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 . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2023-12-28 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-10, 19 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 19 and 2-10
The claim(s) recite variants of:
identifying, using one or more machine learning models, a portion of the one or more locations that are likely to be incorrect based on the first data and the second data;
The term ‘likely” in “likely to be incorrect” is a subjective/relative term which renders the claim(s) indefinite. The definition of ‘likely’ is: “having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable” (Merrian-Webster dictionary). However that definition itself is subjective: What is considered “high” or “very probable”?
Consequently, if a cell location was identified as being 51% probability of being incorrect, would that be considered “likely to be incorrect”? How about 50% which is even probability of being correct or incorrect and therefore is subjective of whether it would be “likely to be?”
Furthermore, the limitations of the term(s) is/are not defined by claim language and the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. The Specification is silent with regards to threshold or evaluations on how to determine what is “likely to be.” According, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim(s) 3
The claim(s) recite variants of:
alleged distances between one or more wireless cells in the sequences of wireless cells
The claim encompasses the scope of “one or more wireless cells” to be “one cell.” Consequently, the claim would recite “alleged distance between one cell” which doesn’t make sense.
Claim(s) 19
The claim recites:
One or more machine-readable storage devices
The claim is directed to the statutory category of a machine. A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
However, the claim’s body is not directed to the parts of subcomponents of the machine, but rather recites a list of functionalities as if claim was a method claim. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what the claimed machine consistent of (i.e., parts of the claimed machine).
Note: Because of the phrase “storage device” the claim is not interpreted to be a computer-readable storage medium (CRM). The term “storage device” is used to indicate an apparatus (a machine). The Specification (see para. 0065 in US PUB) does not define the term “storage device” as exclusively being a CRM and therefore a broadest reasonable interpretation includes the claimed “storage devices” as being an apparatus (as opposed to a medium). Examiner recommends amended the claim to “A non-transitory computer readable medium."
Relevant Cited References
RAMANAN - US20140274077 teaches “the determining of the target location for the metro cell base station is based upon the comparing of the calculated number of user equipment with the first threshold, the comparing of the amount of data activity with a second threshold and the comparing of the calculated RF level with the third threshold.”
THOMAS - US20260056277 teaches “verify the UE location in an NTN cell where the first reported location may be based on RAT-independent methods (e.g., GNSS) or Cell ID”
YOUNG - US20240147250 teaches “determining a location of the deployable cell site based on the analysis of the device usage reports and network performance data.”
Examiner’s Notes
DOUBLE PATENTING
Examiner has evaluated co-assigned case US18399353 for double patenting considerations. While the claims are similar, they patently are distinct. The patently distinct difference being:
Claim 11 of US18399353
identifying at least one wireless cell that is represented in the first data but does not have a corresponding location included in the second data;
generating, by one or more machine learning models, an estimated location for the at least one wireless cell; and
Instant claim 1
identifying, using one or more machine learning models, a portion of the one or more
locations that are likely to be incorrect based on the first data and the second data;
generating estimates of a revised location for each wireless cell corresponding to the identified portion of the one or more locations that are likely to be incorrect,
Similar comments apply to other phrases such as, but not limited to: “a list of (elements),” “a grouping of (elements),” “a number of (elements),” “a selection of (elements),” and “an arrangement of (elements).”
Independent Claims vs Prior Art
Generally, it appears the inventive concepts are novel over the prior art, but due to claim limitations that are unclear/indefinite, any clarifying amendments that overcome the indefiniteness would need to be further considered in view of the art.
Closest prior art is identified in the section Relevant Cited References. The prior art teaches (1) determining a location of a user based on cell information or (2) determining cell location based on user activity. (1) is different from the claims in that the claims require identifying locations to of cells based on user usage (i.e., it’s reverse of what (1) is teaching). (2) is different from the claims in that there is a presumption that the determined location of the call is always correct (and therefore not “likely to be incorrect”). The art in (2) is silent with regard to evaluating whether the calculated location could be potentially wrong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415