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 .
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.
Priority
The instant application is the national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371 of Application No. PCT/SE2021/050938, filed 27 September 2021, having claims 1-26.
In response to the previous office action, Applicant has amended claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 22, and 26. Claims 1-18, 22, and 26 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 April 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The term “network related action” is being interpreted as “actions performed in the deployment and configuring of a network.” In the specification, it is being described as including activities such as adaptation [of] mobile network resources, network deployment, or user behaviour contextualization.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “one or both the performance value is compared to…” makes no sense.
Regarding claim 8, the word “are” should precede “different.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-18, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 22, and 26 each recite “modifying at least one of the radio signal parameter processing or threshold values based on the evaluation.” Although the specification describes the setting of radio signal parameter values (see paragraph 38), it does not disclose modifying these values or thresholds.
Claims 2-18 are dependent upon base claim 1 and wholly incorporate its limitations, rendering them likewise as failing to comply the written description requirement.
Claims 4 and 5 recite the term “sample size,” which does not appear in the original disclosure. Based upon Applicant’s comments (see Remarks, filed 26 May 2026), the recitation of “size” in the original claims should reasonably be constructed as directed to the number of members of a subset; it would therefore be acceptable to revert to that original wording. For purposes of the prior art search, this is being construed as the “number of members of a subset.”
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.
Claims 1-18, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 22, and 26 recite “the radio signal parameter processing” in lines 25, 26, and 27, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of the prior art search, is being presumed that this limitation refers to the radio signal parameter values.
Claims 2-18 are dependent upon base claim 1 and wholly incorporate its limitations, rendering them likewise as indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-18, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0249907 to Gupta et al. (hereinafter Gupta) in view of WIPO Application No. WO2015/188847 to Khan et al. (hereinafter Khan).
As per claim 1, Gupta discloses a method for identifying floors in a building in need of a network related action based on radio signal parameter values (see figures 11 and 12), the method being performed by a network node, the method comprising:
obtaining location data of a geographical location, wherein the location data indicates indicating height information of the building (use of map information, see paragraph 71; map contains floor height values, see paragraph 62-63 and 89; map is of the multi-floor environment, see paragraph 92);
obtaining, for a set of user equipment, radio signal parameter values from measurements made at the geographical location (RSSI information, see paragraph 4; using WLAN or IEEE 802.11 radio frequencies, see paragraph 28), wherein the measurements are being indicative of geo-locations in terms of horizontal positions and vertical positions of the user equipment (see paragraph 41);
identifying, by comparing the horizontal positions of the user equipment with the location data, a first subset of the user equipment, the first subset of the user equipment representing user equipment located within the footprint of the building (floor plans are within a building), and wherein the first subset of the user equipment has having radio signal parameter values that represent a first performance value (uncertainty estimates, see paragraphs 42-59) that is verified to be below a first threshold value (parameters may be adjusted according to thresholds for all users, see paragraphs 90-92);
associating, by comparing the vertical positions of the user equipment in the first subset of the user equipment with the location data, second subsets of the user equipment with the floors of the building, wherein each of the second subsets of the user equipment represents representing user equipment located at a respective one of the floors of the building, and wherein the radio signal parameter values of each of the second subset of the user equipment represent representing a respective second performance value (both 2D estimates and floor height estimates for 3D are used, see paragraphs 42-59 and 90-92; the first and second subsets could both be the same single mobile device); and
identifying the floors in need of the network related action as any of the floors associated with one of the second subsets of the user equipment for which the second performance value is below a second threshold value (see paragraph 90);
evaluating the identified floors based on one or more metrics (see paragraph 93);
modifying at least one of the radio signal parameter processing or threshold values based on the evaluation (see paragraph 94); and
repeating the identifying step using the modified parameters (see figure 12).
Although Gupta’s system contains floor maps for the multi-floor environment, as stated above, Gupta does not explicitly state that that information includes building footprints.
Khan discloses an analogous positioning system (see abstract) that includes differentiation between the indoor and outdoor parts of a building (see p.4, line 29 to p. 6, line 20). Khan further discloses that this would allow for smoother tracking of users moving between buildings (see p. 6, lines 14-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to know the boundaries between indoors and outdoors, as per Khan, to allow for smoother tracking of users moving between buildings. This would implicitly require Gupta’s maps show the building footprint, as that is the indoor/outdoor boundary.
As per claim 2, Gupta further discloses: performing the network related action for the floors in need of the network related action (dynamic database updates, see paragraphs 62-66).
As per claim 3, Gupta further discloses the network related action comprises at least one of: adaptation mobile network resources, network deployment, user behaviour contextualization (context of user location, see paragraph 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Gupta does not disclose a minimum sample size.
Official notice is given that it is well-known in the art that statistical models require a certain minimum number of data points, i.e. above a certain threshold, in order to be usable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have thresholds for sizes of subsets, in order to be usable.
.As per claim 6, Gupta further discloses associating the second subsets of the user equipment with the floors of the building comprises determining a respective probability score for each of the floors, where the probability score for any given floor indicates the size of the second subset of the user equipment for said given floor, and wherein only the floors for which the probability score is larger than the fourth threshold value are subject to be identified to be in need for the network related action (use of uncertainty estimates, see paragraphs 58-60).
As per claim 7, Gupta further discloses one or both the first performance value is compared to the first threshold value and the second performance value is compared to the second threshold value either jointly for all available frequency bands for the user equipment, or per each of all available frequency bands for the user equipment (RSSI estimates are made using all available frequency bands in use, see paragraph 32).
As per claims 8 and 9, the two performance values represent different variables and are therefore different from each other.
As per claim 10, Gupta further discloses each of the horizontal position and vertical position for each measurement has a respective associated accuracy value, and wherein only user equipment having an accuracy value being above a fifth threshold value are subject to be included in the first subset of the user equipment (see paragraph 90).
As per claim 11, Khan further discloses the horizontal position for each measurement has a respective associated probability value of the user equipment being located within the footprint of the building (see p. 17, lines 16-24).
As per claim 12, Khan further discloses only user equipment having a probability value being above a sixth threshold value are subject to be included in the first subset of the user equipment (probability is greater than for other buildings, see p. 17, lines 29-30).
As per claim 13, Gupta further discloses, per user equipment, the radio signal parameter values are weighted with the probability value of the user equipment being located within the footprint of the building when representing the first performance value (Gupta’s algorithms are weighted for a variety of variables; it would be obvious to also include Khan’s indoor/outdoor differentiation in such a calculation)..
As per claim 14, Gupta further discloses the vertical position for each measurement has a respective associated probability value of the user equipment being located at each floor of the building (see paragraphs 41-49).
As per claim 15, Gupta further discloses, per user equipment, the radio signal parameter values are weighted with the probability values of the user equipment being located at each floor of the building when representing the second performance value (see paragraphs 41-49).
As per claim 16, Gupta further discloses the measurements are one or both made by the user equipment and obtained from the user equipment and are made by access network nodes serving the user equipment and obtained from the access network nodes (see paragraphs 32-33).
As per claim 17, Khan further discloses: obtaining one or both MDT and crowdsourced network data, and wherein the radio signal parameter values further are obtained from the one or both of the MDT and the crowdsourced network data (use of crowdsourced data, see p. 11, lines 18-35. One skilled in the art would recognize that the use of additional data would improve the quality of the location-determining algorithms.
As per claim 18, Gupta further discloses the method is repeated for another building within the geographical location (may be applied to one or more buildings, see paragraph 63).
As per claim 22, Gupta discloses a network node for identifying floors in a building in need of a network related action based on radio signal parameter values (see figures 1, 11, and 12)), the network node comprising processing circuitry (see paragraph 32), the processing circuitry being configured to cause the network node to:
obtain location data of a geographical location, the location data indicating a height information of the building (use of map information, see paragraph 71;
map contains floor height values, see paragraph 62-63 and 89; map is of the multi-floor environment, see paragraph 92);
obtain, for a set of user equipment, radio signal parameter values from measurements made at the geographical location (RSSI information, see paragraph 4; using WLAN or IEEE 802.11 radio frequencies, see paragraph 28), wherein the measurements are being indicative of geo-locations in terms of horizontal positions and vertical positions of the user equipment (see paragraph 41);
identify, by comparing the horizontal positions of the user equipment with the location data, a first subset of the user equipment, wherein the first subset of the user equipment representing user equipment located within the footprint of the building (floor plans are within a building), the first subset of the user equipment having radio signal parameter values that represent a first performance value (uncertainty estimates, see paragraphs 42-59) that is verified to be below a first threshold value (parameters may be adjusted according to thresholds for all users, see paragraphs 90-92);
associate, by comparing the vertical positions of the user equipment in the first subset of the user equipment with the location data, second subsets of the user equipment with the floors of the building, wherein each of the second subsets of the user equipment representing user equipment located at a respective one of the floors of the building, and the radio signal parameter values of each of the second subset of the user equipment represent representing a respective second performance value (both 2D estimates and floor height estimates for 3D are used, see paragraphs 42-59 and 90-92; the first and second subsets could both be the same single mobile device); and
identify the floors in need of the network related action as any of the floors associated with one of the second subsets of the user equipment for which the second performance value is below a second threshold value (see paragraph 90);
evaluating the identified floors based on one or more metrics (see paragraph 93);
modifying at least one of the radio signal parameter processing or threshold values based on the evaluation (see paragraph 94); and
repeating the identifying step using the modified parameters (see figure 12).
Although Gupta’s system contains floor maps for the multi-floor environment, as stated above, Gupta does not explicitly state that that information includes building footprints.
Khan discloses an analogous positioning system (see abstract) that includes differentiation between the indoor and outdoor parts of a building (see p.4, line 29 to p. 6, line 20). Khan further discloses that this would allow for smoother tracking of users moving between buildings (see p. 6, lines 14-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to know the boundaries between indoors and outdoors, as per Khan, to allow for smoother tracking of users moving between buildings. This would implicitly require Gupta’s maps show the building footprint, as that is the indoor/outdoor boundary.
As per claim 26, Gupta discloses a computer readable storage medium (see paragraphs 101-102), having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for identifying floors in a building in need of a network related action based on radio signal parameter values (see figures 11 and 12), the method comprising:
obtaining location data of a geographical location, the location data indicating a height information of the building (use of map information, see paragraph 71; map contains floor height values, see paragraph 62-63 and 89; map is of the multi-floor environment, see paragraph 92);
obtaining, for a set of user equipment, radio signal parameter values from measurements made at the geographical location (RSSI information, see paragraph 4; using WLAN or IEEE 802.11 radio frequencies, see paragraph 28), the measurements being indicative of geo-locations in terms of horizontal positions and vertical positions of the user equipment (see paragraph 41);
identifying, by comparing the horizontal positions of the user equipment with the location data, a first subset of the user equipment, the first subset of the user equipment representing user equipment located within the footprint of the building (floor plans are within a building), the first subset of the user equipment having radio signal parameter values that represent a first performance value (uncertainty estimates, see paragraphs 42-59) that is verified to be below a first threshold value (parameters may be adjusted according to thresholds for all users, see paragraphs 90-92);
associating, by comparing the vertical positions of the user equipment in the first subset of the user equipment with the location data, second subsets of the user equipment with the floors of the building, each of the second subsets of the user equipment representing user equipment located at a respective one of the floors of the building, and the radio signal parameter values of each of the second subset of the user equipment representing a respective second performance value (both 2D estimates and floor height estimates for 3D are used, see paragraphs 42-59 and 90-92; the first and second subsets could both be the same single mobile device); and
identifying the floors in need of the network related action as any of the floors associated with one of the second subsets of the user equipment for which the second performance value is below a second threshold value (see paragraph 90);
evaluating the identified floors based on one or more metrics (see paragraph 93);
modifying at least one of the radio signal parameter processing or threshold values based on the evaluation (see paragraph 94); and
repeating the identifying step using the modified parameters (see figure 12).
Although Gupta’s system contains floor maps for the multi-floor environment, as stated above, Gupta does not explicitly state that that information includes building footprints.
Khan discloses an analogous positioning system (see abstract) that includes differentiation between the indoor and outdoor parts of a building (see p.4, line 29 to p. 6, line 20). Khan further discloses that this would allow for smoother tracking of users moving between buildings (see p. 6, lines 14-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to know the boundaries between indoors and outdoors, as per Khan, to allow for smoother tracking of users moving between buildings. This would implicitly require Gupta’s maps show the building footprint, as that is the indoor/outdoor boundary.
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 MATTHEW E HENEGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571)270-1367. 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.
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights