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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because additional grounds of rejection.
Applicant amended representative claim 1 as follows.
“[I]n response to determining that the travel data does not meet or exceed the threshold, cause the travel data to be stored in short term storage”.
Here, Weston ((US 2024/0270234 A1)) discloses in response to determining that the travel data does not meet or exceed the threshold, cause the travel data to be stored in short term storage (see [0020] threshold speed for travel of a vehicle and short-term memory);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Weston with that of Keil/Griffin. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al. (US 10,104,527 B1) in view of Griffin et al. (US 10,419,209 B1) in further view of Weston et al. (US 2024/0270234 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A cellular network system comprising:
a radio access network (RAN) comprising a core network (see network fig. 1 provisioning service provider server, therefore would include core network); and
a storage management server (see data repository fig. 1) configured to:
receive travel data associated with a mobile device (see transmission to server with location data/motion data step 210 fig. 2);
determine (see “identifies”, col. 3, lines 30-50) whether the travel data (see col. 3, lines 30-50, “location data (103), which identifies the location of the user at any point in time (e.g. using GPS, cell tower, Wi-Fi triangulation, or other methods). Mobile phone (101) may further contain motion data (104), which identifies the direction of motion, velocity, and acceleration of the user at any point in time. ”) meets an unusual behavior threshold (see determine abnormality score, step 220 fig. 2 and used with “threshold”, col. 2, lines 40-55) associated with unusual behavior for a user of the mobile device (see col. 4, lines 5-10; “behavior that is abnormal”);
in response to determining (see “identifies”, col. 3, lines 30-50) that the travel data (see col. 3, lines 30-50, describing location data related to time) meets or exceeds the threshold (see “threshold”, col. 2, lines 40-55), cause the travel data to be stored in (“store”, col. 4, lines 10-15)
Keil does not explicitly disclose however Griffin discloses for long term storage (see columns 1-2, lines 51-12 “Long-term Storage”), the long-term storage being greater than a predetermined time length (time periods requiring long term storage, see columns 1-2, lines 51-12 “Long-term Storage”) associated with short term storage; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Keil with that of Griffin. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention;
in response to determining that the travel data does not meet or exceed the threshold, cause the travel data to be stored in short term storage (see [0020] threshold speed for travel of a vehicle and short-term memory);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Weston with that of Keil/Griffin. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 2, 9 & 16, Keil discloses the system of claim 1, storage management server of claim 8 and method of claim 15; wherein the storage management server is further configured to in response to determining that the travel data being less than the unusual behavior threshold, store the travel data for short term storage which is less than the predetermined time length (see col. 5, liens 10-16, see “normal behavior”, thus less than unusual behavior and is stored on phone which is short-term).
Regarding claims 3, 10 & 17, Keil discloses the system of claim 1, storage management server of claim 8 and method of claim 15; wherein the unusual behavior threshold is determined based on movement behavior that the user takes that is unusual for the user based on historical movement data of the user (see historic data used with location history for determining score for abnormality-safety, col. 2, lines 31-39).
Regarding claims 4, 11 & 18, Keil discloses the system of claim 3, storage management server of claim 10 and method of claim 17, wherein the unusual behavior threshold is calculated based on a score, whereby the score is calculated by determining a number of instances the user has made the movement behavior in the past based on comparing the user's travel data with past movement behavior stored in the historical movement data of the user (see “abnormality score”, col 3, lines 55-67).
Regarding claims 5, 12 & 19, Keil discloses the system of claim 4, storage management server of claim 11 and methodof claim 18, wherein the lower the number of instances that the movement behavior matches past movement behavior instances stored in the historical movement data, the higher the score is determined to be (see col. 10, lines 38-45, “the abnormality score may quantify the degree to which the user is in an abnormal situation as compared to the user's normal behavior (e.g. defined by the normal behavior data).”).
Regarding claims 6, 13 & 20, Keil discloses the system of claim 1, storage management server of claim 8, wherein the travel data comprises locations and times corresponding to respective locations of the mobile device (see time and location data, col. 10 lines 21-25)
Claim(s) 7-8 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al. (US 10,104,527 B1) in view of Griffin et al. (US 10,419,209 B1) in further view of Joseph et al. (US 2020/0014507 A1) in further view of Weston Weston et al. (US 2024/0270234 A1).
Regarding claims 8 & 15, Keil discloses a storage management server and method comprising:
a processor (col. 9, lines 50-59, “processor” of “server”) configured to:
determine (“identifies”, col. 3, lines 30-50) whether the travel data (see col. 3, lines 30-50, describing location data related to time) meets a threshold (see determine abnormality score, step 220 fig. 2 and used with “threshold”, col. 2, lines 40-55) associated with unusual behavior (see col. 4, lines 5-10; “behavior that is abnormal”) for a user of the mobile device;
in response to determining that the travel data meets or exceeds the threshold (see “threshold is reached ”, col. 2, lines 40-55) associated with unusual behavior (see col. 4, lines 5-10; “behavior that is abnormal”), cause the travel data to be sored (see “store” col. 4, lines 10-15);
Keil does not explicitly disclose however Griffin discloses for in long term storage, the long term storage (see columns 1-2, lines 51-12 “Long-term Storage”) being greater than a predetermined time length (time periods requiring long term storage, see columns 1-2, lines 51-12 “Long-term Storage”) associated with short term storage;
in response to determining that the travel data does not meet or exceed the threshold, cause the travel data to be stored in short term storage (see [0020] threshold speed for travel of a vehicle and short-term memory);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Weston with that of Keil/Griffin. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Keil with that of Griffin. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Keil and Griffin do not specifically disclose however Joseph discloses receive travel data associated with a mobile device via a series of clusters that each comprise a distributed unit (DU) that communicates with a central unit (CU) and cellular towers (see [0066] central unit, distributed units, cluster for with UEs);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Keil with that of Griffin. Doing so would conform improve reliability, security, scalability and reduced latency (see [0004] in Joseph).
Regarding claims 7 & 14, Keil and Griffin discloses a system of claim 1 and server of claim 8, Keil and Griffin do not specifically disclose however Joseph discloses wherein the RAN further comprises a central unit (CU); and a series of clusters that each comprise a distributed unit (DU) that communicates with the CU and cellular towers, wherein each respective cluster creates and then transmits the travel data from the DU of the cluster to the storage management server (see [0066] central unit, distributed units, cluster for with UEs);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Keil with that of Griffin. Doing so would conform improve reliability, security, scalability and reduced latency (see [0004] in Joseph).
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 K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643