in advance and their antenna technology, and the capacity planning/calculation (spectrum) in relation to [0030] it is desirable to identify/detect interferences in the 5G private network as soon as possible, in order to take appropriate countermeasures), and wherein the installation measurement data is measured at a conclusion of the installation phase of the local 5G system (Kot [0011] an essential target for installing and operating a 5G private network in a limited area of a factory side of a company, is therefore to avoid interferences and in case they cannot be completely avoided, to identify them as soon as possible in order to take appropriate countermeasures in relation to [0031] a spectrum that is monitored and derived, in for example waterfall diagrams, is used by the spectral anomaly neural network).
Kot and Inoue-Blake-Buer are analogous art because they are both related to 5G.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the detection and monitoring techniques of Kot with the system of Inoue-Blake-Buer because it is desirable to identify/detect interferences in the 5G private network as soon as possible, in order to take appropriate countermeasures (Kot ¶ 0030).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Inoue, Blake, Buer and Kot disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue discloses the radio waves measurement of claim 1, Blake further discloses the state of IP as in the below limitation:
wherein the plurality of measuring devices measure a state of Internet Protocol (IP) data communication in a wireless network of the local 5G system in addition to the radio waves, as the measurement data. (Blake FIG. 3 illustrates a plurality of network performance characteristics, as measured by a plurality of UEs 100, are used to identify anomalies in a network ¶[0117]. Blake discloses measurements may, for example, be of the following types: The time it takes for round-trip communication from the UE 100 to a predetermined network or internet resource (not shown) via the network 110—a so-called latency measurement ¶[0098]. The rate at which user-type data can be transmitted/received between the network 110 and the UE 100 ¶¶[0099-0100]. [Examiner Note: Throughput, latency for the data indicates a state of IP data communication]. Blake discloses the measurements may be a data throughput, a packet latency, a signal strength (such as a mean signal strength, or received signal strength indication (RSSI)) ¶[0016], indicative of measurement including radio wave status also.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Inoue with the ability to identify abnormal state as taught by Blake. Doing so allows identifying failures as quickly as possible, both to fix the problem and to inform users of the network of the situation and likely time until normal service is restored. (Blake ¶0003)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Inoue, Blake, Buer and Kot discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue further discloses:
wherein when detecting that the abnormal state occurs, the server device notifies a user of the detection. (Inoue discloses with reference to FIG. 8, First, the defect determination unit 604 determines whether or not the defect information is generated (S301). Next, the defect notification unit 606 (in server 600) determines whether or not to notify the administrator (user) of the display data generated by the defect determination unit 604 based on the notification conditions set in the condition setting unit 601 (S303). For example, the notification condition stipulates that the notification process is executed when the time when the defect occurs, the period during which the defect continues, or the number of defects that occur within the predetermined period exceeds a predetermined threshold value. [page 7, lines 14-25])
For Claim(s) 4, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 5, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 6, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Inoue, Blake, Buer, and Kot disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Inoue further discloses:
wherein the plurality of measuring devices comprises mobile terminals that support 5G communication. (Inoue discloses the (plurality of) measuring devices 110 to 140 perform bidirectional communication with the cloud server 600 and the database server 610 via the base station 300, the core network 400, and the Internet 500. The base station 300 sets an LTE line, a 5G line, or a local 5G line between the measuring devices 110 to 140 or the wireless terminal, and performs data communication. (§Embodiment 2))
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Inoue, Blake, Buer, and Kot disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Blake further discloses:
wherein the server determines that an abnormal state occurs when the measurement data exceeds the threshold from the reference information and measurement data deteriorates compared to the threshold from the reference information (Blake discloses there is an anomaly in the communications network if a predetermined proportion of identified differences exceed their respective threshold ¶[0027]. In Fig. 4, At step 404, it is determined that there is an anomaly in the communications network comparing the measurement to previous measurements (reference with normal performance, ¶0015) of the network performance characteristic associated with the same region ¶[0140]. Blake also discloses a trend indicative of a reduction in network performance may be identified from the difference between the measurements, and the anomaly identified based on this trend ¶[0014], indicates detecting anomaly if network performance deteriorates.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Inoue and Buer with the ability to identify abnormal state as taught by Blake. Doing so allows identifying failures as quickly as possible, both to fix the problem and to inform users of the network of the situation and likely time until normal service is restored. (Blake ¶0003)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Inoue, Blake, Buer, and Kot disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Buer further discloses:
wherein the threshold from the reference information is based on the installation positions of the plurality of measuring devices. (Buer discloses the signal quality criteria for an installation may be based on an identified position ¶[0004]. A position may be identified for a terminal, and the identified position may subsequently be used for determining a signal quality threshold. For example, an identified position may be used to determine that the terminal is located near or at the edge of a service beam, which may be associated with a lower signal strength than near or at the center of the service beam. Thus, a lower signal quality threshold may be applied to the terminal at the edge of the service beam than a signal quality threshold for a terminal at the center of the service beam. ¶[0016]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Inoue and Blake to determine an optimal reference information based on measured signal quality when there has been a successful installation as taught by Buer. Doing so allows adjustments made for successful installation, if the installation is determined to be unsuccessful. (Buer ¶0003)
Regarding Claims 10-12, the claims are directed to method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 7-9. Therefore, claims 10-12 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 7-9.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20210168042 A1, METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATION AND ADAPTATION OF NETWORK BASELINES
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights