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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIGs. 2, 4, and 11, boxes or simple shapes are labeled only with reference numbers, without descriptive legends. The Examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(n) and 1.84(o) which state, “Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate” while “[o]ther symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office” and that “[s]uitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”. Since the boxes or simple shapes in FIGs. 2 (e.g., 410, 420), 4 (e.g., 410, 420), and 11 (e.g., 1110,1112) are not universally recognized for the elements they represent, the Examiner may require descriptive legends for better understanding of the drawings. See MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “the height of a plurality of buildings” should be --heights of a plurality of buildings-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 5, “each sensor data record” should be --each of the sensor data records-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 6, line 5, “the expected barometric pressure” should be --an expected barometric pressure-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 6, “the associated horizontal coordinate data” should be -- associated horizontal coordinate data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 1, “each building location” should be --each of the building locations-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 7, lines 4-5, “utilising the maximum elevation from the remaining elevation data as the altitude of the top of a building associated with the building location” should be -- utilising a maximum elevation from the remaining elevation data as an altitude of a top of a building associated with the building location-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 1, “each building location” should be --each of the building locations-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 8, lines 2-3, “utilising the minimum elevation from the remaining elevation data as the altitude of the bottom of the building associated with the building location” should be --utilising a minimum elevation from the remaining elevation data as an altitude of a bottom of the building associated with the building location-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8, lines 4-5, “calculating the height of the building as the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and the altitude of the bottom of the building” should be --calculating a height of the building as the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and the altitude of the bottom of the building-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 9, lines 2-3, “the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and terrain elevation at the building location” should be --a difference between the altitude of the top of the building and terrain elevation at the building location-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 1, “each building location” should be --each of the building locations-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 11, line 2, “the horizontal plane” should be --a horizontal plane-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 2, “each region” should be --each of the plurality of regions-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 12, line 1, “each building location” should be --each of the building locations-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 16, line 1, “each building location” should be --each of the building locations-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 16, line 4, “each cluster” should be --each of the plurality of clusters-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 22, line 5, “each sensor data record” should be --each of the sensor data records-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
In claim 23, line 6, “each sensor data record” should be --each of the sensor data records-- because the scope is too broad without clear boundary.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes).
The claim recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining the height of a plurality of buildings in a region, the method comprising:
retrieving a map of building locations in the region;
retrieving a plurality of sensor data records from a plurality of mobile network devices, wherein each sensor data record comprises horizontal coordinate data and elevation data; and
processing the plurality of sensor data records and the map of building locations to generate a set of building heights.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations as bold-faced above. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined in the claim above. The computer is invoked for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The retrieving steps are recited at a high level of generality to collect the data necessarily for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The sensors data records from a plurality of mobile network devices is recited at a high level of generality to indicate the type or source of data, which is a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are an insignificant extra-solution activity, to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea, and/or to indicate the data source or environment, which is a field of use. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (Step 1- No). The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a storage medium covers both non-statutory subject matter (e.g. transitory propagating signals) and statutory subject matter (e.g. non-transitory tangible media). See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). To address this issue, further limitation, such as adding "non-transitory" to the claim(s), is needed.
Claim 22 is also rejected by analogy to claim 1 (abstract idea).
Claim 23 is rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-21 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Note that claim 17 recites “generating a deployment plan based on the generated three-dimensional map of performance and/or usage characteristics, wherein the deployment plan identifies locations for adding one or more cell sites.” This is an abstract idea because it is a transformation of information (e.g., generating a plan based on map of performance and/or usage characteristics). There is no real-world transformation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 14, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BUCHANAN et al. (US 20140114567 A1; cited in IDS: hereinafter “BUCHANAN”).
Regarding claim 1, BUCHANAN teaches a computer-implemented method for determining the height of a plurality of buildings in a region (i.e., “A height of a building or other manmade structure may then be determined based on the measurements”; see [0032]; “elevation map 400 of an urban area”; see [0036] and FIG. 4), the method comprising:
retrieving a map of building locations in the region (i.e., “for a plurality of locations”; see [0034]; note that retrieving the map of building locations is implied or obvious, so as to determine the plurality of locations for the buildings of interest to generate the elevation map of the region);
retrieving a plurality of sensor data records from a plurality of mobile network devices, wherein each sensor data record comprises horizontal coordinate data and elevation data (i.e., “collecting three-dimensional location data for a plurality of locations using one or more mobile devices, wherein the location data includes coordinates of latitude and longitude and further includes corresponding altitude data”; see [0034]); and
processing the plurality of sensor data records and the map of building locations to generate a set of building heights (i.e., “generating an elevation model based on the three-dimensional location data”; see [0034]).
Regarding clam 2, BUCHANAN further teaches: wherein retrieving the map of building locations comprises retrieving one or more of:
horizontal coordinates of the building locations;
terrain elevation in the region; and
building footprint data (note that the horizontal coordinates or building footprint data are implied or obvious “for a plurality of locations”; see [0034]; see, also, FIG. 4 for an elevation map that is a combination of the horizontal building map with annotated building elevations).
Regarding clam 3, BUCHANAN further teaches:
wherein the horizontal coordinate data comprises one or more of satellite navigation system sensor data, WiFi data, and/or Bluetooth signal data (i.e., “The three-dimensional location data may be determined from GNSS signals”; see [0035]; see, also, [0026]).
Regarding clam 4, BUCHANAN further teaches:
wherein the elevation data comprises one or more of satellite navigation system sensor data and barometric sensor data (i.e., “from GNSS signals or from weather-adjusted pressure data”; see [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, BUCHANAN further taches:
wherein the sensor data records further comprise data on one or more Mobile Network Operator (MNO) networks (i.e., “The transceiver 170 may be a radiofrequency (RF) transceiver for wirelessly communicating with one or more base stations over a cellular wireless network using cellular communication protocols and standards for both voice calls and packet data transfer such as GSM, CDMA, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, LTE, etc.”; see [0022]).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUCHANAN.
Regarding claim 5, BUCHANAN further teaches:
wherein the plurality of sensor data records comprises many measurements (i.e., “collecting three-dimensional location data for a plurality of locations using one or more mobile devices, wherein the location data includes coordinates of latitude and longitude and further includes corresponding altitude data”; see [0013]).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
wherein the plurality of sensor data records comprises more than 1 billion measurements.
However, the quantity of measurements is a matter of balancing between the computation requirements and availability of data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BUCHANAN such that the plurality of sensor data records comprises more than 1 billion measurements, as claimed. The rationale would be to optimize the number of measurements for desired computation requirements and availability of data.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUCHANAN in view of DORMODY et al. (US 20230273049 A1; hereinafter “DORMODY”).
Regarding clam 6, BUCHANAN further teaches: wherein the elevation data comprises barometric sensor data (i.e., “the altitude data determined by the pressure sensor”; see [0029]), the method further comprising:
retrieving a map of local weather conditions (i.e., “] The weather conditions may be obtained over the air from a conventional weather service linked to ground-based weather stations, from airborne weather stations, or from any other source of weather data. In another implementation, the weather data may be obtained from a localized weather model or atmospheric model”); and
deriving elevations associated with the sensor data records based on a comparison of the barometric sensor data and local weather conditions (i.e., “the altitude data determined by the pressure sensor must be compensated or adjusted to take into consideration the local atmospheric pressure variations caused by weather”; see [0029]).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
retrieving a map of barometric pressure; and
deriving elevations associated with the sensor data records based on a comparison of the barometric sensor data and the expected barometric pressure from the map of barometric pressure at horizontal coordinates of the associated horizontal coordinate data.
But DORMODY teaches:
adjusting the measured pressure using a map of pressure of weather conditions (i.e., “receiving general calibration data for the general location; determining specific calibration data based on the general calibration data and the specific location; determining a device pressure based on a pressure measurement by a barometric pressure sensor of the mobile device”; see [0006]; “the general calibration data includes a portion of terrain and building data with respect to the bounding area and reference pressure and temperature data for a region that encompasses the bounding area”; see [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BUCHANAN in view of DORMODY by retrieving a map of barometric pressure; and deriving elevations associated with the sensor data records based on a comparison of the barometric sensor data and the expected barometric pressure from the map of barometric pressure at horizontal coordinates of the associated horizontal coordinate data, as claimed. The rationale would be to calibrate the pressure measurements for more accuracy.
Claims 7, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad Mirzaei et al. (US 20150011246 A1; hereinafter “Mohammad”).
Regarding claim 7, BUCHANAN further teaches: wherein the processing comprises, for each building location:
grouping a subset of the plurality of sensor data records at the building location (i.e., “clustering altitude data based on location”; see [0032]);
utilising the maximum elevation from the remaining elevation data as the altitude of the top of a building associated with the building location (i.e., “A height of a building or other manmade structure may then be determined based on the measurements… the number of floors in the building may be estimated. This information may be added to the elevation model”; see [0032]; “The tops 420 of buildings and other habitable structures in the area are indicated with their height or maximum elevation”; see [0036]).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose:
excluding the sensor data records with elevation data outliers from the grouped subset.
But Mohammad teaches:
excluding the sensor data records with elevation data outliers from the grouped subset (i.e., “removing one or more outliers from the plurality of atmospheric pressure signals”; see [0008]; see, also, [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad, by excluding the sensor data records with elevation data outliers from the grouped subset, as claimed. The rationale would be to avoid using inaccurate or noisy sensor data (see Mohammad, [0099]).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processing comprises, for each building location:
utilising the minimum elevation from the remaining elevation data as the altitude of the bottom of the building associated with the building location; and
calculating the height of the building as the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and the altitude of the bottom of the building.
However, BUCHANAN further teaches:
utilizing the ground-level measurements and off-the-ground measurements to determine the height of the building (see [0032]).
Also, it is well-known that the height of a building can be expressed as a height relative to the ground level or street level, which is a difference between the maximum elevation and the ground elevation of the building. When a building has no below-ground level that is accessible by the public, the minimum elevation from the crowdsourced data would be the ground floor of the building. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad, such that the processing comprises, for each building location: utilising the minimum elevation from the remaining elevation data as the altitude of the bottom of the building associated with the building location; and calculating the height of the building as the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and the altitude of the bottom of the building, as claimed. The rationale would be to estimate the relative height of the building using a known relationship of the building elevations.
Regarding claim 10, BUCHANAN further teaches:
wherein the map of building locations comprises building footprint data (note that the building footprint data are implied or obvious “for a plurality of locations”; see [0034]; see, also, FIG. 4 for an elevation map that is a combination of the horizontal building footprint map with annotated building elevations), and
wherein the grouping the subset of the plurality of sensor data records at the building location is performed using the building footprint data (i.e., “clustering altitude data based on location… A height of a building or other manmade structure may then be determined based on the measurements”; see [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each building location is sub-divided into a plurality of regions in the horizontal plane and the sensor data records for each region of the building location is separately processed.
However, it is well-known that a building may have different building heights or different floor levels in different zones of the building. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad, such that each building location is sub-divided into a plurality of regions in the horizontal plane and the sensor data records for each region of the building location is separately processed, as claimed. The rationale would be to adjust the location/horizontal resolution of the elevation map to accommodate different building layouts.
Regarding clam 12, BUCHANAN further teaches: wherein the processing comprises, for each building location:
grouping a subset of the plurality of sensor data records at the building location (i.e., “clustering altitude data based on location”; see [0032]);
; and
identifying a plurality of clusters in the elevation data for the building location (i.e., “Clustering the altitude data enables the mobile device 100 or computing device 250 to identify ground-level measurements and off-the-ground measurements taken at an elevation above ground level. A height of a building or other manmade structure may then be determined based on the measurements. By applying assumptions about the average height of a typical floor, or by noting the discrete elevations, the number of floors in the building may be estimated”; see [0032]).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose:
excluding the sensor data records with elevation data outliers from the grouped subset.
But Mohammad teaches:
excluding the sensor data records with elevation data outliers from the grouped subset (i.e., “removing one or more outliers from the plurality of atmospheric pressure signals”; see [0008]; see, also, [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad, by excluding the sensor data records with elevation data outliers from the grouped subset, as claimed. The rationale would be to avoid using inaccurate or noisy sensor data (see Mohammad, [0099]).
Regarding claim 13, as a result of modification applied to claim 12 above, BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad further teaches:
wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters corresponds to one or more floors at the building location (i.e., “Based on either standard or typical floor heights, or the vertical clustering of pressure data within a building, the number of floors can be determined for a given building”; see BUCHANAN, [0035]; “each of the plurality of clusters is associated with one of the plurality of floors”; see Mohammad, [0026]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad and Meredith et al. (US 20210325179 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Meredith”).
Regarding clam 9, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the map of building locations comprises terrain elevation in the region, and
wherein the processing comprises calculating the height of the building as the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and terrain elevation at the building location.
However, BUCHANAN further teaches:
utilizing the ground-level measurements and off-the-ground measurements to determine the height of the building (see [0032]).
Also, it is well-known that the height of a building can be expressed as a height relative to the ground level or street level, which is a difference between the maximum elevation and the ground elevation.
And Meredith teaches:
utilizing a terrain elevation as a ground reference height (i.e., “A ground reference height h3 can be obtained from a terrain reference according to the device location”; see 0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BUCHANAN in view of Mohammad, further in view of Meredith, such that the map of building locations comprises terrain elevation in the region, and that the processing comprises calculating the height of the building as the difference between the altitude of the top of the building and terrain elevation at the building location, as claimed. The rationale would be to estimate the relative height of the building using a known relationship of the building elevations.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran (US 11800382 B1).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the data on one or more MNO networks comprises one or more of frequency band, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), downloaded bits per second, uploaded bits per second, downloaded bits, uploaded bits, and carrier identification.
But Chandrasekaran teaches:
wherein the data on one or more MNO networks comprises one or more of frequency band, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), downloaded bits per second, uploaded bits per second, downloaded bits, uploaded bits, and carrier identification (i.e., “the coverage analysis tool can assess if coverage in higher floors of buildings in an area is lacking and the cell can be tuned to cover the higher floors… where coverage goal can be RSRP, RSRQ, number of dropped calls, etc.”; see col. 18, lines 27-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran, such that the data on one or more MNO networks comprises one or more of frequency band, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), downloaded bits per second, uploaded bits per second, downloaded bits, uploaded bits, and carrier identification, as claimed. The rationale would be to help evaluating the network coverage performance.
Regarding claim 16, BUCHANAN further teaches: wherein the processing comprises, for each building location:
grouping a subset of the plurality of sensor data records at the building location (i.e., “clustering altitude data based on location”; see [0032]);
identifying a plurality of clusters in the elevation data for the building location (i.e., “Clustering the altitude data enables the mobile device 100 or computing device 250 to identify ground-level measurements and off-the-ground measurements… the number of floors in the building may be estimated”; see [0032]); and
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose:
averaging the data on the one or more MNO networks within each cluster for the building location to generate a three-dimensional map of performance and/or usage characteristics of the one or more MNO networks.
But Chandrasekaran teaches:
evaluating performance and/or usage characteristics of the one or more MNO networks for a building floor based on the data on the one or more MNO networks within each cluster (i.e., “the coverage analysis tool can assess if coverage in higher floors of buildings in an area is lacking and the cell can be tuned to cover the higher floors… where coverage goal can be RSRP, RSRQ, number of dropped calls, etc.”; see col. 18, lines 27-44); and
mapping the performance and/or usage characteristics with locations (see FIGs. 11 and 12).
Also, it is well-known to average a collection of related data to statistically obtain a representative value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran, by averaging the data on the one or more MNO networks within each cluster for the building location to generate a three-dimensional map of performance and/or usage characteristics of the one or more MNO networks, as claimed. The rationale would be to help evaluating the network coverage performance with a coverage/performance map.
Regarding claim 17, as a result of modification applied to claim 16 above, BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran further teaches:
generating a deployment plan based on the generated three-dimensional map of performance and/or usage characteristics, wherein the deployment plan identifies locations for adding one or more cell sites (i.e., “the coverage analysis tool, with advanced analysis, can be used to identify areas where additional network elements need to be added for coverage enhancement (e.g., new sites, small cell deployments, etc.)”; see Chandrasekaran, col. 18, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 18, as a result of modification applied to claim 17 above, BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran further teaches:
wherein the one or more cell sites are one or more small cell sites (i.e., “the coverage analysis tool, with advanced analysis, can be used to identify areas where additional network elements need to be added for coverage enhancement (e.g., new sites, small cell deployments, etc.)”; see Chandrasekaran, col. 18, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 19, as a result of modification applied to claim 17 above, BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran further teaches:
wherein the deployment plan specifies locations for the one or more cell sites where one or more MNO networks have one or more poor performance characteristics (i.e., “the coverage analysis tool, with advanced analysis, can be used to identify areas where additional network elements need to be added for coverage enhancement (e.g., new sites, small cell deployments, etc.)”; see Chandrasekaran, col. 18, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 20, BUCHANAN further teaches:
wherein the sensor data records comprise data on a plurality of MNO networks (i.e., “GSM, CDMA, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, LTE, etc.”; see [0022])
BUCHANAN does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
wherein the sensor data records comprise data on a plurality of MNO networks and the three-dimensional map of performance and/or usage characteristics is generated for each MNO network of the plurality of MNO networks, and
wherein the deployment plan specifies locations for the one or more cell sites where two or more of the plurality of MNO networks have one or more poor performance characteristics.
However, it is well-known that different cellular network protocols have different preferred performance/coverage requirements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran, such that the sensor data records comprise data on a plurality of MNO networks and the three-dimensional map of performance and/or usage characteristics is generated for each MNO network of the plurality of MNO networks, and that the deployment plan specifies locations for the one or more cell sites where two or more of the plurality of MNO networks have one or more poor performance characteristics, as claimed. The rationale would be to help evaluating performance/coverage for the different cellular networks.
Regarding claim 21, as a result of modification applied to claim 20 above, BUCHANAN in view of Chandrasekaran further teaches:
wherein the performance and/or usage characteristics comprise coverage, signal quality, percentage dropped traffic, average traffic, peak traffic and/or network usage (i.e., “if coverage in higher floors of buildings in an area is lacking and the cell can be tuned to cover the higher floors”; see Chandrasekaran, col. 18, lines 30-32).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wirola et al. (US 20220196401 A1) teaches a method of estimating a vertical elevation, altitude, or a building's floor location of a mobile device's communication relative to, for example, the ground level or ground floor of the building or structure from which the mobile device communicated, using compensated pressure measurement by the model device.
Pattabiraman et al. (US 9980246 B2) teaches a 3D localization of a mobile device, involving crowd-sourcing altitude estimates to map heights of floors.
Palanki et al. (US 20150133145 A1) teaches a method of determining an altitude of a mobile device based on crowd-sourced barometric pressure measurements
Huang et al. (US 20210341561 A1) teaches a method of determining a height of a mobile device, based on a barometric pressure reading of the mobile device, a barometric pressure metric of a weather reference point, and an elevation of a ground reference area. Categories of service metrics of performance indicator data, such as a reference signal received power (RSRP), a channel quality information (CQI), a signal to noise ratio (SNR), are measured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights