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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 8/13/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 8/13 have been considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment as set forth below in this office communication.
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) 7-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buscher (US 2022/0345874) in view of Wang et al. (US 2025/0301344) further in view of Podolsky (US 9,277,431).
Regarding claim 7:
Buscher discloses a system and method of adapting a communication network to improve communication quality based on voice call metrics determined on a subscriber-by-subscriber basis (abstract; figures), comprising:
for each of a plurality of subscribers of a telecommunication company, analyzing call detail records (CDRs) of the subscriber by an application executing on a computer system to identify negative voice call events from call state information in the CDRs of the subscriber (para 13, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {network quality metrics may include call quality metrics for outgoing and incoming voice calls…}; figure 1 [platform 124]; para 23);
for each negative voice call event, associating a location of a subscriber communication device at the time of the negative voice call event by the application to the negative voice call event (para 13 {call quality metrics for outgoing and incoming voice calls made and received at the various locations…}; para 14 {estimated call quality score for a location});
for each of the plurality of subscribers, determining a subscriber-centric voice call metric for the subscriber by the application based on a count of negative voice call events of the subscriber for each of a plurality of one hour intervals (para 24 {The call quality metrics that are specific to a location may include a call setup success ratio, an average quality of speech score, a handover success rate, a voice call drop rate} [drop rate essentially include number or count of call drops]; fig 4-6; para 27; para 65 {call quality score of the wireless carrier network for the location based at least on the call quality metrics of the one or more user device predetermined recent time periods} [predetermined time periods essentially covers one hour]);
for each of the plurality of subscribers, determining an average subscriber-centric voice call metric by the application by averaging the subscriber-centric metric values determined for each of the plurality of one hour intervals (para 24,27; para 54 {sum the weighted call quality metric values, average the weighted call quality metric values}; para 65 {call quality score of the wireless carrier network for the location based at least on the call quality metrics of the one or more user device predetermined recent time periods}; and see throughout the disclosure).
Buscher discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching that, [1] the negative voice call events including voice call events indicated by the call state information as one or more of call blockage, call drop, garbled voice content, or failure to reach voice mail; and [2] for a subscriber associated with an average subscriber-centric voice call metric that is below a predefined threshold, taking action to improve the voice call service of the subscriber based on a location where the subscriber negative voice call experiences occurred.
However, regarding item [1] Podolsky in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein the negative voice call events including voice call events indicated by the call state information as one or more of call blockage, call drop, garbled voice content, or failure to reach voice mail ([Note: optional claim language require only one of the elements]; column 4, lines 3-16 {subscriber network experience based on network events (e.g. drop calls, etc.). Utilizing these techniques, a system may take call trace logs from network elements (e.g. RNCs, etc.), create discrete events in the form of call detail records…}; figures; and throughout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Podolsky in Buscher in order to provide performance and experience indicators to improve subscriber's network experience (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
However, regarding [2] Wang in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein for a subscriber associated with an average subscriber-centric voice call metric that is below a predefined threshold, taking action to improve the voice call service of the subscriber based on a location where the subscriber negative voice call experiences occurred (para 111 {provide the customer with a software update or software patch to correct the service degradation}[providing update/patch is the action]; fig 2d; para 185 {model concludes that a software update is required for a failing component or if a repair can be effected}; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Wang in Buscher in order to provide automatic identification and resolving call and service issues in communication network [26,27] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 8:
Buscher discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the average subscriber-centric voice call metric for each subscriber is determined (para 24,27,54), except for specifically teaching at least a one-week period of time and less than a two-week period of time.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that (Buscher, para 24 [ locations during the predetermined trial time period, or any time portion of the predetermined trial time period]) predetermined period or part would obviously cover at least one-week and less than a two-week period, for collecting network quality metric.
Regarding claim 9:
Buscher discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the average subscriber-centric voice call metric for each subscriber is determined (para 24,27,54), except for specifically teaching the average subscriber-centric voice call metric for each subscriber is determined over at least a two-week period of time and less than a three-month period of time.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that (Buscher, para 24 [locations during the predetermined trial time period, or any time portion of the predetermined trial time period]) predetermined period or any part would obviously cover at least a two-week and less than a three-month period for collecting network quality metric.
Regarding claim 10:
Buscher discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein each subscriber communication device is a device selected from the group consisting of a mobile phone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable computer, a headset computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer (para 17 [user device 102 may be a smartphone, a smartwatch, a tablet computer, a phablet, or any other wireless communication device]; figs; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 13:
Buscher discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the communication network is one of a 6G, a 5G, or a long-term evolution communication network (para 52-53 [5G]; and see throughout disclosure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6,14-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 11-12 are 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.
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 HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights