CTFR 18/161,769 CTFR 79206 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 9 of Remarks that the Jia reference fails to disclose or make obvious, at least, "obtaining information regarding a deployment cost of the network elements." Applicant also argues that Jia fails to disclose or suggest any use of "deployment cost." Examiner disagrees. The term “a deployment cost of the network elements” as claimed is very broad. Examiner interprets “the deployment cost of the network elements” such as coverage, bandwidth, RSSI, or some parameters of the network. The prior art Jia teaches on page 4, col. 2, pars. 1-2: “The reliable network design would provide the best possible results within the given number of APs according to the user requirements. The motivation behind this idea is to deliver a solution which can enhance the overall performance of the system within the given cost . The APs can be deployed anywhere in the area of interest, but that will increase the computational complexity to a very huge extent. To reduce the computational cost , the grid-based approach is used. As discussed previously, the area is divided into grids or discrete points, i.e., RPs, the same RPs are the candidate positions for APs. AP1 is placed at the desired position, the RSS at all RPs are calculated and the average value is compared with a threshold Th. The Threshold is defined as -55 dBm ≥ (i) ≥ -60 dBm, where i is the index of the RP. The reason behind taking this threshold is to create overlapping regions among the used Aps. Without appropriate overlap, signal strength coverage can be ensured but not localization accuracy [11]. Therefore, Jia teaches “obtaining information regarding a deployment cost of the network elements” as claimed. Applicant also argues on page 10 of Remarks that Jia fails to disclose or make obvious "obtaining information regarding a network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area." Examiner disagrees. The term “a network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area” as claimed is very broad. Examiner interprets “the network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area” as claimed such as good signal coverage is provided to user. The prior art Jia teaches on page 4, col. 2, par. 1: “Two important factors considered are the improvement in localization accuracy and better signal coverage. The algorithm takes the location of the first AP and the total number of APs TAP to be used as an input from the user and provides with the optimal configuration. The first AP (AP1) can be deployed upon the desire of the user” and “The reliable network design would provide the best possible results within the given number of APs according to the user requirements. The motivation behind this idea is to deliver a solution which can enhance the overall performance of the system within the given cost.” Although Jia is not clear to mention the network demand, Jia teaches the improvement in localization accuracy and better signal coverage. Also, examiner mentions in the office action that the network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area is obvious to a person skilled in the art. In case there is no demand, no network will be deployed in an area. A network, i.e. a network element is deployed once there is demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective the filling date of claimed invention (AIA) to modify the network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area to the method of Document D in order for providing enough bandwidth and service to UEs . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Document D1 (JIA MIN ET AL: 'Access Point Optimization for Reliable Indoor Localization Systems", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, IEEE SERVICE CENTER, PISCATAWAY, NJ, US, vol. 69, no. 4, 1 December 2020 (2020-12-01), pages 1424-1436, XP011822886, ISSN: 0018-9529, DOI: 10.1109/TR.2019.2955748 , [retrieved on 2020-11-30] . Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Document D1 teaches a method, a computing device of selecting a deployment of network elements (see abstract), comprising: a processor configured with processor-executable instructions to: means for obtaining information regarding a plurality of network element locations in a geographic area (see abstract: Location fingerprinting using WLAN is the most acknowledged technique for indoor localization purposes. Both accuracy and coverage can be enhanced by deploying the WLAN access points (APs) appropriately), communication characteristics of network element types suitable for deployment in the plurality of network element locations, and a deployment cost of the network elements (see explanation in Response to Arguments above, abstract and par. IV: A hybrid technique is proposed to select the optimal APs configuration that merges the traditional fingerprint difference and geometric dilution of precision-based methods. A distinguishing feature of this work is the inclusion of two significant constraints, which are the consideration of walls and people attenuation factor in the optimization process), means for repeating the operations of: generating a candidate network deployment based on a selection of the network element locations and a selection of network element types (see par. IV: page 6; Algorithm 2: 4: Repeat step until leaf node), simulating performance of the candidate network deployment based on the determined network demand using a bottleneck structure model (see par. IV: page 6; Algorithm 2); and determining whether a stop condition is satisfied by the candidate network deployment (see par. IV: page 6); and means for selecting a deployment of communication network elements according to the candidate network deployment in response to determining that the stop condition is satisfied (see par. IV: page 6; Algorithm 2: end if). Document D does not mention network demand in the geographic area. However, the network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area is obvious to a person skilled in the art. In case there is no demand, no network will be deployed in an area. A network, i.e. a network element is deployed once there is demand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective the filling date of claimed invention (AIA) to modify the network demand from user equipment (UEs) in the geographic area to the method of Document D in order for providing enough bandwidth and service to UEs. Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Document D also teaches modifying the candidate network deployment using an output of the bottleneck structure model to generate a next candidate network deployment in response to determining that the stop condition is not satisfied before performing the operations of simulating performance and determining whether the stop condition is satisfied (see par. V: multiple times refers to a limited number of repetitions, as an unlimited number of repetitions). Regarding claims 3 and 12, Document D also teaches wherein the network element types comprise one or more of a base station, a small cell, or a repeater device (see abstract). Regarding claims 4 and 13, Document D also teaches generating the candidate network deployment based on a selection of the network element locations and a selection of network element pes comprises generating the candidate network deployment further based on a selection of signal routes among network elements; and selecting the deployment of communication network elements according to the candidate network deployment comprises selecting the deployment of communication network elements further based on the selection of signal routes among the network elements. (see pars. IV and V: document D1 involves a set of candidate AP positions, they must have been created. In addition, in order to simulate the operation of the network, the interconnections of the network must have been established, in order to; and provide for a credible simulation. In an operational networks the network elements are interconnected and communicate as such, hence it seems only realistic for the simulation to arrange for this types of connections, too). Regarding claims 5 and 14, Document D also teaches wherein determining whether the stop condition is satisfied by the candidate network deployment comprises determining whether the deployment cost of the network elements of the candidate network deployment meets a deployment cost condition (see par. IV). Regarding claims 6 and 15, Document D also teaches wherein determining whether the stop condition is satisfied by the candidate network deployment comprises determining whether a run time condition has been satisfied (see par. IV: page 6; Algorithm 2: end if). Regarding claims 7 and 16, Document D also teaches wherein simulating a performance of the candidate network deployment based on the determined network demand using the bottleneck structure model comprises simulating a scheduling of signals by each of the network elements (see pars. IV and V: In order to simulate an operational set of network elements, the scheduling of signals should be simulated, too, as that is the normal operational condition of the network). Regarding claims 9 and 18, Document D teaches mention wherein simulating a performance of the candidate network deployment based on the determined network demand using the bottleneck structure model (see pars. IV and V). Document D does not mention simulating a formation of beamformed signals by one or more of the network elements. However, simulating a formation of beamformed signals by one or more of the network elements in wireless communication networks is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective the filling date of claimed invention (AIA) to modify simulating a formation of beamformed signals by one or more of the network elements in wireless communication networks to the method of Document D in order for providing good service to UEs . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 8 and 17 are objected as indicated in the previous office action. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 DAVID Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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. /DAVID Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 2 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 3 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 4 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 5 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 6 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 7 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 8 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/161,769 Page 9 Art Unit: 2643
Prosecution Insights