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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues Lee fails to disclose “providing, by the device, the measurement results defined by the CDDM to a management server” [Remarks pg. 10-11]. Examiner respectively disagrees. As discussed below, Lee discloses the user device (device) performing measurements, based on input/parameters from the management server/base station (server), and transmitting those measurements back to the server [pg. 9-10 (see particularly pg. 10 par. 4)]. Applicant additionally argues Lee fails to disclose the amendment “receiving, by the device, a command from the [server] to perform an action according to a determination based on the measurement results defined by the CDDM” [Remarks pg. 11]. Applicant’s arguments with respect this 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, where Examiner additionally notes Applicant’s change from the originally recited “parameters” in dependent claim 3 (i.e., arguably part of the aforementioned communication from the server to the device) to “measurement results” requires a different interpretation.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20070049445 A) in view of Wallentin (US 20230217329 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for performing cellular diagnostics [fig. 3, pg. 9-10], comprising:
conducting, by a device [fig. 1 no. 300], a quality measurement procedure to obtain measurement results associated with radio communication, wherein the device telecommunicates with at least one base station [fig. 1 no. 200] (Diagnostic server compiles and terminal(s) perform some number (e.g., up to 20) of measurements [pg. 10 par. 1 (P10:P1)]);
configuring, by the device, the measurement results according to a Cellular Diagnostic Data Model (Terminal(s) analyze DM test scenario(s) in order to perform the DM measurement(s) (e.g., RSS, SIR) according to the scenario(s) (i.e., according to CDDM) [P10:P4, 1]); and
providing, by the device, the measurement results defined by the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model to a management server [fig. 1 no. 100, 110] (Terminal(s) transmit results (i.e., defined by CDDM) to diag server [P10:P4]).
Although Lee discloses receiving, by the device, a command from the management server to perform … defined by the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model, as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose an action according to a determination based on the measurement results. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Wallentin.
In the same field of endeavor, Wallentin discloses:
an action according to a determination based on the measurement results (UE sends measurement report to network and receives an action to perform based on the measurement results [fig. 18 no. 1-7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with Wallentin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of performing mobility operations in relation to cells in a wireless network based on conditions [Wallentin 0001, 20].
Regarding claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lee further discloses a Device [fig. 1 no. 300, fig. 5A, P12:P5], comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions [fig. 5A no. D200, P13:P1]; and a processor connected to the memory [fig. 5A no. D100, P13:P2].
Regarding claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lee further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions stored thereon [fig. 4, 5A no. D100, P13:P2].
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, Lee and Wallentin disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses:
wherein the providing, by the device, the measurement results defined by the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model to the management server includes providing the measurement results defined by the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model to the management server for diagnosing the device or the at least one base station attached to by the device (Mutual interference of overall terminals (i.e., at device) and overall influence of BS (i.e., at BS) [P3:P2, 5, P4:P3]).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, Lee and Wallentin disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses:
wherein the device corresponds to a Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) and the management server corresponds to an Auto-Configuration Server (ACS) (Diag server scenario(s) set so measurement is automatically performed (i.e., ACS) [P7:P3] based on the person/owner’s location (i.e., CPE) [P8:P3, P11:P5]).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Lee discloses CPE(s) communicating with BS(s) [P3:P4], and as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose further comprising: telecommunicating by the CPE with a first base station of a first carrier and a second base station of a second carrier; wherein the receiving the command further comprises receiving the command prompting the CPE to disconnect from a first serving cell and attach to a second serving cell, the second serving cell being selected from a plurality of neighbor cells; and wherein the first serving cell is for the first base station of the first carrier and the second serving cell is for the second base station of the second carrier. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Wallentin.
In the same field of endeavor, Wallentin discloses further comprising:
telecommunicating by the CPE with a first base station of a first carrier and a second base station of a second carrier [fig. 18];
wherein the receiving the command further comprises receiving the command prompting the CPE to disconnect from a first serving cell and attach to a second serving cell, the second serving cell being selected from a plurality of neighbor cells [fig. 18, par. 374+ (see A6-A8)]; and
wherein the first serving cell is for the first base station of the first carrier and the second serving cell is for the second base station of the second carrier [fig. 18, par. 374+ (see A6-A8)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with Wallentin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of performing mobility operations in relation to cells in a wireless network based on conditions [Wallentin 0001, 20].
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Wallentin as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, and further in view of Mahimkar (US 20220159515 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Lee and Wallentin disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Lee discloses wherein the configuring the measurement results into parameters of the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model, as discussed above, Lee and Wallentin do not explicitly disclose includes configuring the measurement results into a parameter name identifying the parameter and a value associated with the parameter name, wherein the parameter name includes at least one of a physical Cell ID, a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) Result, or a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) Result respectively for a serving cell and at least one neighbor cell. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Mahimkar.
In the same field of endeavor, Mahimkar discloses:
includes configuring the measurement results into a parameter name identifying a parameter and a value associated with the parameter name, wherein the parameter name includes at least one of a physical Cell ID, a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) Result, or a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) Result respectively for a serving cell and at least one neighbor cell [par. 0015, where one of ordinary skill in the art would know the parameter’s value must be “identified” in some manner].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and Wallentin with Mahimkar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of better cell HO [Mahimkar par. 0015].
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Wallentin as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, and further in view of Moser (US 20130286851 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Lee and Wallentin disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Lee discloses CPE(s) and configuring the measurement results into parameters of the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model, as discussed above, Lee and Wallentin do not explicitly disclose wherein the device corresponds to a Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), the CPE including a Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) WAN Management Protocol (CWMP) client; the method further comprising: configuring, by the CWMP client of the CPE. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Moser.
In the same field of endeavor, Moser discloses:
wherein the device corresponds to a Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), the CPE including a Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) WAN Management Protocol (CWMP) client [par. 0070];
the method further comprising:
configuring, by the CWMP client of the CPE [par. 0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and Wallentin with Moser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of remotely managing end user devices [Moser par. 0070].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lee, Wallentin, and Moser disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee and Moser further disclose further comprising:
receiving a request from an Auto-Configuration Server (ACS) [Lee, as discussed above]; and
upon receiving the request from the ACS, reading [Lee, as discussed above], by the CWMP client of the CPE [Moser par. 0070], the measurement results from the quality measurement procedure and configuring, by the CWMP client of the CPE [Moser par. 0070], the measurement results into the parameters of the Cellular Diagnostic Data Model [Lee, as discussed above].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Lee, Wallentin, and Moser disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee and Moser further disclose:
wherein the receiving the request includes receiving the request [Lee, as discussed above] in response to a handover taking place [Moser par. 0005], and wherein the CPE [Lee, as discussed above] changes attachment from a first serving cell to a second serving cell [Moser par. 0005].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights