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 is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on December 23, 2025.
Claims, 1-20 are now currently pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
CLAIMS 7-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Wills et al. (US 2018/0295526 Al, hereinafter Wills) in view of Kalkunte et al. (US 11570687 B1, hereinafter Kalkunte).
Consider CLAIM 7, Wills discloses a method for finding a radio path trail between a source site at a first geographic location and a target site at a second geographic location, the method comprising:
Receiving an indication of a buffer area around the source site and the target site; (Paragraph 0013, the alternative antenna locations are represented as an array of points, arranged in a grid pattern, surrounding the proposed antenna sites. The path design tool may change each displayed point so that the point visually reflects the extent to which the corresponding location satisfies the radio link design goals).
Receiving an indication of a buffer area around the source site and the target site; (Paragraph 0013, the alternative antenna locations are represented as an array of points, arranged in a grid pattern, surrounding the proposed antenna sites. The path design tool may change each displayed point so that the point visually reflects the extent to which the corresponding location satisfies the radio link design goals).
Receiving an indication of one or more design constraints; (Paragraph 0022, to provide a visual display of the radio link at site A 310 and at site B 320. Terrain data includes land features such as mountains, hills, plateaus, rivers, bodies of water, etc. Clutter data includes any man-made or natural features extending above the terrain, such as trees, buildings, houses, antennas, utility poles, light poles, etc. The design tool may obtain the terrain data 395 or clutter data 390 or other appropriate land use/ land cover data).
Receiving an indication of one or more design goals; (Paragraph 0032, at block 435, the design tool provides a visual indication of which of the points in the grids around each proposed antenna site meet a desired path design goal. That is, each of the points in the grid surrounding site A are displayed using a visual treatment that indicates whether those points satisfy a path design goal such as path loss or LOS if paired with each of the points in the grid surrounding site B).
Determining an initial segment area of the buffer area around the source site, wherein the initial segment area is smaller than the buffer area; (Paragraph 0023, to specify the size and orientation, the design tool generates a configuration interface 315 that is displayed to the user. The configuration interface includes a slider 317a that allows the user to specify the size of the grid surrounding site A and a slider 317b that allows the user to specify the size of the grid surrounding site B).
Determining, based on the first set of radio paths, the radio path trail when a last site of the first set of radio paths is the target site; and (Paragraph 0016, The processes, modules and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. Aspects of the radio signal path profiling tool can therefore be practiced in distributed computing environments, where tasks or modules are performed by remote processing devices, which are linked through a communication network).
displaying a visual representation of the radio path trail on a display of a user interface. (Paragraph 0012, The disclosed design tool computes a radio link path loss, a line of sight (LOS) profile, or a model reflecting other path design goals, at the proposed antenna sites while simultaneously displaying alternative locations around the fixed antenna sites that would potentially achieve the radio link design goals. Paragraph 0023, the analysis of the antenna site locations, the path design tool generates a grid overlay on the tower locations in section 306. Before displaying the grid, a user of the tool can specify the size and orientation of the grid that is to be displayed. To specify the size and orientation, the design tool generates a configuration interface 315 that is displayed to the user).
Willis discloses the claim invention but fails to teach generate a first set of radio paths traversing one or more first intermediate sites in the initial segment area, wherein the first set of radio paths comprises radio path profiles that meet the one or more design goals, and wherein each of the one or more first intermediate sites is different from the source site and the target site; and.
However, Kalkunte teaches (paragraph 70, with reference to FIG. 6, there is shown an exemplary mesh network of four mesh nodes, such as the edge devices 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D, to explain the beam mapping and path learning in the initial discovery process. By use of the discovery process, each edge device may be configured to exchange information with the central cloud server 102. Paragraph 72, The central cloud server 102 may be further configured to determine a plurality of path setup parameters 210 specific for each edge device of the plurality of edge devices 104 based on the obtained plurality of sensed parameters 208 from each edge device of the plurality of edge devices 104. The path setup parameters may be stored in reachability tables 212 for upstream and downstream communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 7 by incorporating/combining the teachings of Willis principal path computation module to compute a first path profile between the first radio antenna and the second radio antenna based on the first and second proposed locations with the communication system includes a central cloud server to determine a primary communication path between a radio access network (RAN) node and one or more user equipment (UEs) via a first set of edge devices of a plurality of edge devices of Kalkunte. The motivation to do so would be to develop an expanded the path design tool that allows a wireless designer to quickly assess a multitude of other alternative site locations by providing a grid display around the proposed fixed antenna site. The tool users are able to more quickly assess design tradeoffs of different antenna locations by overlaying the grid with site images for enhancing the capacity of radio channels.
Consider CLAIM 8, Wills discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the properties of the source site, the target site, and the one or more sites within the buffer area comprise a latitude and longitude, or a height. (Paragraph 0020, additional detail herein, such parameters may include latitude and longitude coordinates of each tower, characteristics of antennas utilized on each tower, frequency of link, and other physical or non-physical characteristics of the tower, antenna, link, or surrounding infrastructure. The third section 306 depicts a graphical representation of an aerial view of the two radio towers as placed on a street or satellite view map. As will be described in further detail herein, the path design tool can display an array of points, arranged in a grid pattern, around the two radio tower locations depicted in the third section 306).
Consider CLAIM 9, Wills discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the height comprises a tip height, a structure height, or one or more centerline heights. (Paragraph 0020, The path design tool interface 300 is divided into three sections 302, 304, and 306. The first section 302 depicts a graphical representation of a horizontal cross- section of the air interface between and around two proposed radio towers. The second section 304 includes a number of parameters characterizing the proposed placement of the two radio towers).
Consider CLAIM 10, Wills discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the properties of the one or more sites within the buffer area comprise an aggregated property of a plurality of sites within a threshold distance of each other. (Paragraph 0044, The expanded view provides a greater resolution of the surrounding clutter and terrain, enabling a user to better take measurements such as latitude/ longitude and elevation. For example, a user may zoom into the path extension regions in order to better evaluate potential alter- native sites for tower placement such as elevated sites which reduce required tower height or to steer away from hazards (e.g., bodies of water)).
Consider CLAIM 11, Wills discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more design constraints comprise a minimum distance and a maximum distance between two contiguous sites of the radio path trail. (Paragraph 0043, FIG. 7 shows the representative user interface 300 of the radio signal path design tool showing an aerial view 780 and a display of an array of points 760 around proposed antenna site 310. In this exemplary embodiment, proposed antenna site 620 is on a fixed immovable location). Paragraph 0002, to assist in designing such radio links, wireless engineers typically utilize a radio path design tool in the design process that utilizes clutter and terrain data to allow the wireless engineer to model the path loss or line of sight (LOS) between two proposed locations for radio antenna towers).
Consider CLAIM 13, Willis discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more design constraints comprise a clutter data. (Paragraph 0026, , the size of the grids, the geometry of the grids, or the spatial distribution of points within the grid may be adjusted based on the clutter data so as to avoid bodies of water or other regions where it would be impractical or uneconomical to place an antenna).
Consider CLAIM 14, Wills discloses the method of claim 7, wherein, when the last site is not the target site, the last site is closer to the target site than other sites of the first set of radio paths. (Paragraph 0042, of particular benefit to users of the radio signal path design tool is the ability for a user to utilize the grids 560 and 570 to assess alternate tower locations. As was described with respect to FIG. 4, the representation of each point within the grids 560 and 570 is based on the computed path loss or LOS profile (or other path design metrics) between the points in grid 560 and the points in grid 570).
Consider CLAIM 15, Wills discloses the method of claim 7 further comprising:
When the initial segment area contains no intermediate sites or when there are no radio paths in the initial segment area with radio path profiles meeting the one or more design goals, expanding the initial segment area to define an expanded segment area, wherein the expanded segment area is larger than the initial segment area; (Paragraph 0012, the disclosed design tool computes a radio link path loss, a line of sight (LOS) profile, or a model reflecting other path design goals, at the proposed antenna sites while simultaneously displaying alternative locations around the fixed antenna sites that would potentially achieve the radio link design goals. Paragraph 0031, if N=81, meaning that there are 81 separate grid points selected around site A 310, and M=81, meaning that there are also 81 separate grid points selected around site B 320, the design tool will compute 6,561 separate path design metrics between each of the N points around site A and each of the M points around site B. The NxM computations are irrespective of size of the grid or the spatial distribution of the points within the grid).
Determining a second set of radio paths traversing at least one of the one or more second intermediate sites in the expanded segment area, wherein the second set radio paths comprise radio path profiles meet the one or more design goals; and (paragraph 0032, at block 435, the design tool provides a visual indication of which of the points in the grids around each proposed antenna site meet a desired path design goal. That is, each of the points in the grid surrounding site A are displayed using a visual treatment that indicates whether those points satisfy a path design goal such as path loss or LOS if paired with each of the points in the grid surrounding site B).
Determining, based on the second set of radio paths, the radio path trail when a last site of the second set of radio paths is the target site. (Paragraph 0016, The processes, modules and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. Aspects of the radio signal path profiling tool can therefore be practiced in distributed computing environments, where tasks or modules are performed by remote processing devices, which are linked through a communication network).
Consider CLAIM 17, Wills discloses the method of claim 7 further comprising:
When the last site is not the target site, determining a new segment area of the buffer area around the last site; (Paragraph 0042, of particular benefit to users of the radio signal path design tool is the ability for a user to utilize the grids 560 and 570 to assess alternate tower locations. As was described with respect to FIG. 4, the representation of each point within the grids 560 and 570 is based on the computed path loss or LOS profile (or other path design metrics) between the points in grid 560 and the points in grid 570).
Determining a third set of radio paths traversing one or more third intermediate sites in the new segment area, wherein the third set of radio paths comprise radio path profiles that meet the one or more design goals; and (paragraph 0032, at block 435, the design tool provides a visual indication of which of the points in the grids around each proposed antenna site meet a desired path design goal. That is, each of the points in the grid surrounding site A are displayed using a visual treatment that indicates whether those points satisfy a path design goal such as path loss or LOS if paired with each of the points in the grid surrounding site B. Paragraph 0031, if N=81, meaning that there are 81 separate grid points selected around site A 310, and M=81, meaning that there are also 81 separate grid points selected around site B 320, the design tool will compute 6,561 separate path design metrics between each of the N points around site A and each of the M points around site B. The NxM computations are irrespective of size of the grid or the spatial distribution of the points within the grid. The path design metric for the current proposed antenna placement at site A 310 and site B 320 is typically computed along with the computation of the NxM computations).
Determining, based on the first set of radio paths and the third set of radio paths, the radio path trail when a last site of the third set of radio paths is the target site. (Paragraph 0032, each of the points in the grid surrounding site B are displayed using a visual treatment that indicates whether those points satisfy a path design goal if paired with each of the points in the grid surrounding site A. The grid points that meet the design goal are visually displayed in section 306 of the path design tool interface 300 using one visual indicator such as the color green; the grid points that do not meet the design goal).
Consider CLAIM 18, Wills discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the new segment area is approximately equal to the initial segment area. (Paragraph 0020, the path design tool interface 300 is divided into three sections 302, 304, and 306. The first section 302 depicts a graphical representation of a horizontal cross- section of the air interface between and around two proposed radio towers. The second section 304 includes a number of parameters characterizing the proposed placement of the two radio towers and the communication link between the towers).
Consider CLAIM 20, Wills discloses the method of claim 7 further comprising:
Before determining the radio path trail, receiving an indication of properties of a plurality of existing radio paths located within an area proximate to or encompassing the source and target sites, (paragraph 0022, using the entered link parameters 350, the radio signal path design tool generates a radio profile of the link depicted in the first section 302 as well as an aerial map view of the link depicted in the third section 306. To generate the display in the first section 302, the radio signal path design tool imports terrain data 395 and/or clutter data 390 to provide a visual display of the radio link at site A 310 and at site B 320).
Wherein the properties of the plurality of existing radio paths comprise frequency band information and radio path distance information; and (paragraph 0021, the user also enters other parameters needed by the radio signal path design tool such as the antenna azimuth, down tilt, frequency, polarization, part number, among other parameters such as name of the geographic location of the sites, and type of radio equipment at the sites. Additional parameters that are depicted in the second section 304 may be computed or derived by the tool using the entered parameters).
Determining, based on the radio path distance information a minimum distance design constraint and a maximum distance design constraint. (Paragraph 0043, FIG. 7 shows the representative user interface 300 of the radio signal path design tool showing an aerial view 780 and a display of an array of points 760 around proposed antenna site 310. In this exemplary embodiment, proposed antenna site 620 is on a fixed immovable location).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 19, is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wills et al. (US 2018/0295526 Al, hereinafter Wills) and Kalkunte et al. (US 11570687 B1, hereinafter Kalkunte) in view of Mehrvar Patent No: (US 11/838,1020 B2, hereinafter Mehrvar).
Consider Claim 19, Wills and Kalkunte discloses the claim invention but fails the method of claim 17, wherein determining the first set of radio paths and the third set of radio paths is based on an A* path search algorithm.
However, Mehrvar teaches the method of claim 17, wherein determining the first set of radio paths and the third set of radio paths is based on an A* path search algorithm. (Paragraph 42, a routing algorithm can select a path through the nodes and links of the network for each of N*(N−1) paths. The routing algorithm can use any available algorithms such as shortest path, k shortest path, A* search algorithm (A-star), etc. The selected algorithm can use one or more metrics such as the number of hops, link losses, and the optical signal-to-noise Ratio (OSNR), for one, more or many of the N*(N−1) paths.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify by incorporating the network path profile and radio path of Wills to include the network path selection using pathfinding and graph traversal algorithm known for its efficiency and optimality in finding the shortest path between a starting node and a goal node in a weighted graph of Mehrvar. The motivation to do so would yield the predictable results of determining the shortest path radio signal to compute path design metrics between each of the array of points on opposite ends of a radio path establishing a comprehensive radio path network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 12 and 16 are allowable, claims have been amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 101 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in Examiner’s office action dated 09/23/2025.
Examiner Note
In Office Action dated 09/23/2025 form PTO-326 Office Action Summary section Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 box 12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f), was checked in error. There was no foreign priority claimed for Application 18/175,727.
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 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 MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/MATTHEW D. ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646