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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s response filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 93-114 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 1-66 are canceled. Claims 67-92 are non-elected.
Priority
The filing date of claims 93-114 are benefit on 12/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2023 and 08/20/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 07/06/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 07/06/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 93-114 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 93-95, 97, 99-104, 106, 108, 110 and 112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The foreign applications and original specification of applications 16/700,155 and 17/545,492 fails to support the term “a Minimization of Drive Test”. It is noted that the specification in pages 40-41 disclosed various embodiments of testing, but it is silent “a Minimization of Drive Test”.
Here is a definition for MDT (Minimization of Drive Test) MDT stands for "Minimization of Drive Test". Even if you have not experienced of performing any 'Drive Test', you may intuitively understand what it mean. As you might have guessed, 'Drive Test' is a kind of testing in which you drive a testing vehicle around a certain route measuring various network performance (e.g, Cell Power, Interference) or UE performance (e.g, Call Drop, Throughput, Handover performance, Cell Reselection Performance etc). Usually during this period, you would collect a lot of protocol logs from UE and analyze by yourself or send them to developers when they have serious problems. As the word MDT itself implies, MDT is a kind of special mechanism that may help minimize this kind of Drive Test.
Why do you want to minimize it ? Answer is simple.. 'to save time and money'.
In the past, evaluating and optimizing cellular network performance heavily relied on drive tests. These tests involved driving a vehicle equipped with specialized equipment around a specific area to measure various network performance indicators, such as signal strength, interference, and call quality. During these drive tests, scanners played a crucial role by passively monitoring all accessible base stations and detecting interference. The results of these drive tests were typically presented as statistical distributions or RSS levels accumulated during the drive test. While essential for ensuring optimal network performance, drive tests could be costly and time-consuming due to the specialized equipment and personnel required.
MDT offers a more efficient and cost-effective approach by leveraging the widespread use of user equipment, such as smartphones, within the network. By collecting data from these devices, operators can gain valuable insights into network performance without the need for dedicated drive test campaigns. One of the key differences between MDT and traditional drive tests lies in the cost of equipment. MDT utilizes readily available and relatively inexpensive mobile phones, while drive tests require sophisticated and expensive measurement equipment
The idea is. instead of dispatching test truck and engineers, let any UE around the interested area perform the all those measurement and store the result in the device and then report it later. Therefore, claims 93-95, 97, 99-104, 106, 108, 110 and 112 are rejected under 112, first paragraph.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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(s) 93-95, 100-101, 104, 109 and 112 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0022910, hereinafter, “Zhang”) in view of Koskinen et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0357298, hereinafter, “Koskinen”).
Regarding claim 93, Zhang teaches a network device for use within a wireless communication network (see figures 1b, 3-4), wherein the network device (UE) is configured to receive from another network device (evolved Node B) one more configuration parameters for configuring the network device to participate in a Minimization of Drive Test for a characterization of one or more communication connection path between the network device and the another network device (see figures 3-4, [0126, 0133, 0137, 0160], dedicate S1 connection).
It should be noticed that Zhang fails to teach one or more communication channels between the network device and the another network device. However, Koskinen teaches one or more communication channels between the network device and the another network device (see [0020, 0027], the user equipment may send the MDT reports to the network via an uplink channel, such as via radio resource control (RRC) signaling between the user equipment and the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Koskinen into view of Zhang in order to monitors radio channels and signaling messages like RRC for performance issues (e.g., poor signal, handover failures) and analyzing data related to channel conditions, operators optimize network parameters to improve channel quality and user experience.
Regarding claim 94, Koskinen further teaches the network device is configured to transmit, on request of the another network device, a result of the Minimization of Drive Test to the another network device or to at least one different further network device (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 95, Koskinen further teaches the Minimization of Drive Test comprises performing a cooperative measurement between the network device and the another network device and making an assessment of the one or more communication channels between the network device and the another network device (see [0025, 0030, 0037]).
Regarding claim 100, Zhang further teaches the network device is configured to participate as one out of a plurality of participating network devices in a cooperative Minimization of Drive Test, wherein the participating network devices receive same or different configuration parameters from the another network device (see [0040, 0086]).
Regarding claim 101, Zhang further teaches the network device is configured to be orchestrated, together with the other participating network devices, by the another network device during performing the cooperative Minimization of Drive Test, wherein an operation of the network device and of the plurality of participating network devices depends on the one or more received configuration parameters (see [0040, 0086]).
Regarding claim 104, Koskinen further teaches the network device is configured to, responsive to the one or more received configuration parameters, participate in the Minimization of Drive Test by receiving a signal from the another network device via a primary wireless communication interface and evaluating one or more signals and/or channel parameters related to the received signal, and wherein the network device is further configured to transmit, via the primary wireless communication interface, a report message to the another network device, the report message comprising the evaluated one or more signals and/or channel parameters (see [0020, 0027, 0030, 0037]).
Regarding claim 109, Koskinen further teaches the network device comprises a primary wireless communication interface for communicating with one or more network devices and wherein the network device is configured to receive the configuration parameters via the primary wireless communication interface (see figures 3-4, [0126, 0133, 0137, 0160], it is clearly seen that the UE has the primary wireless communication interface for receiving the configuration parameters).
Regarding claim 112, Koskinen further teaches the Minimization of Drive Test includes a cooperative Over-the-Air End-to-End test between the network device and the another network device for testing the network device and/or the another network device and/or the wireless communication network, wherein the cooperative Over-the-Air End-to-End test comprises at least one of a pre-deployment test, a design test, a calibration test, a development test, a production test, a qualification test, an assessment test, a conformance test, or a type approval test (see a conformance test, [0007, 0019]).
Claim(s) 96-99, 102-103 and 105 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0022910, hereinafter, “Zhang”) in view of Koskinen et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0357298, hereinafter, “Koskinen”) as applied to claim 93 above, and further in view of Zhu (US Pub. No.: 2023/0171606).
Regarding claim 96, Zhang and Koskinen, in combination, fails to teach the assessment of the one or more communication channels between the network device and the another network device comprises at least one of: assessing an interference in the one or more communication channels. However, Zhu teaches the assessment of the one or more communication channels between the network device and the another network device comprises at least one of: assessing an interference in the one or more communication channels (see figure 4, [0044, 0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhu into view of Zhang and Koskinen in order to improve channel quality and reduce the interference.
Regarding claim 97, after combine, Koskinen teaches the network device and the another network device are configured to perform the Minimization of Drive Test in-situ (see [0021, 0023, 0027). Zhu teaches being used in a deployed network ([0059]).
Regarding claim 98, Zhang further teaches the network device is configured such that an operation and/or a configuration of the network device is controlled by the another network device depending on the one or more configuration parameters received from the another network device (see figures 3-4, QOM control the operation /configuration, [0126, 0133, 0137, 0160]).
Regarding claims 99 and 102-103, Koskinen further teaches responsive to the one or more received configuration parameters, the network device is configured to perform the Minimization of Drive Test by doing at least one of:" operating in a predetermined mode (see [0026, 0028]).
Regarding claim 105, Zhang, Koskinen and Zhu, in combination, fails to teach the network device is configured to perform a predetermined action if the one or more evaluated reception parameters are outside a predetermined target range. However, examiner take official noticed such features are well known in the art of telecommunications such as adjust the antenna when is outside the range as disclosed in the spec.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching Zhang, Koskinen and Zhu in order to improve reception signal and channel quality.
Claim(s) 110-111 and 113-114 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0022910, hereinafter, “Zhang”) in view of Koskinen et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0357298, hereinafter, “Koskinen”) as applied to claim 93 above, and further in view of Martin (US Pub. No.: 2017/0215191).
Regarding claim 110, Zhang and Koskinen, in combination, fails to teach the network device comprises a secondary communication interface, and wherein the Minimization of Drive Test includes testing of the secondary communication interface. However, Martin teaches the network device comprises a secondary communication interface, and wherein the Minimization of Drive Test includes testing of the secondary communication interface (see [0066, 0078, 0080, 0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Martin into view of Zhang and Koskinen in order to help provide more bandwidth to support this increased use of wireless telecommunications technologies, it has recently been proposed to use unlicensed radio spectrum resources to support operations on licensed radio spectrum.
Regarding claim 111, Martin further teaches the testing comprises a characterization of a communication channel of the secondary communication interface by evaluating at least one of a Received Signal Strength indication (RSSI), a Reference Signal Receive Power (RSRP), and Round Trip Time (RTT) (see [0065]).
Regarding claims 113-114, Martin further teaches the secondary communication interface includes one of wireless local area network (WLAN), Bluetooth, 2G-GSM, 3G-UMTS, 4G-LTE, and 5G-NR.S114 (see [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 106-108 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.
Regarding claim 106, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the network device comprises a primary wireless communication interface for communicating with one or more network devices, and wherein the network device is configured to, responsive to the one or more received configuration parameters, participate in the Minimization of Drive Test by performing a downlink test, wherein the network device is configured to receive one or more reference signals or predetermined data from the another network device and from at least one further network device via its primary communication interface, and select between the another network device and the at least one further network device to connect to based on a result of the downlink test.
Regarding claim 107, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the network device comprises a primary wireless communication interface for communicating with one or more network devices, and wherein the network device is configured to, responsive to the one or more received configuration parameters, participate in the Minimization of Drive Test by performing an uplink test, wherein the network device is configured to transmit one or more reference signals or predetermined data to the another network device and to at least one further network device via its primary communication interface, and receive an indication from one of the another network device and the at least one further network device, the indication for indicating to which one of the another network device and the at least one further network device the network device shall connect, wherein the indication depends on a result of the uplink test.
Regarding claim 108, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the network device comprises a primary wireless communication interface for communicating with one or more network devices, and wherein the network device is configured to, responsive to the one or more received configuration parameters, participate in the Minimization of Drive Test by performing a channel quality test, the channel quality test includes transmitting, via a primary communication interface, predetermined data to the another network device, the predetermined data containing a report about a channel quality of the primary communication interface between the network device and the another network device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649