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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This cation is responsive to the communication received July 9th, 2024. Claims 1-19, and 21 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Application 18/727,406 is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/011336 03/14/2022.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an estimation process of estimating an intensity of each of degradation causes of the communication quality due to a radio propagation environment, in accordance with the obtained time series data; and a derivation process of deriving an influence ratio in degradation of the communication quality for each of the degradation causes in accordance with the estimated intensities of the degradation causes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to the technology. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the invention only requires the abstract idea and does not constitute anything that can be considered an improvement to the technology (See MPEP § 2106.05(a), improvements to abstract ideas are not improvements to the technology, so even a better mental process such as the estimation or derivation process cannot be an improvement to the technology if they are solely mental processes).
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16-18 do not equate to significantly more and do not provide an improvement on the technology as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 9, 14-15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masato (JP2019176322)(Supplied by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 15, 21, Masato discloses an information processing system (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0016 [deterioration factor estimation device]) comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: an obtaining means for process of obtaining time series data of a radio indicator value that is an indicator of communication quality of wireless communication (paragraph 0021 [data acquired from the terminal; RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, response time, throughput]); an estimation means for process of estimating an intensity of each of degradation causes of the communication quality due to a radio propagation environment, in accordance with the obtained time series data (paragraphs 0027-0028 [degradation cause estimation]); and a derivation means for process of deriving an influence ratio in degradation of the communication quality for each of the degradation causes in accordance with the estimated intensities of the degradation causes (paragraph 0033 [there are six kinds of deterioration events, i.e., events 1 to 6 in which the quality-deterioration factors in the first to third places are ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA . Then by considering the order of the quality deterioration factors with respect to the quality deterioration factor estimation results of the six events 1 to 6 the event 1 is "the radio wave is weaker than the surrounding base stations" and the event 2 is "there is an obstacle in the center and the radio wave interferes". It can be estimated that the event 3 is "the radio wave of another base station is too strong", the event 4 is "a wider range than expected is covered", the event 5 is "there is a problem in the coverage area of the base station and another base station", and the event 6 is "there is a problem in the base station".]).
Regarding claim 6, Masato discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the radio indicator value includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a reference signal received power, a reference signal received quality, a received signal strength indicator, and a signal-to-interference-plus-noise power ratio (paragraph 0021 [data acquired from the terminal; RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, response time, throughput]).
Regarding claim 7. Masato discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the degradation causes include at least one selected from the group consisting of distance, shielding, fading, interference, congestion, and handover (paragraph 0033 [there are six kinds of deterioration events, i.e., events 1 to 6 in which the quality-deterioration factors in the first to third places are ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA . Then by considering the order of the quality deterioration factors with respect to the quality deterioration factor estimation results of the six events 1 to 6 the event 1 is "the radio wave is weaker than the surrounding base stations" and the event 2 is "there is an obstacle in the center and the radio wave interferes". It can be estimated that the event 3 is "the radio wave of another base station is too strong", the event 4 is "a wider range than expected is covered", the event 5 is "there is a problem in the coverage area of the base station and another base station", and the event 6 is "there is a problem in the base station".]).
Regarding claim 14, Masato discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 9, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor further carries out an output process of outputting the derived influence ratios (see Figures 4-5).
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.
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) 5, 13, 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato (JP2019176322)(Supplied by Applicant).
Regarding claims 5, 13, 19, Masato discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 9, 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor further carries out a measure taking process of taking a measure for improving the communication quality in accordance with the derived influence ratios.
However, since Masato discloses there are six kinds of deterioration events, i.e., events 1 to 6 in which the quality-deterioration factors in the first to third places are ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA . Then by considering the order of the quality deterioration factors with respect to the quality deterioration factor estimation results of the six events 1 to 6 the event 1 is "the radio wave is weaker than the surrounding base stations" and the event 2 is "there is an obstacle in the center and the radio wave interferes". It can be estimated that the event 3 is "the radio wave of another base station is too strong", the event 4 is "a wider range than expected is covered", the event 5 is "there is a problem in the coverage area of the base station and another base station", and the event 6 is "there is a problem in the base station" (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize taking measurements according to the degradation causes in order to improve the quality of the communication.
NOTE: Regarding claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 16-18, prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the subject matter in the claims, but cannot be objected since claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights