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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “approximation” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “useful signal” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “useful signal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and and 8-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18648090 in view of Rao et al. (US 20120005548). The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Hadji Kacem
A method of estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of a cellular radiocommunication network, characterized in that it wherein the method comprises: selecting from a set of cells of said network, at least two cells offering the highest mean reception powers of a useful signal at said location (CELLi,CELL2...CELLM);
determining, on the logarithmic scale, at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios at said location for said received useful signal coming from each of said at least two cells selected (SINRdB1,SINRdB2...SINRdBM); determining a correlation coefficient between said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale;
determining a maximum between said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale; and estimating said characteristic parameters of a reception quality at said location from said maximum and from said correlation coefficient; wherein said correlation coefficient is determined from an approximation of a mean of a product of said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios.
A method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location in a cellular radiocommunication network, characterized in that it wherein the method comprises: selecting, from a set of cells of said network, at least two cells associated with the highest mean receive powers of a useful signal at said location (CELL1,CELL2...CELLM);
determining, on the logarithmic scale, at least two signal-to-interference plus noise ratios at said location for said useful signal received from each of said at least two selected cells (SINRdB1.SINRdB2...SINRdBM); determining a correlation coefficient between said at least two signal-to- interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale;
determining a maximum between said at least two signal-to-interference- plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale; and estimating said characteristic parameters of a reception quality at said location from said maximum and said correlation coefficient.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 1 of Hadji Kacem by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 15.
Hadji Kacem does not teach said correlation coefficient is determined from an approximation of a mean of a product of said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios. Rao teaches said correlation coefficient is determined from an approximation of a mean of a product of said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios ([0026] The correlation metric is calculated as:
PNG
media_image1.png
235
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
0027] where N is the number of PRBs times the number of subframes over which the correlation metric is calculated.). The motivation would have been to compute the correlation between the SINR it predicted based on the SRS and the actual SINR experienced on the PUSCH when the mobile transmitted (Rao ¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 of Instant Application
Claims 3 and 4 of Hadji Kacem
The method of estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
calculating a mean (q(SINRi,SINR2...SINRM)) and a variance (s2(SINRi, SINR2...SINRM)) of each of said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale, and in that said correlation coefficient is determined according to the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
51
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
28
117
media_image3.png
Greyscale
respectively designate said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale of said at least two cells, qi and q respectively designate said means of each of said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale, s and sj respectively designate said variances of said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale.
(claim 3)
The method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
calculating a mean (q(SINRI, SINR2...SINRM)) and a variance (s2(SINRI,SINR2.... SINRM)) associated with each of said at least two signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale, said determining said correlation coefficient between said at least two signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale being performed from said means and variances calculated associated with each of said at least two signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale.
(claim 4)
wherein said correlation coefficient is determined according to the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
51
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
28
117
media_image3.png
Greyscale
respectively designate said at least two signal-to-interference- plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale of said at least two cells, qi and q1 respectively designate said means associated with each of said at least two signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale, s, and sj respectively designate said variances associated with each of said at least two signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale.
Based on the information presented above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 3 and 4 of Hadji Kacem by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 of Instant Application
Claim 8 of Hadji Kacem
The method of estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality according to any one of claim 1, wherein said determination of said maximum between said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale, comprises, where applicable, determining, from said at least two cells selected, at least two cells mutually having an mean power difference greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold.
The method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality according to any of claim 1, wherein determining said maximum comprises a calculation between said at least two logarithmically determined signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios, said calculation comprising, if necessary, determining, among said at least two selected cells, at least two cells having between them a mean power difference greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold
PNG
media_image4.png
21
29
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Based on the foregoing, claim 8 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 8 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 of Instant Application
Claim 9 of Hadji Kacem
A processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program to execute the method according to claim 1, when the computer program is executed by the processor.
A processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer to execute the method according to any of claim 1, when the computer program is executed by the processor.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 of Instant Application
Claim 10 of Hadji Kacem
A method of planning the deployment of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the method implements an estimation of characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of said network according to claim 1 and a determination of parameters for planning said network depending on said estimated characteristic parameters.
A method for planning the deployment of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the method implements estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location of said network according to claim 1, and determining parameters for planning said network as a function of said characteristic parameters estimated.
Based on the foregoing, claim 10 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 10 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 of Instant Application
Claim 11 of Hadji Kacem
A method of optimizing the operating parameters of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the method implements estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of said network according to claim 1 and a determination of optimized operating parameters of said network depending on said estimated characteristic parameters.
A method for optimizing operating parameters of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the method implements estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location of said network according to claim 1, and determining optimized operating parameters of said network as a function of said characteristic parameters estimated.
Based on the foregoing, claim 11 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 11 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 of Instant Application
Claim 12 of Hadji Kacem
A method of monitoring the performance of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the method implements estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of said network according to claim 1 and an estimation of at least one performance criterion of said network depending on said estimated characteristic parameters.
A method for monitoring performance of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the method implements estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location of said network according to claim 1, and estimating at least one performance criterion of said network as a function of said characteristic parameters estimated.
Based on the foregoing, claim 12 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 12 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 of Instant Application
Claim 13 of Hadji Kacem
A system for planning the deployment of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the system comprises a processor configured to execute the steps of the method for estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of said network according to claim 1 and for determining the parameters for planning said network depending on said estimated characteristic parameters.
A system for planning deployment of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the system comprises a processor configured to execute the steps of the method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location of said network according to claim 1, and to determine planning parameters of said network as a function of said characteristic parameters estimated.
Based on the foregoing, claim 13 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 13 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 of Instant Application
Claim 14 of Hadji Kacem
A system for optimizing the operating parameters of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the system comprises a processor configured to execute the steps of the method for estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of said network according to claim 1 and for determining the optimized operating parameters of said network depending on said estimated characteristic parameters.
A system for optimizing operating parameters of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the system comprises a processor configured to execute the steps of the method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location of said network according to claim 1, and to determine optimized operating parameters of said network as a function of said characteristic parameters estimated.
Based on the foregoing, claim 14 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 14 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 of Instant Application
Claim 15 of Hadji Kacem
A system for monitoring the performance of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the system comprises a processor configured to execute the steps of the method for estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of said cellular radiocommunication network according to claim 1 and for analyzing a performance of said network depending on said estimated characteristic parameters.
A system for monitoring performance of a cellular radiocommunication network, wherein the system comprises a processor configured to perform the steps of the method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location of said cellular radiocommunication network according to claim 1, and to analyze performance of said network as a function of said characteristic parameters estimated.
Based on the foregoing, claim 15 is rejected because it recites same limitations as claim 15 of Hadji Kacem; the underlined working differences are minor and do not alter the meaning.
Claims 3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18648090 in view of Cho et al. (US 20110194423). The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Regarding claim 3,
Claim 3 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Hadji Kacem
A method of estimating the characteristic parameters of a reception quality in a location of a cellular radiocommunication network, characterized in that it wherein the method comprises: selecting from a set of cells of said network, at least two cells offering the highest mean reception powers of a useful signal at said location (CELLi,CELL2...CELLM);
determining, on the logarithmic scale, at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios at said location for said received useful signal coming from each of said at least two cells selected (SINRdB1,SINRdB2...SINRdBM); determining a correlation coefficient between said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale;
determining a maximum between said at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale; and estimating said characteristic parameters of a reception quality at said location from said maximum and from said correlation coefficient;
wherein said correlation coefficient is determined from:
a calculation of at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios only taking into account a single cell generating interferences offering the highest mean reception power of a useful signal at said location;
and at least two variances representative of an impact on the mean reception powers of said useful signal, of obstacles that said useful signal encounters during its propagation.
A method for estimating characteristic parameters of a reception quality at a location in a cellular radiocommunication network, characterized in that it wherein the method comprises: selecting, from a set of cells of said network, at least two cells associated with the highest mean receive powers of a useful signal at said location (CELL1,CELL2...CELLM);
determining, on the logarithmic scale, at least two signal-to-interference plus noise ratios at said location for said useful signal received from each of said at least two selected cells (SINRdB1.SINRdB2...SINRdBM); determining a correlation coefficient between said at least two signal-to- interference-plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale;
determining a maximum between said at least two signal-to-interference- plus-noise ratios determined on the logarithmic scale; and estimating said characteristic parameters of a reception quality at said location from said maximum and said correlation coefficient.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 1 of Hadji Kacem by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 1.
Hadji Kacem does not teach wherein said correlation coefficient is determined from:
a calculation of at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios only taking into account a single cell generating interferences offering the highest mean reception power of a useful signal at said location; and at least two variances representative of an impact on the mean reception powers of said useful signal, of obstacles that said useful signal encounters during its propagation. However, Cho discloses: said correlation coefficient is determined from:
a calculation of at least two signal to interference plus noise ratios only taking into account a single cell generating interferences offering the highest mean reception power of a useful signal at said location ([0136] PL.sub.s denotes pathloss estimated by MS for the serving cell, PL.sub.i denotes pathloss estimated by MS for a cell with the strongest interference, NI denotes estimated an average power level of noise and interference of each subcarrier in the serving cell, and SINR.sub.target denotes an SINR level for transmitting a data or control channel.); and at least two variances representative of an impact on the mean reception powers of said useful signal, of obstacles that said useful signal encounters during its propagation. ( Table 9:
PNG
media_image5.png
73
381
media_image5.png
Greyscale
). The motivation would have been to improve system throughput and cell edge-user throughput and to efficiently perform inter-cell interference level control (Cho ¶ [0033]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 1.
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 NHU PHAM whose telephone number is (703)756-4511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at (571) 270-3936. 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.
/NHU PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights