DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 8/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been further amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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, 6, 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill et al. (US20120321052A1; “Morrill”) in view of Verzun et al. (US20160219024A1; “Verzun”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15,
Morrill discloses a system (Fig. 3, 13, 29) comprising a processor (Fig. 13, processor 1302; paragraph 114-116) and a memory/non-transitory processor readable medium (Fig. 13, 1306/1308; paragraph 139) coupled to the processor containing a set of instructions (Fig. 13, 1304) thereon that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform a method retrieving, by a communications assurance analysis system, performance points (Fig. 3, paragraph 13, 109) from a performance points database (Fig. 29, PDM performance data manager 2714 and connected to DBS database; paragraph 123) of a plurality of stages (i.e. segments) of a single radio call (paragraph 323-325; evaluating and routing each wireless call based on capacity, congestion, etc.), determining a level of degradation for each stage of the plurality of stages of the single radio call based on the performance points (paragraphs 150, 158, 225-229, 269-293; call quality degradation thresholds), and displaying a visualization of each stage of the single radio call, the visualization in order of a communication path between an initiator of the single radio call and at least one recipient of the single radio call, wherein the visualization for each stage of the plurality of stages is based on the level of degradation for the stage (Fig. 29; paragraph 265; GUI displays the packet network of a call between UE A 2916 and UE B 2918 through various node segments including those that are congested/visually represented by a dashed line, at/over capacity/visually represented by a thick line, etc. according to the call quality measurements) and is broken down into transmitter, repeater, and receiver sections (Fig. 29; paragraph 265, 351; GUI displays customer equipment A, B and all segments in between for repeating/forwarding/relaying the call between customer equipment A and B).
Morrill discloses a land mobile radio network (Fig. 3; paragraph 3, 11) but does not expressly disclose the call being a Push-to-Talk call in Project 25 or Terrestrial Trunked Radio standards.
Verzun discloses analogous art (Title: Secure Dynamic Communicaiton Network and Protocol) including a Push-to-Talk test call (paragraph 34-40, 164, 296) in Project 25 or Terrestrial Trunked Radio standards (paragraph 42, 47, 89 discusses TETRA standard. See further cited prior art for similar Project 25 disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Morrill for a Push-to-Talk call in Project 25 or Terrestrial Trunked Radio standards, as shown by Verzun, thereby enabling emulation of concurrent one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many communication modes and the required QoS required for emergency services applications.
Regarding claims 6 and 13,
Morrill discloses the plurality of stages of a single radio call comprises at least one of a radio frequency transmission, an inbound radio frequency reception, and an outbound radio frequency transmission (Fig. 29, Wireless/WiFi; paragraph 272 “radio signals”; paragraph 325 “frequency”).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill and Verzun in view of Bobst (EP1208709E1; “Bobst”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16,
Morrill and Verzun do not expressly disclose retrieving a set of parameters indicative of types of failures within each stage, weighting each parameter of the set of parameters based on the performance points to create a set of weighted parameters; combining the set of weighted parameters as basis for the level of stage degradation.
Bobst discloses analogous art for automated analysis of a mobile radio telephone system (Title) including retrieving a set of parameters indicative of types of failures within each stage, weighting each parameter of the set of parameters based on the performance points to create a set of weighted parameters; and combining the set of weighted parameters, as the basis for the level of degradation of the stage (Pg. 4, step (d); Pg. 6-7, “system-external protocol parameters” across multiple criteria/stages of the call; event Quality Values determined by a sum of event-specific weighting factors of the individual even weighting vectors, one for each call segment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Morrill and Verzun by retrieving a set of parameters indicative of types of failures within each stage, weighting each parameter of the set of parameters based on the performance points to create a set of weighted parameters; and combining the set of weighted parameters, as the basis for the level of degradation of the stage, as shown by Bobset, thereby enabling graphically displaying automated call analysis and appraisal of a mobile radio call system.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill and Verzun in view of Jacob et al. (US20200084316A1; “Jacob”).
Regarding claim 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18,
Morrill and Verzun do not expressly show displaying, on the visualization, a control to activate playing the single radio call as transmitted/received that retrieves and outputs a recording of the single radio call as by the initiator/recipient of the call.
Jacob discloses call traffic diagnostics in telecommunications networks (Title) including displaying, on the visualization, a control to activate playing the single radio call as transmitted/received that retrieves and outputs a recording of the single radio call as by the initiator/recipient of the single radio call (Fig. 3-4j; paragraph 7; call segment playback and quality perceived by initiator and recipient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Morrill and Verzun by displaying, on the visualization, a control to activate playing the single radio call as transmitted/received that retrieves and outputs a recording of the single radio call as by the initiator/recipient of the single radio call, as shown by Jacob, thereby enabling visualization of call quality for each call segment.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20,
Morrill and Verzun does not expressly disclose retrieving the level of degradation for each stage of the plurality of stages of the single radio call for a plurality of single radio calls; and computing an overall score, based on the level of degradation for each stage for the plurality of single radio calls, that indicates a health of a communications system being analyzed by the communications assurance analysis system.
Jacob discloses call traffic diagnostics in telecommunications networks (Title) including retrieving the level of degradation for each stage of the plurality of stages of the single radio call for a plurality of single radio calls; and computing an overall score (i.e. Mean Opinion Score), based on the level of degradation for each stage for the plurality of single radio calls, that indicates a health of a communications system being analyzed by the communications assurance analysis system (Fig. 3-4j; paragraph 7; call segment quality via Mean Opinion Score/cost of each call segment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Morrill and Verzun by retrieving the level of degradation for each stage of the plurality of stages of the single radio call for a plurality of single radio calls; and computing an overall score, based on the level of degradation for each stage for the plurality of single radio calls, that indicates a health of a communications system being analyzed by the communications assurance analysis system, as shown by Jacob, thereby enabling visualization of call quality for each call segment.
6. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill and Verzun in view of Pyhtila et al. (US20110250883A1; “Pyhtila”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19,
Morrill and Verzun does not expressly show displaying a timeline of a plurality of single radio calls, the timeline allowing a user to select an individual radio call from the plurality of single radio calls, and providing the visualization for the selected individual radio call.
Pyhtila discloses analogous art for monitoring of network call activity in a satellite-based communication system (Title) including displaying a timeline of a plurality of single radio calls, the timeline allowing a user to select an individual radio call from the plurality of single radio calls, and providing the visualization for the selected individual radio call (paragraph 7, 55-65; Fig. 9-12; track and visually present information about individual calls and/or groups of associated calls to call-segment granularity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Morrill and Verzun by displaying a timeline of a plurality of single radio calls, the timeline allowing a user to select an individual radio call from the plurality of single radio calls, and providing the visualization for the selected individual radio call, as shown by Pyhtila, thereby enabling call data screening/filtering to aid in identifying faulty system components or segments of the call.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 with respect to the Push-to-Talk and newly-amended “Project 25 and/or Terrestrial Trunked Radio” standards limitations have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on newly-cited Verzun reference.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roy et al. (US20120002588A1); shows Mobility Management in Land Mobile Radio System (Title) including Project 25 standard (paragraph 2).
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights