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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the words “In one example,” in line 2 should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 17 (and dependent claims 2-8 and 18-20) recite “A method, comprising: selecting a location within a predetermined range around a cell site, the cell site having a transmitter configured to transmit a wireless signal to the selected location along a line of sight (LOS) therebetween; scanning, using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor in proximity to the cell site, an environment around the cell site to identify an obstacle between the cell site and the selected location; determining, based on the scanning, a degree of obstruction of the obstacle to a path of the LOS, the degree of obstruction being characterized by a ratio of an obstruction distance of the obstacle to a total distance of the LOS and the obstruction distance being characterized by a dimension of the obstructing part along the path of the LOS; and responsive to determining that the degree of obstruction exceeds a threshold level, altering an operational parameter of the cell site.”
Claims 1-8 and 17-20, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “selecting a location within a predetermined range around a cell site, the cell site having a transmitter configured to transmit a wireless signal to the selected location along a line of sight (LOS) therebetween; scanning, using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor in proximity to the cell site, an environment around the cell site to identify an obstacle between the cell site and the selected location; determining, based on the scanning, a degree of obstruction of the obstacle to a path of the LOS, the degree of obstruction being characterized by a ratio of an obstruction distance of the obstacle to a total distance of the LOS and the obstruction distance being characterized by a dimension of the obstructing part along the path of the LOS; and responsive to determining that the degree of obstruction exceeds a threshold level, altering an operational parameter of the cell site.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “selecting a location within a predetermined range around a cell site, the cell site having a transmitter configured to transmit a wireless signal to the selected location along a line of sight (LOS) therebetween; scanning, using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor in proximity to the cell site, an environment around the cell site to identify an obstacle between the cell site and the selected location; determining, based on the scanning, a degree of obstruction of the obstacle to a path of the LOS, the degree of obstruction being characterized by a ratio of an obstruction distance of the obstacle to a total distance of the LOS and the obstruction distance being characterized by a dimension of the obstructing part along the path of the LOS; and responsive to determining that the degree of obstruction exceeds a threshold level, altering an operational parameter of the cell site.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 9, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 10-16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0091] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-9, 10-16 and 18-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al (US 2022/0236396).
Choi et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 1, a method (Figures 1 and 2), comprising: selecting a location (105) within a predetermined range around a cell site (185), the cell site having a transmitter (242) configured to transmit a wireless signal (248) to the selected location along a line of sight (LOS) therebetween (paragraph [0062]); scanning, using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (213) in proximity to the cell site, an environment around the cell site to identify an obstacle between the cell site and the selected location (paragraphs [0058]-[0059]); determining, based on the scanning, a degree of obstruction of the obstacle to a path of the LOS, the degree of obstruction being characterized by a ratio of an obstruction distance of the obstacle to a total distance of the LOS and the obstruction distance being characterized by a dimension of the obstructing part along the path of the LOS (paragraphs [0006]-[0009]); and responsive to determining that the degree of obstruction exceeds a threshold level, altering an operational parameter of the cell site (paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising: measuring a distance between the obstacle and the cell site using the LIDAR sensor (213); calculating a distance between the obstacle and the transmitter; calculating the total distance of the LOS; and determining the obstruction distance of the obstacle (paragraphs [0064], [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: selecting a first time point (T.sub.1) and determining a first obstruction state of the obstacle at T.sub.1, the first obstruction state including a first degree of obstruction of the obstacle at T.sub.1; selecting a second time point (T.sub.2) and determining a second obstruction state of the obstacle at T.sub.2, the second obstruction state including a second degree of obstruction of the obstacle at T.sub.2; and comparing the first obstruction state and the second obstruction state to determine a change of the obstacle (paragraphs [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 4, further comprising: measuring a set of wireless signals received by a receiver (244) placed in the selected location and transmitted from the transmitter (242) to generate measurements data, the measurements data including a signal strength value and a signal to noise ratio (SNR); calculating a signal quality score of the wireless signals based on the measurements data; and determining whether the signal quality score falls within a predetermined range, the predetermined range indicating an acceptable performance of wireless transmission (paragraphs [0054], [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, comprising: obtaining a reference wireless signal quality score for the set of wireless signals; selecting a first time point (T.sub.1) and obtaining a first wireless signal quality score at T.sub.1; comparing the first wireless signal quality score with the reference wireless signal quality score; and determining a signal quality loss corresponding to the obstacle at T.sub.1, based on the comparison (paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0054], [0080]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein obtaining the reference wireless signal quality score comprises: measuring the set of wireless signals transmitted from the transmitter (242) to a receiver (244) placed in the selected location in absence of obstruction to the path of the LOS to obtain reference measurements data; and calculating the reference wireless signal quality score of the set of wireless signals based on the reference measurements data (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising: determining one or more frequency bands of the set of wireless signals, the one or more frequency bands including at least one of: a low-band characterized by a frequency below 1 GHz, a mid-band characterized by a frequency from 1 GHz to 6 GHz, and a high band characterized by a frequency above 24 GHz (paragraphs [0087], [0091]).
Regarding claim 8, further comprising: determining one or more wireless signal quality subscores with respect to the one or more frequency bands (paragraphs [0087], [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, a system (Figures 1 and 2) for monitoring an environment around a cell site (185), the system comprising: one or more processors (210); and a computer-readable storage media (paragraph [0132]) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (210), causes the system to: select a location (105) within a predetermined range around a cell site, the cell site having a transmitter (242) configured to transmit a wireless signal (248) to the selected location along a line of sight (LOS) therebetween (paragraph [0062]); receive cell site environment data and identify an obstacle between the cell site and the selected location based on the cell cite environment data, the cell site environment data obtained by scanning an environment around the cell site using a LIDAR sensor (213) in proximity to the cell site (paragraphs [0058], [0059]); determine, based on the cell site environment data, a degree of obstruction of the obstacle to a path of the LOS, the degree of obstruction being characterized by a ratio of an obstruction distance of the obstacle to a total distance of the LOS and the obstruction distance being characterized by a dimension of the obstructing part along the path of the LOS (paragraphs [0006]-[0009]); and responsive to determining that the degree of obstruction exceeds a threshold level, cause an alteration of one or more operational parameters of the cell site (paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: obtain a distance between the obstacle and the cell site measured by the LIDAR sensor; calculate a distance between the obstacle and the transmitter; calculate the total distance of the LOS; and determine the obstruction distance of the obstacle (paragraphs [0064], [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: select a first time point (T.sub.1) and determining a first obstruction state of the obstacle at T.sub.1, the first obstruction state including a first degree of obstruction of the obstacle at T.sub.1; select a second time point (T.sub.2) and determining a second obstruction state of the obstacle at T.sub.2, the second obstruction state including a second degree of obstruction of the obstacle at T.sub.2; and compare the first obstruction state and the second obstruction state to determine a change of the obstacle (paragraphs [0006]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 12, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: receive measurements data corresponding to an obstruction state of the obstacle, the first measurements data obtained by measuring a set of wireless signals received by a receiver (244) placed in the selected location and transmitted from the transmitter (242); calculate a signal quality score of the wireless signals based on the measurements data; and determine whether the signal quality score falls within a predetermined range, the predetermined range indicating an acceptable performance of wireless transmission (paragraphs [0054], [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: select a first time point (T.sub.1) and calculate a first signal quality score of the wireless signals based on first measurements data, the first measurements data corresponding to a first obstruction state of the obstacle at T.sub.1; select a second time point (T.sub.2) and calculate a second signal quality score of the wireless signals based on second measurements data, the second measurements data corresponding to a second obstruction state of the obstacle at T.sub.2; and compare the first and second signal quality scores to determine a change of signal quality (paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0054], [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: receive reference measurements data, the reference measurements data obtained by measuring the set of wireless signals transmitted from the transmitter to a receiver placed in the selected location in absence of obstruction to the path of the LOS; and calculate a reference wireless signal quality score of the set of wireless signals based on the reference measurements data (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 15, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: compare the wireless signal quality score with the reference wireless signal quality score; and determine a signal quality loss corresponding to the obstacle based on the comparison (paragraphs [0087], [0091]).
Regarding claim 16, wherein, when executed by one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to: determine one or more frequency bands of the set of wireless signals, the one or more frequency bands including at least one of: a low-band characterized by a frequency below 1 GHz, a mid-band characterized by a frequency from 1 GHz to 6 GHz, and a high band characterized by a frequency above 24 GHz (paragraphs [0087], [0091]).
Regarding claim 17, a method (Figures 1 and 2), comprising: selecting a location (105) within a predetermined range around a cell site (185), the cell site having a transmitter (242) configured to transmit a wireless signal (248) to the selected location along a line of sight (LOS) therebetween (paragraph [0062]); scanning, using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (213) in proximity to the cell site, an environment around the cell site to identify an obstacle between the cell site and the selected location; selecting a plurality of time points; determining, based on the scanning, a plurality of degrees of obstruction of the obstacle respectively corresponding to the plurality of time points, the degree of obstruction being characterized by a ratio of an obstruction distance of the obstacle to a total distance of the LOS and the obstruction distance being characterized by a dimension of the obstructing part along the path of the LOS (paragraphs [0058], [0059], [0062]); determining whether the degree of obstruction at one of the selected time points exceeds a threshold level; and responsive to determining that the degree of obstruction exceeds a threshold level, altering an operational parameter of the cell site (paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0010]).
Regarding claim 18, further comprising: measuring a set of wireless signals transmitted from the transmitter (242) to a receiver (244) placed in the selected location at each of the plurality of time points to generate a plurality of measurements data respectively corresponding to the plurality of time points; and calculating a plurality of signal quality scores of the wireless signals based on the plurality of measurements data, the plurality of signal quality scores respectively corresponding to the plurality of time points (paragraphs [0054], [0080]).
Regarding claim 19, further comprising: correlating the plurality of signal quality scores to the plurality of degrees of obstruction of the obstacle; and generating a model for wireless transmission, based on the correlation (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 20, further comprising: selecting a future time point; estimating a future wireless signal quality score at the further time point, based on the model for wireless transmission; and determining whether the future signal quality score falls within the predetermined range (paragraphs [0054], [0080]).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sadiq et al (US 10,727,929) disclose a wireless communication system that includes a first node that determines a type of measurement to be performed on the reference RF signal, selects a receive beam based on the type of measurement to be performed on the reference RF signal, generates the selected receive beam, receives, from a second node, using the generated receive beam, the reference RF signal transmitted on a wireless channel, and performs one or more measurements on the received reference RF signal according to the type of the measurement to be performed. Wu et al (US 9,755,797) disclose a wireless mobile communication system that includes a user equipment (UE) that receives a plurality of positioning reference signals (PRSs) from a plurality of base stations. The plurality of base stations includes a serving base station and two neighboring base stations. The UE estimates a plurality of line-of-sight (LOS) paths and corresponding indexes of the PRSs for time of arrival (TOA) and time difference of arrival (TDOA) measurements. The UE then estimates an elevation angle of the UE based on the estimated LOS paths of the PRS from the serving base station. Finally, the system (either UE or network, depending on where the coordinates are) can calculate the UE position based on the TDOA measurements and the elevation angle.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights