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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/190,959 filed on 27 March 2023. The response filed 9 July 2026 amends claims 1, 14, and 20, cancels claims 8 and 15, adds claims 21 and 22, and presents arguments is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Independent Claims 1, 14, and 20
On pages 8-10 of the response filed 9 July 2026, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made on the 9 April 2026 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that the Melomed/E-model system fails to teach or suggest “while the voice call is in process.” Applicant argues that Melomed fails to mention that the voice call is in process. Further, Applicant argues that the E-model fails to explicitly disclose or suggest a voice call is in process. Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds this argument unpersuasive. On page 3 of the E-model NPL, Figure 1 shows a Send side phone to a Receive side phone. Further, Section 7 Structure and basic algorithms of the E-model NPL states “the model estimate the conversational quality from mouth to ear as perceived by the user at the receive side, both as listener and talker.” Examiner interprets this image to show a voice call in process. One having ordinary skill in the art would combine the E-Model transmission planning with the phone categorizations of the Melomed to structure a telephony network. Therefore, Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-13, 16-19, 21, and 22
On pages 8-10 of the response filed 9 July 2026, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made on the 9 April 2026 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant submits that these claims are allowable at least as depending from an allowable independent claim, and further in view of the amendments to the independent claims, and the comments provided above. As per the comments above, Examiner found the arguments unpersuasive.
Newly Added Claims 21 and 22
On pages 10-11 of the response filed 9 July 2026, Applicant respectfully requests entry and full consideration of Claims 21 and 22. Examiner acknowledges this request and will now consider newly added claims 21 and 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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.
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, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2017/0195480 A1 to Melomed et al and in view of NPL ITU-T G.107: The E-model: a computational model for use in transmission planning (hereafter E-model).
Regarding Claim 1, Melomed discloses a voice quality determination system (FIG. 2, system 200) comprising: a display; a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon; and a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium (FIG. 2 and 0034 provides for voice quality monitoring system implemented within administrator computing device 208), wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: receiving voice data of a voice call made over a network of a mobile network operator, the voice data being divided into packets for transmission in the network (0031, Table 1, and 0036 provides for receiving data of poor calls made over a wireless network identifier, voice data being divided into packets to measure packet rate); in response to receiving the voice data, determining a voice quality of the voice call based on: a packet loss indicating a packet of the packets failing to be transmitted during the transmission (0031 and Table 1 provides for packet loss call quality metrics) and a delay that occurred during the transmission (0031 and Table 1 provides for latency and unacceptable delay quality metrics); and instructing the display to display a result of a determination of the voice quality (0039 provides for voice quality dashboard). Melomed doesn’t explicitly disclose while the voice call is in process, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating an R factor according to a formula (i): R = Ro - Idh - le to determine the voice quality of the voice call, where Ro is a signal to noise ratio, Idh is a value of the delay occurred during the transmission, and Ie is a value indicating an effectiveness of equipment of the mobile network operator at the transmission. E-model, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses while the voice call is in process (pg. 3, Figure 1 and “Section 7 Structure and basic algorithms of the E-model” show a sender side with a phone and receiver side with a phone); and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating an R factor according to a formula (i): R = Ro - Idh - le to determine the voice quality of the voice call (“Figure 1 Reference connection of the E-model” and “Section 7.1 Calculation of the transmission rating factor, R” provides for the E-model algorithm), where Ro is a signal to noise ratio (“Section 7.1 Calculation of the transmission rating factor, R” provides for the basic signal-to-noise ratio, including noise sources such as circuit noise and room noise), Idh is a value of the delay occurred during the transmission (“Section 7.1 Calculation of the transmission rating factor, R” provides for the impairments caused by delay), and Ie is a value indicating an effectiveness of equipment of the mobile network operator at the transmission (“Section 7.1 Calculation of the transmission rating factor, R” provides for the effective equipment impairment factor Ie-eff represents impairments caused by low bit-rate codecs). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of E-model for transmission planning. The transmission planning of E-model, when implemented with the voice quality dashboard of the Melomed system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to build algorithms in order to calculate voice quality of the voice communications. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the transmission planning of E-model with the voice quality dashboard of the Melomed system for the desirable purpose of determining quality in a communications network.
Regarding Claim 2, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for determining the delay that includes an average frame delay referring to an average time for transmitting a frame of the voice data to a destination (Melomed, Table 1 provides for Average delay between packet arrivals).
Regarding Claim 6, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating a packet loss percentage obtained by dividing a total number of the packets by a number of lost packets during the transmission, as the packet loss (Melomed, Table 1 provides for packet loss rate threshold is 10%).
Regarding Claim 7, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating a value indicating an effectiveness of equipment of the mobile network operator at the transmission based on the packet loss and a predetermined parameter value associated with the equipment of the mobile network operator (Melomed, FIG. 4, 0028, and 0068 provides for measuring the Endpoint and PC effectiveness).
Regarding Claim 9, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating the value indicating the effectiveness of the equipment of the mobile network operator at the transmission based on the packet loss and a predetermined parameter value associated with the equipment of the mobile network operator (E-model, “Section 7.1 Calculation of the transmission rating factor, R” provides for provides for “low bit-rate codecs”). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating the value of the delay by considering at least one of: an average frame delay referring to an average time for a frame of the voice data transmitted during the transmission (Melomed, Table 1 provides for Average delay between packet arrivals), a packetization delay referring to a time for dividing the voice data into the packets and transmitting the packets in the network (Examiner interprets this to be an alternative limitation), or a processing delay referring to a time for processing the voice data (Examiner interprets this to be an alternative limitation).
Regarding Claim 11, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for determining the delay by adding the average frame delay (Melomed, Table 1 provides for Average delay between packet arrivals), the packetization delay (Examiner interprets this to be an alternative limitation from the Markush group of Claim 10), and the processing delay (Examiner interprets this to be an alternative limitation from the Markush group of Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 13, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for instructing a transmitter to transmit the result of the determination of the voice quality to a server (Melomed, FIG. 2 and 0039 provides for voice quality dashboard).
Regarding Claim 14, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 1 teaches the method of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 8 teaches the method of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 9 teaches the method of claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 10 teaches the method of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 13 teaches the method of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 1 teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Melomed/E-model system as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2016/0028882 A1 to Assem et al.
Regarding Claim 3, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 2. The Melomed/E-model system doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for determining the delay that further includes a packetization delay referring to a time for dividing the voice data into the packets and transmitting the packets using the network. Assem, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses further includes a packetization delay referring to a time for dividing the voice data into the packets and transmitting the packets using the network (0032 provides for call voice data comprises packetization related to delay). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Assem for packetization of call voice data. The voice data packetization of Assem, when implemented with the voice quality dashboard of the Melomed/E-model system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to packetize data in order to calculate the delay associated with voice communications. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the voice data packetization of Assem with the voice quality dashboard of the Melomed/E-model system for the desirable purpose of capturing packets in a communications network.
Regarding Claim 4, the Melomed/E-model/Assem system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for determining the delay that further includes a processing delay referring to a time for processing the voice data (Assem, 0032 provides for propagation delay). Same motivation as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, the Melomed/E-model/Assem system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for determining the delay by adding the average frame delay (Melomed, Table 1 provides for Average delay between packet arrivals), the packetization delay (Assem, 0032 provides for call voice data comprises packetization related to delay), and the processing delay (Assem, 0032 provides for propagation delay). Same motivation as claim 3.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Melomed/E-model system as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 2015/0134419 A1 to Kandasamy et al.
Regarding Claim 12, the Melomed/E-model system discloses the voice quality determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for calculating an estimated Mean Opinion Score (EMOS) based on a formula (ii): EMOS = 1 + (0.035 x R) + R x (R - 60) x (100 - R) x 7^ (-6), where R is the calculated R factor (Melomed, FIG. 4 and 0068 provides for video quality dashboard)). The Melomed/E-model system doesn’t explicitly disclose the processor is configured to execute the instructions for determining the voice quality of the voice call based on a value of the estimated Mean Opinion Score. Kandasamy, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses determining the voice quality of the voice call based on a value of the estimated Mean Opinion Score (0047 provides for eMOS metric or KPI for voice quality of calls). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Kandasamy for the eMOS metric. The eMOS KPI metric of Kandasamy, when implemented with the voice quality dashboard of the Melomed/E-model system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a numerical score to a voice call in order to monitor the network for spiky connections. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the eMOS KPI metric of Kandasamy with the voice quality dashboard of the Melomed/E-model system for the desirable purpose of measuring call quality in a communications network.
Regarding Claim 18, similar rejection where the voice quality determination system of claim 12 teaches the method of claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2015/0381663 A1 to Zhao et al discloses improved quality of a visualized called for network.
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 SCHQUITA GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights