DETAILED ACTION
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 35U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, anycorrection of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would bethe same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11-12, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seckendorf et al. (US 20120035904 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seckendorf et al. teach initiating a cellular field testing tool that tests a condition of cellular network connectivity of a device under test (Fig. 1, [0017], a product acceptance testing apparatus 10 includes a plurality of wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 that each include a product acceptance testing application 23 operable to simulate predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 on the respective device, and to determine if the device is configured and operable according to predetermined communications processing standards 27),
Seckendorf et al. teach detecting first results of performing a first series of communication channel handover procedures at the device under test (Fig. 1, [0017, 0025-0026], predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 and predetermined communications processing standards 27 include protocols relating to the initiation, maintenance and termination of data communications on the wireless device, thereby establishing operability and performance levels of the device on a network. In one embodiment, wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 are positioned within a wireless network area 28 and communicate across a wireless network 14 with each other, and/or with a product acceptance data-gathering and/or user manager server 16. User manager 16 may communicate with wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 through a direct, wired connection or through a wireless connection, such as through a network interface 26 in communication with wireless network 14. The communications between user manager 16 and wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 may include downloads of all, or selected portions (such as particular test suites), of product acceptance testing application 23. Other such communications include uploads from each wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 that supply product acceptance data 29, i.e. the test results, back to the user manager 16. These test scenarios may test the operational performance of various functions, parameters, characteristics, messaging protocols, etc., such as: terminations, originations and maintenance in strong signal, weak signal and mixed signal environments; radio frequency ("RF") performance parameters, such as: receive (Rx) parameters including sensitivity, isolated magnetic dipole ("IMD") and self-jamming, transmit (Tx) parameters such as waveform quality ("Rho"), power control and maximum power, and broadband ("BB") and digital signal processing ("DSP") parameters such as signal acquisition, soft handoff ("SHO"), searcher, and finger assignment; interoperability performance parameters such as: channel parameters including access channel ("ACH"), dedicated paging channel ("DPCH"), forward traffic channel ("FTCH") and reverse traffic channel ("RTCH"), messaging parameters dealing with layer 1 and layer 2, and handoff parameters including SHO, inter-band hard handoff ("HHO") and inter-frequency HHO. The wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network),
Seckendorf et al. teach detecting second results of performing a second series of communication channel handover procedures at a reference device (i.e. Fig. 1, [0017, 0025-0026], fig. is showing four wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22, any two devices out of four can be considered as first and second device with similar test procedure as above. Predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 and predetermined communications processing standards 27 include protocols relating to the initiation, maintenance and termination of data communications on the wireless device, thereby establishing operability and performance levels of the device on a network. In one embodiment, wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 are positioned within a wireless network area 28 and communicate across a wireless network 14 with each other, and/or with a product acceptance data-gathering and/or user manager server 16. User manager 16 may communicate with wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 through a direct, wired connection or through a wireless connection, such as through a network interface 26 in communication with wireless network 14. The communications between user manager 16 and wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 may include downloads of all, or selected portions (such as particular test suites), of product acceptance testing application 23. Other such communications include uploads from each wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 that supply product acceptance data 29, i.e. the test results, back to the user manager 16. These test scenarios may test the operational performance of various functions, parameters, characteristics, messaging protocols, etc., such as: terminations, originations and maintenance in strong signal, weak signal and mixed signal environments; radio frequency ("RF") performance parameters, such as: receive (Rx) parameters including sensitivity, isolated magnetic dipole ("IMD") and self-jamming, transmit (Tx) parameters such as waveform quality ("Rho"), power control and maximum power, and broadband ("BB") and digital signal processing ("DSP") parameters such as signal acquisition, soft handoff ("SHO"), searcher, and finger assignment; interoperability performance parameters such as: channel parameters including access channel ("ACH"), dedicated paging channel ("DPCH"), forward traffic channel ("FTCH") and reverse traffic channel ("RTCH"), messaging parameters dealing with layer 1 and layer 2, and handoff parameters including SHO, inter-band hard handoff ("HHO") and inter-frequency HHO. The wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network),
Seckendorf et al. teach and outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, an indication of whether the device under test passed or failed the first series of communication channel handover procedures at least in part by comparing the test results of the first series of communication channel handover procedures at the device under test with the second results of the second series of communication channel handover procedures at the reference device (fig. 1, [0031, 0037], apparatus 10 includes analysis engine 21 that analyzes product acceptance data 29 and generates product acceptance decision 47 as to whether or not the respective wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 achieves predetermined communications processing standards 27 associated with predetermined network communications scenarios 25. For example, the analysis performed by analysis engine 21 may compare select portions of product acceptance data 29 with select portions of predetermined communications processing standards 27 to see whether or not the data falls within the standards. The selected predetermined communications processing standards 27 may be a minimum value, a maximum value, a range of values, a predetermined value, and combinations thereof. Further, after performing an initial analysis on an initial set of product acceptance test data 29, analysis engine 21 may initiate further communications with one or more wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 to retrieve additional data related to product acceptance test data, or to initiate simulation of additional test scenarios 25 and generation of new product acceptance test data. Analysis engine 21 may repeat such a feedback loop until a predetermined solution is achieved, i.e. until a set number of tests are run and the results confirmed. Analysis engine 21 may include hardware, software, firmware, and combinations thereof for analyzing and processing product acceptance data 29. If the data does not achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a negative result, i.e. that the wireless device fails the corresponding test or standard. Additionally, the product acceptance decision may be a summary decision based on more than one set of product test data, i.e. if there are a number of test scenarios that need to be run for a given standard. As such, the product acceptance decision may be based on an analysis of a plurality of test results, and a positive result may occur when each of the plurality of tests and/or standards are achieved).
Regarding claim 2, Seckendorf et al. teach wherein the first series of communication channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures involve handover between Wi-Fi and another communication channel (Fig. 1, [0026, 0027], the first or second communication channel handover procedures are between the Wi-Fi and the internet. According to a detail, wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network; an infrared network such as an Infrared Data Association (IrDA)-based network; a short-range wireless network; a Bluetooth RTM. technology network; a home radio frequency network; a shared wireless access protocol (SWAP) network; a wideband network, such as a wireless Ethernet compatibility alliance (WECA) network, a wireless fidelity alliance (Wi-Fi Alliance) network. Network interface 26 may be any mechanism that allows user manager 16 to communicate across wireless network 14. For example, network interface 26 may include a local area network that connects user manager 16 through an Internet Service Provider to the Internet, which in turn may be connected to a respective wireless device through a carrier network and a base station).
Regarding claim 7, Seckendorf et al. teach wherein outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises comparing a first ratio indicating failed iterations within the first series of communication channel handover procedures and a second ratio indicating failed
Iterations within the second series of communication channel handover procedures (Fig. 1, [0030, 0037], user manager 16 may change an operational parameter and/or configuration of a respective wireless device, and/or of a network component, based on the product acceptance test data 29 and/or based on the analysis and product acceptance test decision 47 generated by analysis engine 21. The analysis engine may compare selected portions of the product acceptance data with selected portions the predetermined communications processing standards to decide whether or not the data achieves the standard. If the data does achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a positive result, i.e. that the wireless device passes the corresponding test or standard. If the data does not achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a negative result, i.e. that the wireless device fails the corresponding test or standard. Additionally, the product acceptance decision may be a summary decision based on more than one set of product test data, i.e. if there are a number of test scenarios that need to be run for a given standard. As such, the product acceptance decision may be based on an analysis of a plurality of test results, and a positive result may occur when each of the plurality of tests and/or standards are achieved.
Regarding claim 11, Seckendorf et al. teach a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions that, when executed by the physical computing processor, cause the physical computing processor to perform operations comprising (Fig. 1, [0009], a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a wireless device, cause the wireless device to perform operations, the instructions comprising: program code to transmit at least a portion of a product acceptance test application across a wireless network to a wireless communications device having a communications processing engine, the product acceptance test application including a simulation module for simulating network communications with the communications processing engine, the simulated network communications corresponding to a network communications test scenario; program code to receive product acceptance data from the wireless communication device, the product acceptance data comprising test result data corresponding to the processing of the simulated network communications by the communications processing engine; and program code to determine a product acceptance decision based on the product acceptance data),
Seckendorf et al. teach Initiating a cellular field testing tool that tests a condition of cellular network connectivity of a device under test (Fig. 1, [0017], a product acceptance testing apparatus 10 includes a plurality of wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 that each include a product acceptance testing application 23 operable to simulate predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 on the respective device, and to determine if the device is configured and operable according to predetermined communications processing standards 27),
Seckendorf et al. teach detecting first results of performing a first series of communication channel handover procedures at the device under test (Fig. 1, [0017, 0025-0026], predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 and predetermined communications processing standards 27 include protocols relating to the initiation, maintenance and termination of data communications on the wireless device, thereby establishing operability and performance levels of the device on a network. In one embodiment, wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 are positioned within a wireless network area 28 and communicate across a wireless network 14 with each other, and/or with a product acceptance data-gathering and/or user manager server 16. User manager 16 may communicate with wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 through a direct, wired connection or through a wireless connection, such as through a network interface 26 in communication with wireless network 14. The communications between user manager 16 and wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 may include downloads of all, or selected portions (such as particular test suites), of product acceptance testing application 23. Other such communications include uploads from each wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 that supply product acceptance data 29, i.e. the test results, back to the user manager 16. These test scenarios may test the operational performance of various functions, parameters, characteristics, messaging protocols, etc., such as: terminations, originations and maintenance in strong signal, weak signal and mixed signal environments; radio frequency ("RF") performance parameters, such as: receive (Rx) parameters including sensitivity, isolated magnetic dipole ("IMD") and self-jamming, transmit (Tx) parameters such as waveform quality ("Rho"), power control and maximum power, and broadband ("BB") and digital signal processing ("DSP") parameters such as signal acquisition, soft handoff ("SHO"), searcher, and finger assignment; interoperability performance parameters such as: channel parameters including access channel ("ACH"), dedicated paging channel ("DPCH"), forward traffic channel ("FTCH") and reverse traffic channel ("RTCH"), messaging parameters dealing with layer 1 and layer 2, and handoff parameters including SHO, inter-band hard handoff ("HHO") and inter-frequency HHO. The wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network),
Seckendorf et al. teach Detecting second results of performing a second series of communication channel handover procedures at a reference device (i.e. Fig. 1, [0017, 0025-0026], fig. is showing four wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22, any two devices out of four can be considered as first and second device with similar test procedure as above. Predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 and predetermined communications processing standards 27 include protocols relating to the initiation, maintenance and termination of data communications on the wireless device, thereby establishing operability and performance levels of the device on a network. In one embodiment, wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 are positioned within a wireless network area 28 and communicate across a wireless network 14 with each other, and/or with a product acceptance data-gathering and/or user manager server 16. User manager 16 may communicate with wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 through a direct, wired connection or through a wireless connection, such as through a network interface 26 in communication with wireless network 14.
The communications between user manager 16 and wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 may include downloads of all, or selected portions (such as particular test suites), of product acceptance testing application 23. Other such communications include uploads from each wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 that supply product acceptance data 29, i.e. the test results, back to the user manager 16. these test scenarios may test the operational performance of various functions, parameters, characteristics, messaging protocols, etc., such as: terminations, originations and maintenance in strong signal, weak signal and mixed signal environments; radio frequency ("RF") performance parameters, such as: receive (Rx) parameters including sensitivity, isolated magnetic dipole ("IMD") and self-jamming, transmit (Tx) parameters such as waveform quality ("Rho"), power control and maximum power, and broadband ("BB") and digital signal processing ("DSP") parameters such as signal acquisition, soft handoff ("SHO"), searcher, and finger assignment; interoperability performance parameters such as: channel parameters including access channel ("ACH"), dedicated paging channel ("DPCH"), forward traffic channel ("FTCH") and reverse traffic channel ("RTCH"), messaging parameters dealing with layer 1 and layer 2, and handoff parameters including SHO, inter-band hard handoff ("HHO") and inter-frequency HHO. The wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network),
Seckendorf et al. teach and outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, an indication of whether the device under test passed or failed the first series of communication channel handover procedures at least in part by comparing the test results of the first series of communication channel handover procedures at the device under test with the second results of the second series of communication channel handover procedures at the reference device (fig. 1, [0031, 0037], apparatus 10 includes analysis engine 21 that analyzes product acceptance data 29 and generates product acceptance decision 47 as to whether or not the respective wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 achieves predetermined communications processing standards 27 associated with predetermined network communications scenarios 25. For example, the analysis performed by analysis engine 21 may compare select portions of product acceptance data 29 with select portions of predetermined communications processing standards 27 to see whether or not the data falls within the standards. The selected predetermined communications processing standards 27 may be a minimum value, a maximum value, a range of values, a predetermined value, and combinations thereof. Further, after performing an initial analysis on an initial set of product acceptance test data 29, analysis engine 21 may initiate further communications with one or more wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 to retrieve additional data related to product acceptance test data, or to initiate simulation of additional test scenarios 25 and generation of new product acceptance test data. Analysis engine 21 may repeat such a feedback loop until a predetermined solution is achieved, i.e. until a set number of tests are run and the results confirmed. Analysis engine 21 may include hardware, software, firmware, and combinations thereof for analyzing and processing product acceptance data 29. If the data does not achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a negative result, i.e. that the wireless device fails the corresponding test or standard. Additionally, the product acceptance decision may be a summary decision based on more than one set of product test data, i.e. if there are a number of test scenarios that need to be run for a given standard. As such, the product acceptance decision may be based on an analysis of a plurality of test results, and a positive result may occur when each of the plurality of tests and/or standards are achieved).
Regarding claim 12, Seckendorf et al. teach wherein system is configured such that the first series of communication channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures involve handover between Wi-Fi and another communication channel (Fig. 1, [0026, 0027], the first or second communication channel handover procedures are between the Wi-Fi and the internet. According to a detail, wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network; an infrared network such as an Infrared Data Association (IrDA)-based network; a short-range wireless network; a Bluetooth RTM. technology network; a home radio frequency network; a shared wireless access protocol (SWAP) network; a wideband network, such as a wireless Ethernet compatibility alliance (WECA) network, a wireless fidelity alliance (Wi-Fi Alliance) network. Network interface 26 may be any mechanism that allows user manager 16 to communicate across wireless network 14. For example, network interface 26 may include a local area network that connects user manager 16 through an Internet Service Provider to the Internet, which in turn may be connected to a respective wireless device through a carrier network and a base station).
Regarding claim 17, Seckendorf et al. teach wherein the system is configured such that outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises comparing a first ratio indicating failed iterations within the first series of communication channel handover procedures and a second ratio indicating failed iterations within the second series of communication channel handover procedures (Fig. 1, [0030, 0037], user manager 16 may change an operational parameter and/or configuration of a respective wireless device, and/or of a network component, based on the product acceptance test data 29 and/or based on the analysis and product acceptance test decision 47 generated by analysis engine 21. The analysis engine may compare selected portions of the product acceptance data with selected portions the predetermined communications processing standards to decide whether or not the data achieves the standard. If the data does achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a positive result, i.e. that the wireless device passes the corresponding test or standard. If the data does not achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a negative result, i.e. that the wireless device fails the corresponding test or standard. Additionally, the product acceptance decision may be a summary decision based on more than one set of product test data, i.e. if there are a number of test scenarios that need to be run for a given standard. As such, the product acceptance decision may be based on an analysis of a plurality of test results, and a positive result may occur when each of the plurality of tests and/or standards are achieved.
Regarding claim 20, Seckendorf et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions that, when executed by at least one physical processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising (Fig. 1, [0009], a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a wireless device, cause the wireless device to perform operations, the instructions comprising: program code to transmit at least a portion of a product acceptance test application across a wireless network to a wireless communications device having a communications processing engine, the product acceptance test application including a simulation module for simulating network communications with the communications processing engine, the simulated network communications corresponding to a network communications test scenario; program code to receive product acceptance data from the wireless communication device, the product acceptance data comprising test result data corresponding to the processing of the simulated network communications by the communications processing engine; and program code to determine a product acceptance decision based on the product acceptance data),
Seckendorf et al. teach Initiating a cellular field testing tool that tests a condition of cellular network connectivity of a device under test (Fig. 1, [0017], a product acceptance testing apparatus 10 includes a plurality of wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 that each include a product acceptance testing application 23 operable to simulate predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 on the respective device, and to determine if the device is configured and operable according to predetermined communications processing standards 27),
Seckendorf et al. teach detecting first results of performing a first series of communication channel handover procedures at the device under test (Fig. 1, [0017, 0025-0026], predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 and predetermined communications processing standards 27 include protocols relating to the initiation, maintenance and termination of data communications on the wireless device, thereby establishing operability and performance levels of the device on a network. In one embodiment, wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 are positioned within a wireless network area 28 and communicate across a wireless network 14 with each other, and/or with a product acceptance data-gathering and/or user manager server 16. User manager 16 may communicate with wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 through a direct, wired connection or through a wireless connection, such as through a network interface 26 in communication with wireless network 14. The communications between user manager 16 and wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 may include downloads of all, or selected portions (such as particular test suites), of product acceptance testing application 23. Other such communications include uploads from each wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 that supply product acceptance data 29, i.e. the test results, back to the user manager 16. These test scenarios may test the operational performance of various functions, parameters, characteristics, messaging protocols, etc., such as: terminations, originations and maintenance in strong signal, weak signal and mixed signal environments; radio frequency ("RF") performance parameters, such as: receive (Rx) parameters including sensitivity, isolated magnetic dipole ("IMD") and self-jamming, transmit (Tx) parameters such as waveform quality ("Rho"), power control and maximum power, and broadband ("BB") and digital signal processing ("DSP") parameters such as signal acquisition, soft handoff ("SHO"), searcher, and finger assignment; interoperability performance parameters such as: channel parameters including access channel ("ACH"), dedicated paging channel ("DPCH"), forward traffic channel ("FTCH") and reverse traffic channel ("RTCH"), messaging parameters dealing with layer 1 and layer 2, and handoff parameters including SHO, inter-band hard handoff ("HHO") and inter-frequency HHO. The wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network),
Seckendorf et al. teach Detecting second results of performing a second series of communication channel handover procedures at a reference device (i.e. Fig. 1, [0017, 0025-0026], fig. is showing four wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22, any two devices out of four can be considered as first and second device with similar test procedure as above. Predetermined network communications test scenarios 25 and predetermined communications processing standards 27 include protocols relating to the initiation, maintenance and termination of data communications on the wireless device, thereby establishing operability and performance levels of the device on a network. In one embodiment, wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 are positioned within a wireless network area 28 and communicate across a wireless network 14 with each other, and/or with a product acceptance data-gathering and/or user manager server 16. User manager 16 may communicate with wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 through a direct, wired connection or through a wireless connection, such as through a network interface 26 in communication with wireless network 14.
The communications between user manager 16 and wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 may include downloads of all, or selected portions (such as particular test suites), of product acceptance testing application 23. Other such communications include uploads from each wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 that supply product acceptance data 29, i.e. the test results, back to the user manager 16. these test scenarios may test the operational performance of various functions, parameters, characteristics, messaging protocols, etc., such as: terminations, originations and maintenance in strong signal, weak signal and mixed signal environments; radio frequency ("RF") performance parameters, such as: receive (Rx) parameters including sensitivity, isolated magnetic dipole ("IMD") and self-jamming, transmit (Tx) parameters such as waveform quality ("Rho"), power control and maximum power, and broadband ("BB") and digital signal processing ("DSP") parameters such as signal acquisition, soft handoff ("SHO"), searcher, and finger assignment; interoperability performance parameters such as: channel parameters including access channel ("ACH"), dedicated paging channel ("DPCH"), forward traffic channel ("FTCH") and reverse traffic channel ("RTCH"), messaging parameters dealing with layer 1 and layer 2, and handoff parameters including SHO, inter-band hard handoff ("HHO") and inter-frequency HHO. The wireless network 14 may include at least one, or any combination, of: a cellular telephone network; a terrestrial telephone network; a satellite telephone network),
Seckendorf et al. teach and outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, an indication of whether the device under test passed or failed the first series of communication channel handover procedures at least in part by comparing the test results of the first series of communication channel handover procedures at the device under test with the second results of the second series of communication channel handover procedures at the reference device (fig. 1, [0031, 0037], apparatus 10 includes analysis engine 21 that analyzes product acceptance data 29 and generates product acceptance decision 47 as to whether or not the respective wireless device 12, 18, 20, 22 achieves predetermined communications processing standards 27 associated with predetermined network communications scenarios 25. For example, the analysis performed by analysis engine 21 may compare select portions of product acceptance data 29 with select portions of predetermined communications processing standards 27 to see whether or not the data falls within the standards. The selected predetermined communications processing standards 27 may be a minimum value, a maximum value, a range of values, a predetermined value, and combinations thereof. Further, after performing an initial analysis on an initial set of product acceptance test data 29, analysis engine 21 may initiate further communications with one or more wireless devices 12, 18, 20, 22 to retrieve additional data related to product acceptance test data, or to initiate simulation of additional test scenarios 25 and generation of new product acceptance test data. Analysis engine 21 may repeat such a feedback loop until a predetermined solution is achieved, i.e. until a set number of tests are run and the results confirmed. Analysis engine 21 may include hardware, software, firmware, and combinations thereof for analyzing and processing product acceptance data 29. If the data does not achieve the standard, then the product acceptance decision indicates a negative result, i.e. that the wireless device fails the corresponding test or standard. Additionally, the product acceptance decision may be a summary decision based on more than one set of product test data, i.e. if there are a number of test scenarios that need to be run for a given standard. As such, the product acceptance decision may be based on an analysis of a plurality of test results, and a positive result may occur when each of the plurality of tests and/or standards are achieved).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seckendorf et al. (US 20120035904 A1) in view of Zheng et al. (US 11,765,789 B1).
Seckendorf et al. disclose the claimed limitations as described in paragraph 4 above. Seckendorf et al. do not expressly disclose the following features: Regarding claim 3, Wherein the first series of communication channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures between new radio and another communication channel; Regarding claim 13, wherein the system is configured such that the first series of communication channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures involve handover procedures between new radio and another communication channel.
Regarding claim 3, Zheng et al. teach wherein the first series of communication channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures between new radio and another communication channel (Fig. 1, [col 3 ln 25-33, col 5 ln 30-42], system 100 includes a testing platform 102 and a plurality of user devices 104. In some examples, the testing platform 102 is configured to manage the performance of tests 118 by user devices 104 based on collected user device data 106, such that the test requirements 120 of tests 118 are satisfied by the user devices 104 upon which the tests 118 are executed. network connection data of the usage data 110 may include log data that has been generated by tracking processes of the user device 104 when forming network connections, such as log data that tracks network connection handoff processes between cellular towers (e.g., between a fifth generation (5G) network connection and another type of cellular network connection) or between a Wi-Fi network and a cellular network. In other examples, more, fewer, and/or different types of usage data 110 may be collected by the usage data collector 124 of the user devices 104 and used by the testing platform 102 without departing from the description);
Regarding claim 13, Zheng et al. teach wherein the system is configured such that the first series of communication channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures involve handover procedures between new radio and another communication channel (Fig. 1, [col 3 ln 25-33, col 5 ln 30-42], system 100 includes a testing platform 102 and a plurality of user devices 104. In some examples, the testing platform 102 is configured to manage the performance of tests 118 by user devices 104 based on collected user device data 106, such that the test requirements 120 of tests 118 are satisfied by the user devices 104 upon which the tests 118 are executed. network connection data of the usage data 110 may include log data that has been generated by tracking processes of the user device 104 when forming network connections, such as log data that tracks network connection handoff processes between cellular towers (e.g., between a fifth generation (5G) network connection and another type of cellular network connection) or between a Wi-Fi network and a cellular network. In other examples, more, fewer, and/or different types of usage data 110 may be collected by the usage data collector 124 of the user devices 104 and used by the testing platform 102 without departing from the description)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seckendorf et al. by incorporating the features as taught by Zheng et al. in order to provide a more effective and efficient system that is capable of having channel handover procedures or the second series of communication channel handover procedures between new radio and another communication channel. The motivation is to support an improved method of enhancing test performance by intelligently managing distribution of tests to user devices (see [col 1 ln26-28]).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seckendorf et al. (US 20120035904 A1) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2015/0189525 A1).
Seckendorf et al. disclose the claimed limitations as described in paragraph 4 above. Seckendorf et al. do not expressly disclose the following features: regarding claim 4, wherein decoding a packet header to identify a type of radio access technology acts as start criterion for beginning the first series of communication channel handover procedures; regarding claim 14, wherein the system is configured such that decoding a packet header to identify a type of radio access technology acts as a start criterion for beginning the first series of communication channel handover procedures.
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt et al. teach wherein decoding a packet header to identify a type of radio access technology acts as start criterion for beginning the first series of communication channel handover procedures (Figs. 1, 12A, 12B, [0023, 0068], test architecture may involve a testing platform 101, a reference device 103, and device under test (DUT) 105. Reference device 103 and DUT 105 (hereinafter referred to as devices 103 and 105) may communicate over system 100 and may include any customer premise equipment (CPE) capable of sending and/or receiving information over one or more of networks 109-115. Figs. 12A-12B are diagrams of user interfaces for the reference and device under test during a field test, according to one embodiment. FIG. 12A displays the user interface screen 1200a, a user interface for a reference device 103. The header 1201a of the interface 1200a identifies the field test number (98), which identifies the field test in a system. The interface's 1200a sub-header 1203a identifies the reference device 105 number (23).
regarding claim 14, Schmidt et al. teach wherein the system is configured such that decoding a packet header to identify a type of radio access technology acts as a start criterion for beginning the first series of communication channel handover procedures (Figs. 1, 12A, 12B, [0023, 0068], test architecture may involve a testing platform 101, a reference device 103, and device under test (DUT) 105. Reference device 103 and DUT 105 (hereinafter referred to as devices 103 and 105) may communicate over system 100 and may include any customer premise equipment (CPE) capable of sending and/or receiving information over one or more of networks 109-115. Figs. 12A-12B are diagrams of user interfaces for the reference and device under test during a field test, according to one embodiment. FIG. 12A displays the user interface screen 1200a, a user interface for a reference device 103. The header 1201a of the interface 1200a identifies the field test number (98), which identifies the field test in a system. The interface's 1200a sub-header 1203a identifies the reference device 105 number (23).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seckendorf et al. by incorporating the features as taught by Schmidt et al. in order to provide a more effective and efficient system that is capable of decoding a packet header to identify a type of radio access technology acts as start criterion for beginning the first series of communication channel handover procedures. The motivation is to support an improved method for platform-based device field test route generation and field testing (see [0009]).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seckendorf et al. (US 20120035904 A1) in view of Chaaraoui et al. (US 2021/0326680 A1).
Seckendorf et al. disclose the claimed limitations as described in paragraph 4 above. Seckendorf et al. do not expressly disclose the following features: regarding claim 5, wherein a key performance indicator is measured based on at least one of monitoring failure messages in IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem signaling, monitoring a registered radio access technology used by an instance of user equipment, or monitoring for call drops; regarding claim 6, wherein at least one instance within the first series of communication channel handover procedures is labeled as a failure upon detecting either a call drop or an occurrence of an IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem error code; Regarding claim 15, wherein the system is configured such that a key performance indicator is measured based on at least one of monitoring failure messages in IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem signaling, monitoring a registered radio access technology used by an instance of user equipment, or monitoring for call drops; Regarding claim 16, wherein the system is configured such that at least one instance within the first series of communication channel handover procedures is labeled as a failure upon detecting either a call drop or an occurrence of an IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem error code.
Regarding claim 5, Chaaraoui et al. teach wherein a key performance indicator is measured based on at least one of monitoring failure messages in IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem signaling, monitoring a registered radio access technology used by an instance of user equipment, or monitoring for call drops (Fig. 1, [0016, 0020, 0022 0074, 0063], a test system 10 for mobile network testing that comprises at least one testing device 12 as well as a processing circuit 14. In the shown embodiment, the processing circuit 14 is provided by the testing device 12 itself. However, the processing circuit 14 may also be established by an external device 16, for instance a server that may communicate with the testing device 12 or rather an offline device that receives respective data for evaluation. The testing device may be connected to the mobile network by an antenna, a cable or any other suitable connection means. The testing device may relate to a mobile device, for instance a user end device such as a mobile phone or a tablet. Binary test result may relate, for example, to a call status, a data connection stability, a video quality or any other key performance indicator (KPI) associated with network testing. The likelihood/probability of a call drop throughout the duration of the testing may be predicted such that the stability of the call can be scored while identifying unstable test segments or degradations of the quality of experience (QoE) during the testing.
Forwarding the test result of the test to the trained test system for evaluating the test result).
Regarding claim 6, Chaaraoui et al. teach wherein at least one instance within the first series of communication channel handover procedures is labeled as a failure upon detecting either a call drop or an occurrence of an IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem error code (Fig. 1, [0004, 0022, 0029, 0051], the quality of the network is inter alia assigned to the drop call rate being a network key parameter indicator (KPI), wherein the drop call rate corresponds to the number of calls dropping during the tests by the total number of calls tested. Typically, this rate is very low, for instance between 1-2%. Therefore, a large number of calls has to be performed for obtaining a testing result that is statistically significant. Similar examples include call establishment failures, video re-buffering, or data service accessibility. The likelihood/probability of a call drop throughout the duration of the testing may be predicted such that the stability of the call can be scored while identifying unstable test segments or degradations of the quality of experience (QoE) during the testing. A drop call rate is defined by binary test results as the calls are dropped or not so that the drop call rate can be classified by two groups/classes. A respective test procedure may relate to a test involving at least two devices, for instance the testing device as well as another entity such as another testing device or a base station. Therefore, the respective samples obtained can be doubled in a side-flipped manner with regard to the two devices involved. This means that in case of a drop call testing, it was tested that A calls B, wherein respective measurement data is gathered. Then, the respective metric is side-flipped as if B would have called A. Accordingly, a data augmentation is provided.
Regarding claim 15, Chaaraoui et al. teach wherein the system is configured such that a key performance indicator is measured based on at least one of monitoring failure messages in IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem signaling, monitoring a registered radio access technology used by an instance of user equipment, or monitoring for call drops (Fig. 1, [0016, 0020, 0022 0074, 0063], a test system 10 for mobile network testing that comprises at least one testing device 12 as well as a processing circuit 14. In the shown embodiment, the processing circuit 14 is provided by the testing device 12 itself. However, the processing circuit 14 may also be established by an external device 16, for instance a server that may communicate with the testing device 12 or rather an offline device that receives respective data for evaluation. The testing device may be connected to the mobile network by an antenna, a cable or any other suitable connection means. The testing device may relate to a mobile device, for instance a user end device such as a mobile phone or a tablet. Binary test result may relate, for example, to a call status, a data connection stability, a video quality or any other key performance indicator (KPI) associated with network testing. The likelihood/probability of a call drop throughout the duration of the testing may be predicted such that the stability of the call can be scored while identifying unstable test segments or degradations of the quality of experience (QoE) during the testing.
Forwarding the test result of the test to the trained test system for evaluating the test result).
Regarding claim 16, Chaaraoui et al. teach wherein the system is configured such that at least one instance within the first series of communication channel handover procedures is labeled as a failure upon detecting either a call drop or an occurrence of an IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem error code (Fig. 1, [0004, 0022, 0029, 0051], the quality of the network is inter alia assigned to the drop call rate being a network key parameter indicator (KPI), wherein the drop call rate corresponds to the number of calls dropping during the tests by the total number of calls tested. Typically, this rate is very low, for instance between 1-2%. Therefore, a large number of calls has to be performed for obtaining a testing result that is statistically significant. Similar examples include call establishment failures, video re-buffering, or data service accessibility. The likelihood/probability of a call drop throughout the duration of the testing may be predicted such that the stability of the call can be scored while identifying unstable test segments or degradations of the quality of experience (QoE) during the testing. A drop call rate is defined by binary test results as the calls are dropped or not so that the drop call rate can be classified by two groups/classes. A respective test procedure may relate to a test involving at least two devices, for instance the testing device as well as another entity such as another testing device or a base station. Therefore, the respective samples obtained can be doubled in a side-flipped manner with regard to the two devices involved. This means that in case of a drop call testing, it was tested that A calls B, wherein respective measurement data is gathered. Then, the respective metric is side-flipped as if B would have called A. Accordingly, a data augmentation is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seckendorf et al. by incorporating the features as taught by Chaaraoui et al. in order to provide a more effective and efficient system that is capable of measuring key performance indicator based on monitoring for call drops, and handover procedures is labeled as a failure upon detecting either a call drop. The motivation is to support an improved method for training a test system for mobile network testing (see [0001]).
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seckendorf et al. (US 20120035904 A1) in view of Partee (US 2014/0187172 A1).
Seckendorf et al. disclose the claimed limitations as described in paragraph 4 above. Seckendorf et al. do not expressly disclose the following features: regarding claim 8, wherein outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises detecting whether the first ratio is within a threshold percent from the second ratio; Regarding claim 10, at least once; and saving output results and generating a report with a latency measurement and a pass/fail percentage; Regarding claim 18, wherein the system is configured such that
outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises detecting whether the first ratio is within a threshold percent from the second ratio.
Regarding claim 8, Partee teaches wherein outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises detecting whether the first ratio is within a threshold percent from the second ratio (Figs. 1, 4 [0005, 0097, 0104-0105], each of the wireless network devices may be inserted in one of a number of test chambers of a test fixture. The number of test chambers may be configured to block radio frequency signals from entering or leaving the number of test chambers. Each of the wireless network devices is engaged in a test slot associated with the number of test chambers. The number of wireless network devices are automatically tested in parallel in response to user input. The process of FIG. 10 may be implemented by a user 1002 and a test fixture 1004 (fig. 10). The test fixture 1004 analyzes signals and tests results received from the set-top box to determine functionality or non-functionality of the set-top box (step 1016). The testing instrumentation of the test fixture 1004 may compare signals and results against thresholds, ranges, parameters, or expected results. The analysis and indicators may be displayed in alphanumeric format or utilizing visual indicators, such as a user interface, green or red LEDs, or other displays to indicate that the set-top box has passed or failed according to specified parameters stored by the set-top box or utilized by the user 1002).
Regarding claim 10, Partee teaches at least once; and saving output results and generating a report with a latency measurement and a pass/fail percentage (Fig. 10, [0045, 0104-0105], the test fixture 1004 analyzes signals and tests results received from the set-top box to determine functionality or non-functionality of the set-top box (step 1016). The testing instrumentation of the test fixture 1004 may compare signals and results against thresholds, ranges, parameters, or expected results. The analysis and indicators may be displayed in alphanumeric format or utilizing visual indicators, such as a user interface, green or red LEDs, or other displays to indicate that the set-top box has passed or failed according to specified parameters stored by the set-top box or utilized by the user 1002. Functional testing of one or more residential gateways 102 may include measuring wireless signal strength and quality including electrical characteristics (voltage, current, response time, propagation delay, jitter, etc.) of the video and audio signals and comparing those signals against applicable industry standards).
Regarding claim 18, Partee teaches wherein the system is configured such that
outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises detecting whether the first ratio is within a threshold percent from the second ratio (Figs. 1, 4 [0005, 0097, 0104-0105], each of the wireless network devices may be inserted in one of a number of test chambers of a test fixture. The number of test chambers may be configured to block radio frequency signals from entering or leaving the number of test chambers. Each of the wireless network devices is engaged in a test slot associated with the number of test chambers. The number of wireless network devices are automatically tested in parallel in response to user input. The process of fig. 10 may be implemented by a user 1002 and a test fixture 1004 (fig. 10). The test fixture 1004 analyzes signals and tests results received from the set-top box to determine functionality or non-functionality of the set-top box (step 1016). The testing instrumentation of the test fixture 1004 may compare signals and results against thresholds, ranges, parameters, or expected results. The analysis and indicators may be displayed in alphanumeric format or utilizing visual indicators, such as a user interface, green or red LEDs, or other displays to indicate that the set-top box has passed or failed according to specified parameters stored by the set-top box or utilized by the user 1002).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seckendorf et al. by incorporating the features as taught by Partee in order to provide a more effective and efficient system that is capable of outputting, by the cellular field testing tool, the indication of whether the device under test passed or failed comprises detecting whether the first ratio is within a threshold percent from the second ratio, and saving output results and generating a report with a latency measurement and a pass/fail percentage. The motivation is to support an improved method to perform testing of each of the wireless network devices in response to commands from the control system (see [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 is 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 SYED M BOKHARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3115. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/SYED M BOKHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2473 12/23/2025
/JUTAI KAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473