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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 7, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vialen et al. US Patent No.: 6,577,868 B1, hereinafter, ‘Vialen’ in view of Loviekar et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0360495, hereinafter, ‘Loviekar’.
Claims 1, and as applied to the device 15 (e.g., see figure 3 structure) and 20(NTCRM-see figure 3 structure), Vialen teaches a method of determining a route of a mobile terminal from data relating to a plurality of network events involving the mobile terminal (based on BRI, a network event this would be met best on at least the changes in QoS, connection parameters, signal to noise ratio, fading, etc. In other words, events affecting the signal quality and/ or strength – col. 2 lines 52-55- now consider the context QoS changes- col. 5 lines 56-58), the route comprising at least one route segment of a transport network (i.e., a mobile station in motion- cell border between adjacent col. 1 lines 23-24), the method comprising: determining at least one candidate route during which it is determined (i.e., this is met based on the list of candidate base stations routing the mobility of the wireless transport – col. 2 lines 13-15, col2 2 lines 33-50), for at least one first network event from the plurality of network events: a probability of connection of the mobile terminal to a first base station involved in the first network event(i.e., 0 probability = cannot connect to above 0 probability being “likely” to certain), knowing that the mobile terminal is located, at a time t1 at which the first network event occurred, on a first candidate route segment located in a coverage area of the first base station, and/or a probability of transition, at a time t2 at which a second network event in which a second base station is involved has occurred(i.e., the BS knows the current speed and likely direction – col. 4 lines 12-17), of the terminal to at least one second candidate route segment located in a coverage area of the second base station, knowing that the mobile terminal is on the first candidate route segment at time t1; and selecting the route of the mobile terminal from the set of candidate routes, taking account of the connection probabilities and transition probabilities determined for the plurality of network events (i.e., this is met based on the figures and 6 and 7 where based on changes in network events such as QoS, multipath fading which directly relates to the probability of a mobile station in motion will connect or even lose an existing connection a candidate list of spatially located base stations is created. This is turn directly relates to a transport route).
However, Vialen does not specifically teach selecting the geographical route of the mobile terminal from the set of candidate geographical routes, taking account of the connection probabilities and transition probabilities determined for the plurality of network events.
In analogous art, Loviekar teaches in at least 0083 “the cellular base station may select one or more additional conditional handover sets for the wireless device. For example, as previously noted, in some scenarios, there may be multiple possible known/predicted routes that may be travelled from a certain location, and the network may not be aware of in which direction the wireless device will travel. In such a case, it may be beneficial to provide the wireless device with multiple conditional handover sets, e.g., with each associated with a possible known/predicted route from the current location of the wireless device.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vialen to include teach selecting the geographical route of the mobile terminal from the set of candidate geographical routes, taking account of the connection probabilities and transition probabilities determined for the plurality of network events for the purpose to help improve cellular service retention, again particularly in high speed/high mobility scenarios in which rapidly changing channel conditions can make cell re-selection more challenging.
Consider claims 2 and 16, Vialen teaches wherein the selected route is the one for which a product of the set of connection probabilities with the set of transition probabilities determined for the plurality of network events considered is the highest (i.e., QoS is best col. 5 lines 56-58).
Consider Claim 7, Vialen teaches wherein the connection probability is weighted according to a deviation of a direction of the first candidate route segment from a reference direction (i.e., this is met based on the creation of the candidate cell list of figure 5 likelihood of connectivity based on current location and direction of travel - the BS knows the current speed and likely direction – col. 4 lines 12-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowable. The prior art of record does not teach wherein the connection probability for a given network event is determined according to the formula. n which A represents the first base station involved in the first event, Si represents the first candidate route segment located within the coverage area of the first base station, p; represents a pixel of a likelihood map representing a probability of connection of the mobile terminal to the first base station when the terminal is located on a pixel of the likelihood map, and n represents the number of pixels of the likelihood map of non-null weight crossed by the first candidate route segment Si
Claims 3-6, 8-13, and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the formulation outlined in claims 3 and 17 which include the formulaic parameters such as pixel representation of a likelihood map which if/when incorporated with the independent claim would produce or render obvious the same output. Claims 4-6, 12-14 and 18-19 depend from claims 3 and 17 and would therefore be allowable if incorporated therein for the reason stated above.
The closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the formulation outlined in claim 8, 10 and 11 which include the formulaic parameters which if/when incorporated with the independent claim would produce or render obvious the same output.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646