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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits Fok (2006/0203738 A1) in view of JP 2012-517194 does not disclose wherein the mobile device information includes one or more of model, make, or software version of the one or more mobile devices (last full paragraph, page 10, see software update, firmware update for devices within certain area to improve performance);
Here, the office action mailed 8/26/2024 discloses
Fok (2006/0203738 A1) in view of JP 2012-517194 teaches wherein the mobile device information includes one or more of model, make, or software version of the one or more mobile devices (last full paragraph, page 10, see software update, firmware update for devices within certain area to improve performance, here firmware and software update would indelibly have or contain information related to “version” and the ‘firmware update’ would be specific to model/make));
In clarification, the “firmware update” would be specific for certain models, makes or software versions. It is well-known an anticipated that “firmware updates for a specific device model”. Furthermore, the last firmware version or software version would be applicable to know that an update needs to or should be provided. Therefore, the firmware update would include either and likely both model and software version.
Additionally, “software update” would also be applicable to the “software version”. Thus an over-the-air software update would include the software version. Otherwise updating software version could not be precise.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims (1-21) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable claims (1-18) US Patent 11/678,243 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the US Patent 11,678,243 B2 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing claim (2) of pending application and claim (1) of US Patent 11,678,243 B2 :
Pending Application (18/333,415)
US Patent 11/678,243 B2
2. (New) A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory for tangibly storing thereon computer-readable instructions configured to be executed by the processor, the computer-readable instructions configured to:
determine mobile device information describing one or more mobile devices in an area,
wherein the mobile device information includes one or more of model, make, or software version of the one or more mobile devices;
determine patterns in drop rates of the one or more mobile devices to identify patterns based on the mobile device information; and
analyze whether an equipment update is beneficial to reduce drop rates;
wherein the equipment update comprises an operating system update.
1. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory for tangibly storing thereon computer-readable instructions configured to be executed by the processor, the computer-readable instructions configured to: analyze handover events, during a period of time, associated with one or more mobile devices in an area having mobile device coverage provided by a plurality of cells, the one or more mobile devices in wireless communication with one or more cells of the plurality of cells; determine mobile device coverage pattern information including one or both of: a pattern of traffic in the area, and a pattern of network load for the area, wherein the mobile device coverage pattern information is determined based at least in part on one or more items of contextual information; determine one or more locations, in the area, associated with a drop rate higher than a threshold drop rate based at least in part on the determined pattern information; determine mobile device information describing the one or more mobile devices in the area, including one or more of model, make, or software version of the one or more mobile devices; determine patterns in drop rates of the one or more mobile devices to identify patterns based on the mobile device information; analyze whether an equipment update is beneficial to reduce drop rates; and analyze how many added cells are needed to meet a service level agreement based on an analysis of network loads; wherein the one or more cells comprise a plurality of respective base stations dispersed across the area; wherein a sub-area of more traffic in the area has a number of base stations higher than a sub-area of less traffic in the area; wherein the one or more mobile devices cause handover events associated with the one or more base stations in the area when respective users of the one or more mobile devices travel in the area; and wherein the area has one or more locations experiencing wireless traffic density higher than a threshold wireless traffic density.
The claims of the application (18/333,415) encompass the same subject matter except the instant claims are broader and fully encompassed by US Patent 11/678,243 B2. Specifically, application 18/333,415 discloses a “determine mobile device information describing one or more mobile devices in an area” and to discover “patterns in drop rates” whereas US Patent 11/678,243 B2 is more specific and detailed by claiming “analyze whether an equipment update is beneficial to reduce drop rates; and analyze how many added cells are needed to meet a service level agreement based on an analysis of network loads; wherein the one or more cells comprise a plurality of respective base stations dispersed across the area; wherein a sub-area of more traffic in the area has a number of base stations higher than a sub-area of less traffic in the area”, inter alia. The aforementioned omissions, however, do not entirely change the results of each invention and both inventions, minus stated variations, have the exact same purpose and provide expectedly similar results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the US Patent 11/678,243 B2 ’s methods with those disclose by pending application 18/333,415.
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) 2, 13 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fok et al. US (2006/0203738 A1) in view of JP 2012-517194 in further view of Lehane et al. (US 2012/0278464 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 13 & 19, Fok discloses a system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
a processor; and a memory for tangibly storing thereon computer-readable instructions configured to be executed by the processor, the computer-readable instructions configured to:
determine mobile device information describing one or more mobile devices in an area (see wireless device-related information [0057], regarding wireless device 12,14,16,17,18 in area; also [0057]),
determine patterns in drop rates of the one or more mobile devices to identify patterns based on the mobile device information (see identification of drop rate [0079], inter alia); and
analyze whether an equipment update is beneficial to reduce drop rates (see [0049], analyzation and optimization of performance data which includes call drop, and therefore improving quality by providing update);
In conclusion, further clarification now shows: Fok does not specifically disclose however JP 2012-517194 wherein the mobile device information includes one or more of model, make, or software version of the one or more mobile devices (last full paragraph, page 10, see software update, firmware update for devices within certain area to improve performance, here firmware and software update would indelibly have or contain information related to “version” and the ‘firmware update’ would be specific to model/make);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fok with that of JP 2012-517194. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions within mobile technology;
Fok et al. US (2006/0203738 A1) in view of JP 2012-517194 do not specifically disclose however Lehane discloses wherein the equipment update comprises an operating system update (equipment update, and updating the operating system, [0170]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fok and JP 2012-517194 with Lehane et al. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions within mobile technology;
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fok et al. US 2006/0203738 A1 in view of JP 2012-517194 in further view of Lehane in further view of Shaw et al. (2019/0166644 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Fok in view of JP 2012-517194 disclose the system of claim 2, however, they do not specifically disclose what Shaw discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions are further configured to analyze how many cells are needed to meet a service level agreement based on an analysis of network loads; wherein the service level agreement relates to a 5G system; and wherein cells provisioned by the 5G system to service the area are smaller compared to other cellular systems (see [0055], Service Level Agreement, Load and 5g).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fok, JP 2012-517194 with Shaw. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions within mobile technology.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fok et al. US 2006/0203738 A1 in view of JP 2012-517194 in further view of Lehane in further view of Shaw et al. (2019/0166644 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Fok in view of JP 2012-517194 disclose the method of claim 13, however, they do not specifically disclose what Siomina discloses in:
collecting data from one or more reverse logistics mobile device processing systems (see see instant application lexicography for gathering historical data as shown by Siomina in [0203]); and
mapping (see mapping [0203])the data to problems found in network locations to determine correlations (see correlation [0203]) based on causalities (see examples of causalities – degradation [0203] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Fok, JP 2012-517194 with Shaw. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions within mobile technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11, 14-17, 20-21 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.
Conclusion
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