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 5/18/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1, 4-7, 9-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127233 to Liang in view of US 20140355566 to Walley in view of US 20180242220 to Venkatraman.
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a network score for a first geographic region based on a first key performance indicator (KPI) data of the first geographic region to second KPI data of a second geographic region (abstract, ¶ 39, 41, 44, 58, 67, 72-74 104, score for region based on KPIs and score of second region), wherein the first network score applies to the first geographic region and does not apply to the second geographic region, the second geographic region having a second network score (abstract, scored regions each with respective scoring; see also ¶ 39, 41, 44, 58, 67, 72-74 104); and wherein the first network score is based at least in part on a ranking of the first geographic region with respect to the second geographic region for a KPI (¶ 73, 76, 85-87, 95);
causing a user interface to be displayed on a second UE that depicts a ranking of the first geographic region with respect to the second geographic region based on the first network score and the second network score (fig. 15, ¶ 93-95, representation of regions including scored geo-blocks; ¶ 72-4 and fig. 9).
Liang fails to teach:
instructing a network equipment of a core network that provides communication services to a user equipment (UE) via an access network to adjust an operational parameter based at least in part on the first network score
However, Walley teaches:
instructing a network equipment of a core network that provides communication services to a user equipment (UE) via an access network to adjust an operational parameter based at least in part on a first network score (adjusting service network based on scoring- claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Walley. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Walley would have been advantageous in terms of optimizing access to communication networks (Walley, ¶ 17).
Liang fails to teach, but Venkatraman teaches generating a network score for a first geographic region based on a comparison of first key performance indicator (KPI) data of the first geographic region to second KPI data of a second geographic region (¶ 74, 63, 66, comparison of first and second regional KPI data and generation of score for first region based on comparison of KPI data of second region; score generation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating proactive and selective enabling of access points to ensure performance efficiency (Venkatraman, abstract, 12, ¶ 80).
Regarding claim 4, 14,
Liang teaches:
wherein the user interface includes a shape corresponding to the first geographic region, wherein selection of the shape causes the user interface to display at least a portion of the first KPI data (¶ 94, color coded blocks according to scoring/KPI).
Regarding claim 5, 15, 19,
Liang teaches:
wherein the user interface includes a shape corresponding to the first geographic region that depicts the first network score and an indication of a trend in the first network score (¶ 93-94, color code blocks representation of kpi./threshold/scoring trends).
Regarding claim 6, 16,
Liang teaches:
wherein the first KPI data comprises a first value of the first KPI for the first geographic region, and wherein the user interface further depicts a ranking of the first value in a table format (¶ 71, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, 17, 20,
Liang fails to teach: wherein the user interface comprises a vertical bar graph and a horizontal bar graph, wherein the vertical bar graph depicts an indication of the ranking of the first geographic region with respect to the second geographic region, and wherein the horizontal bar graph depicts an indication of a trend of the first network score over a period of time.
However, Liang discloses the regions, rankings, and logging the historical data over time (¶ 75, 101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include: “wherein the user interface comprises a vertical bar graph and a horizontal bar graph, wherein the vertical bar graph depicts an indication of the ranking of the first geographic region with respect to the second geographic region, and wherein the horizontal bar graph depicts an indication of a trend of the network score over a period of time” in order to visualize the historical trends and since bar graphs are well-known expedients in the art for visualizing data.
Regarding claim 9,
Liang fails to teach but Walley teaches:
wherein the network equipment comprises one of a component of a public switched telephone network, a component of an Internet protocol multimedia subsystem, or a call routing system (fig. 1, claims 1-3). Motivation to include Walley is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 10,
Liang teaches:
wherein the first KPI data comprises at least one of voice accessibility data, voice drop call rate data, session initiation protocol (SIP) drop call rate data, combined drop call rate data, UE downlink throughput data, UE uplink throughput data, leakage data, network interference data, signal strength data, voice traffic data, or data traffic data (¶ 39, 41, 44, 58, 67, 74 104).
Claim 11, 18 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 2-3, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, Walley, and Venkatraman in view of US 20130196685 to Griff.
Regarding claim 2, 12,
Liang fails to teach but Griff teaches:
applying the first network score as an input to a machine learning model, wherein execution of the machine learning model results in an identification of the network equipment and the adjustment to the operational parameter. (¶ 102, application of statistical modeling, see fig. 6C, based on score KPI is collected and stored from network devices, network equipment adjusted in order to effect more accurate scoring — see ¶ 99, 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Griff. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Griff would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating performance forecasts (Griff, ¶ 7, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, 13,
Liang fails to teach but Griff teaches:
wherein the machine learning model is trained based on training data that comprises at least one of information identifying a past network score of a third geographic region, a past KPI value of the third geographic region, an identification of a third network equipment that was reconfigured in the third geographic region, a second operational parameter that was adjusted, an indication of a change in a second network score of the third geographic region in response to adjustment of the second operational parameter, network score trend data, or KPI trend data (¶ 287-292, KPI trend data over time; regions). Motivation to include Griff is the same as presented above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, Walley, and Venkatraman in view of US 20160105325 to Fletcher.
Regarding claim 8,
Liang fails to teach but Fletcher teaches:
wherein the user interface comprises a horizontal graph that depicts an indication of a portion of the first KPI data that one of positively or negatively contributed to the first network score (abstract, ¶ 91, fig. 62B, 65, 72A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Fletcher. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Fletcher would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the analysis of performance information (Fletcher, abstract, ¶ 213).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights