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 .
Claims 1 – 32 are pending in this Office Correspondence.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/700,008, filed March 21, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,050,608, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/271,778, now U.S. Patent 11,281,673, filed February 8, 2019, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 62/628,229, filed February 8, 2018, and U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 62/739,638, filed October 1, 2018.
Response to Arguments
This Office Correspondence is in response to amendment filed on June 29, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s explanation, claim objections of claims 5, 11 and 18 are withdrawn.
Applicant argues with respect to Section 101, Claim 1 as an abstract idea overlooks the specific elements highlighted above, which distinguish the claim from a mental process that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper"
Applicant argues with respect to Section 101, Applicant submits that the present claims are technical approaches that provide a platform to: eliminate the information gathering and collection difficulties from radio networks; enable easy access to data without temporal boundaries (real time vs batch), stored inexpensively; provide a security framework controlling access to the stored data sets; provide a user-friendly catalog to search thru the large number of data sets; enable analysis of data in real time for Radio Network; enable a self-provisioned and configured platform to generate and execute data pipeline based on customer driven-SLAs; enable auto sizing of compute and data stores, thereby enabling the ability to scale with demand with smart analytics; hide platform complexity from the analyst with auto configuration.
Applicant argues with respect to Section 103, Applicant submits the Examiner has not established that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, and therefore, failed to establish a primafacie case of obviousness.
Applicant submits Tapia does not teach or suggest a data lake as recited in the pending claims. Tapia does not explicitly teach providing an adapter layer of adapters to communicate with at least one base station in a RAN and at least one core network node in a telecommunications core network, the telecommunications core network providing services to the RAN.
Tapia and Morad, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest "providing a base platform in communication with a radio access network (RAN) for compute, storage and network to data lifecycle management services.“
Examiner respectfully disagrees with all of the allegations as argued. Examiner, in his previous office action, gave a detailed explanation of claimed limitation and pointed out exact locations in the cited prior art.
Examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1]
Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’ Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
In response to Applicant’s Argument, Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception” that “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the abstract idea exception has deep roots in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601-602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010) (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 174–175 (1853)). To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts; 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity; and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to but not limited to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Therefore, arguments are moot. (Please see MPEP 2106.04(a).
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office has not identified the specific limitations considered or any rationale as to why these limitations are not enough to qualify as significantly more, examiner refers to language of Enfish for determining whether the additional elements such a “performing and determining” do not amount to significantly more.
Applicant states the present claims describe a computer technology directed to improvements in wireless communications technology, specifically improvements in integrating analytics distribution with SON.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion. In the instant case, there is nothing in the claims or in the specification to suggest that the “performing” and “determining” are anything but well-known and conventional elements for performing routine and conventional functions. Thus, these elements have been correctly analyzed to determine that they do not amount to significantly more under step 2B. Furthermore, the dependent claims have been carefully reviewed, but as stated in the action, recite additional features of the abstract idea, and no additional elements for consideration under significantly more.
The claims merely recite steps performed using conventional computer technology to perform entirely conventional steps. Claim 1, for example, requires “communicating by the base platform, using an adapter with at least one base station in a RAN and at least one core network node in a telecommunications core network, the telecommunications core network providing services to the RAN.” As described in the Specification, “the components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network.” Spec. Para [00129] and “the computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.” Spec. Para [00131].
. The remaining limitations of “providing”, are not required to be performed by any computer technology and, therefore, may be performed manually by a user. In other words, the claim merely recites the abstract idea and says “apply it” using computer technology.
For example, a community of user using “Combination Dry Erase/Cork Board” in their community room. A group of user post the social networking post in the Board. A user can perform semantic comparison of the post from the plurality of topical content categories and determine semantic sense or bias from the Post. Community user performing this task manually and hence, a user does not need to use a computer.
As above, the applicant identifies no additional elements or features from the claims which applicant considers non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of additional claimed elements and the applicant did not convince the examiner that these limitations are not directed to an abstract idea and should not be analyzed under step 2A and 2B. No such argument exists in the amendment. The examiner is unable to find any argument contradicting this position, thus applicant's arguments are not deemed persuasive.
We conclude, claims 1 – 20 are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and recite no element or combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be sustained.
In response to applicant’s argument under Section 103, a prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Once such a case is established, it is incumbent upon appellant to go forward with objective evidence of unobviousness. In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973). Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Since, both Tapia and Morad are same field of endeavor, motivation would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable using call detail record (CDR)-based sector pair usage and subscriber movement scores, so that a network optimization module computes cellular radio network performance values, calculates changes to cellular radio network configuration data and performs self-organizing and optimizing network (SON) functions, thus improving performance of the cellular radio network based on the subscriber usage and CDRs. In a modifying system an adapter layer of adapters is provided to communicate with a base station in the RAN and a core network node in a telecommunications core network in simple and efficient manner.
In response to applicant’s argument under Section 103, Applicant submits Tapia does not teach or suggest a data lake as recited in the pending claims. Tapia does not explicitly teach providing an adapter layer of adapters to communicate with at least one base station in a RAN and at least one core network node in a telecommunications core network, the telecommunications core network providing services to the RAN.
Tapia in Para [0018]: the SON may be any sort of network configured by SON components to perform at least one of self-configuring, self-optimizing, or self-healing. Such SON components are illustrated in FIG. 1 by elements 106-114. For example, the SON may be a radio access network, such as a telecommunication network, a smart energy grid network, or a medical health network. The network component(s) of the SON may be subnetworks, devices, or modules capable of being initialized or configured by the SON components 106-114. For example, when the SON is a telecommunication network, such as a 2G, 3G, or 4G/LTE network, the network component(s) may be base stations (e.g., Node Bs or eNode Bs), radio network (RAN) controllers (RNCs), an operations support system (OSS), a word order system, or other network element(s). (the network base station can be a base platform and the base platform further comprising a data lake—see instant specification and instant claim 1. Also see, Tapia, Figure 4, items 402, 404, 406).
For the above response and detailed rejections under section 103, arguments are moot.
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 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims 1 recites a “method for providing scalable analytics, comprising: providing a base platform in communication with a radio access network (RAN) . . . ;
providing an adapter layer of adapters to communicate . . . ; and providing a self-organizing network (SON) of the telecommunications network . . ..” the claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A Prong One:
"providing a base platform in communication with a radio access network (RAN) for compute, storage and network to data lifecycle management services" as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0044] where one can mentally evaluate a software-defined cloud platform that provides compute, storage and network to the services that are responsible for data life-cycle management.
“communicating by the base platform, using an adapter with at least one base station in a RAN” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0117] where one can mentally evaluate a cloud-scale adapter framework designed to bring data into base platform from external sources.
“providing a self-organizing network (SON) of the telecommunications network” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0044] where one can mentally evaluate to provide service optimizations, which includes intelligent power-level control for Self-Organizing Networks (SONs).
These imitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "database" or "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, “providing a base platform in communication with a radio access network (RAN) for compute, storage and network to data lifecycle management services; providing an adapter layer of adapters to communicate with at least one base station in a RAN; and providing a self-organizing network (SON) of the telecommunications network.” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation "providing” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The limitation "providing” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 14 and 20 are rejected for the same rational under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2 – 13 and 15 – 19, respectively, merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “providing the SON of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake includes providing the access using data streams”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 8 and 15, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “providing the SON of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake further includes using RESTful web services”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 9 and 16, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “analytic model data from the data lake includes data analytics from the data lake”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea by specifying data types or information that is used in the profile generation, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 10 and 17, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “providing the SON of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake includes providing a third-party SON application of the SON with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake through a SON access broker”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 11 and 18, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the access is published through a SON access broker as RESTful web services”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 12, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “one or more power levels of the SON are adjusted based on the analytic model data”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 19, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “distributing, by the SON to the RAN, an analytic model for a RAN application for closed loop or open loop process or configuration”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 25 and 29, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 22 recites the same abstract idea of claim 21. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the analytic model includes an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 26 and 30, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 21 and includes all the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 23 recites the same abstract idea of claim 21. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the RAN application provides active monitoring of one or more RAN control parameters”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 27 and 31, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 24 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “distributing, by the SON to the RAN, an analytic model for a self-managed RAN application.”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 28 and 32, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 10, 12 – 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,142,242 issued to Pablo Tapia (“Tapia”) and further in view of USPGPUB 2016/0135067 issued to Shumel Morad et al. (“Morad”).
With respect to claims 1, 14 and 20, Tapia discloses a method, program product and a system for providing scalable analytics for a telecommunications network, comprising:
providing a base platform in communication with a radio access network (RAN) for compute, storage and network to data lifecycle management services, the base platform further comprising a data lake, a plurality of distributed data and application containers, a data pipe, a plurality of data services, and a plurality of data platform managers (Para [0018]: the SON may be any sort of network configured by SON components to perform at least one of self-configuring, self-optimizing, or self-healing. Such SON components are illustrated in FIG. 1 by elements 106-114. For example, the SON may be a radio access network, such as a telecommunication network, a smart energy grid network, or a medical health network. The network component(s) of the SON may be subnetworks, devices, or modules capable of being initialized or configured by the SON components 106-114. For example, when the SON is a telecommunication network, such as a 2G, 3G, or 4G/LTE network, the network component(s) may be base stations (e.g., Node Bs or eNode Bs), radio network controllers (RNCs), an operations support system (OSS), a word order system, or other network element(s). (the network base station can be a base platform and the base platform further comprising a data lake—see instant specification. Also see, Tapia, Figure 4, items 402, 404, 406). Information about the SON (referred to herein as "network information"), such as measurements or parameters, may also be provided by the network component(s), or may instead be provided by other sources within the SON. For example, the network information may be provided by any or all of a trouble ticket system, radio traces, core network traces, from an OSS, or from one or more other network elements. Depending on the purpose(s) of the SON (e.g., telecommunications, energy, medical health), the SON may include any number of different subnetworks, devices, and modules specific to the purpose(s) of the SON and may be in communication with any number of devices external to the SON); and
providing a self-organizing network (SON) of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake (Para [0026]: examples of SON tools may include any or all of an automated report generating tool, a parameter consistency check tool, a real-time alert tool, a mobility evaluation tool, a coverage and interference management tool, a network outage tool, a network configuration tool, a load distribution tool, a spectrum carving tool, or a special events tool. Additionally or instead, the SON tools may include any or all of a performance management tool, a radio frequency (RF) planning tool, an automatic frequency planning tool, a rehoming tool, an automatic cell planning tool, or a geolocation tool; and Para [0046]: the network support node may be any sort of node of a support services network, which may engage in significant communication with SON tools, performing numerous read and write operations which consume significant resources of the network support node, such as CPU, memory, I/O, and storage resources of the network support node. The network support node may request that SON tools update a configuration of the SON telecommunication network or may request a report from the SON tools on performance of the network components(s) of the SON telecommunication network. See also Figure 3).
Tapia discloses claimed invention substantially as claimed, however, Tapia does not explicitly teach communicating by the base platform, using an adapter with at least one base station in a RAN and at least one core network node in a telecommunications core network, the telecommunications core network providing services to the RAN.
However, Morad discloses communicating by the base platform, using an adapter with at least one base station in a RAN and at least one core network node in a telecommunications core network, the telecommunications core network providing services to the RAN (the cellular radio network comprises two or more network devices, and automatically a configuration of one or more of the network devices according to the performance; the analyzing produces one or more change to a sector neighbor relations dataset used by two or more base stations of the cellular radio network (telecommunication) for linking between some of the base stations, and wherein the one or more change is used to improve the performance; Para [0011 – 0012]; provided an apparatus for optimizing a cellular radio network. The processing unit comprises processor instructions adapted to receive two or more call detail records from a repository of a cellular radio network using the one or more network interface, wherein the cellular radio network comprises two or more directional sector antennas (Para [0029]); a network adapter card or network interface in each computing/processing device receives computer readable program instructions from the network and forwards the computer readable program instructions for storage in a computer readable storage medium within the respective computing/processing device (Para [0060]); and the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider Para [0061]).
Since, both Tapia and Morad are same field of endeavor, they are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Tapia with the teachings of Morad in order to enable using call detail record (CDR)-based sector pair usage and subscriber movement scores, so that a network optimization module computes cellular radio network performance values, calculates changes to cellular radio network configuration data and performs self-organizing and optimizing network (SON) functions, thus improving performance of the cellular radio network based on the subscriber usage and CDRs.
In a modifying system an adapter layer of adapters is provided to communicate with a base station in the RAN and a core network node in a telecommunications core network in simple and efficient manner.
As to claims 2, 8 and 15, providing the SON of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake includes providing the access using data streams (Tapia, column 1, Self-Organizing Networks (SON) are networks capable of any or all of automatic self-configuration, self-optimization, or self-healing. For radio access networks, such as telecommunication networks, self-configuration may include use of “plug-and-play” techniques for automatically configuring and integrating new base stations into the networks; and column 5, Examples of SON tools may include any or all of an automated report generating tool, a parameter consistency check tool, a real-time alert tool, a mobility evaluation tool, a coverage and interference management tool, a network outage tool, a network configuration tool, a load distribution tool, a spectrum carving tool, or a special events tool).
As to claims 3, 9 and 16, providing the SON of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake further includes using RESTful web services (Tapia, column 5, examples of SON tools may include any or all of an automated report generating tool, a parameter consistency check tool, a real-time alert tool, a mobility evaluation tool, a coverage and interference management tool, a network outage tool, a network configuration tool, a load distribution tool, a spectrum carving tool, or a special events tool; and column 7-8, the SON portal may receive, via the API, visualizations from the visualization tool and may provide those visualization to a user device through, for example, web page. The SON portal may also receive other network information or performance indicators via the API from any of the SON components, such as the consolidation engine 212 or the visualization engine).
As to claims 4, 10 and 17, analytic model data from the data lake includes data analytics from the data lake (Tapia, column 1, Each of these tools is entirely self-contained and handles everything from interfacing directly with network components to retrieve measurements and configure parameters, to smart analysis of and decisions regarding measurements and configurations, to presentation of users of relevant information).
As to claims 6 and 12, the access is published through a SON access broker as RESTful web services (Morad, Para [0066]: each sector of the cellular radio network corresponds to a directional sector antenna that allows user equipment, such as a cellular phone and the like, to perform mobile communications, such as voice calls or data access to a network, in a geographical coverage area).
As to claims 7, 13 and 19, one or more power levels of the SON are adjusted based on the analytic model data (Morad, Para [0054]: a SON apparatus performs a network change automatically by changing a configuration parameter of a cellular radio network. For example, the SON apparatus computes additions and/or deletions to a dataset of neighbor relationships between sectors and a neighbor relationship dataset is updated automatically by the SON apparatus by sending an extended hypertext language command to an OSS).
As to claims 21, 25 and 29, distributing, by the SON to the RAN, an analytic model for a RAN application for closed loop or open loop process or configuration (Tapia, column 5, examples of SON tools may include any or all of an automated report generating tool, a parameter consistency check tool, a real-time alert tool, a mobility evaluation tool, a coverage and interference management tool, a network outage tool, a network configuration tool, a load distribution tool, a spectrum carving tool, or a special events tool).
As to claims 22, 26 and 30, the analytic model includes an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (Tapia, column 1, each of these tools is entirely self-contained and handles everything from interfacing directly with network components to retrieve measurements and configure parameters, to smart analysis of and decisions regarding measurements and configurations, to presentation of users of relevant information. Further to the teachings of Tapia, Morad discloses in Para [0054], a SON apparatus performs a network change automatically by changing a configuration parameter of a cellular radio network. For example, the SON apparatus computes additions and/or deletions to a dataset of neighbor relationships between sectors and a neighbor relationship dataset is updated automatically by the SON apparatus by sending an extended hypertext language command to an OSS). (combination of two above arts teaches artificial intelligence (AI) which is similar teachings that making machines to act like humans).
As to claims 23, 27 and 31, the RAN application provides active monitoring of one or more RAN control parameters (Tapia, column 10, the support systems network may include public network(s). The support systems network may include one or more nodes, including the network support node, engaged in support, repair, maintenance, and monitoring of the SON telecommunication network and its network component(s). For example, the network support node may be an OSS node and may monitor and remotely configure a network component such as a base station. The monitoring and configuration may be achieved through SON tools, which may communicate with the network support node).
As to claims 24, 28 and 32, distributing, by the SON to the RAN, an analytic model for a self-managed RAN application (Tapia, column 1, Self-Organizing Networks (SON) are networks capable of any or all of automatic self-configuration, self-optimization, or self-healing. For radio access networks, such as telecommunication networks, self-configuration may include use of “plug-and-play” techniques for automatically configuring and integrating new base stations into the networks; and column 5, Examples of SON tools may include any or all of an automated report generating tool, a parameter consistency check tool, a real-time alert tool, a mobility evaluation tool, a coverage and interference management tool, a network outage tool, a network configuration tool, a load distribution tool, a spectrum carving tool, or a special events tool).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11 and 18 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.
The prior art made of record do not teach or fairly suggest, “providing the SON of the telecommunications network with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake includes providing a third-party SON application of the SON with real-time or near real-time access to analytic model data from the data lake through a SON access broker’ as recited in dependent claims 5, 11 and 18.
Examiner Notes
The examiner has considered the applicant's claims in light of the disclosure. However, the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that during prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575,577(Fed. Cir. 2002)); “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” SRIInt’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc). Written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
Note that “limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims, and … interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” Intervet Am., v. Kee-Vet Labs., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474 1476 (fed. Cir. 1989).
“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp,. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (fed. Cir. 2005).
“One purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.’… For example, an inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer is he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention’ with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Such a definition may appear in the written description, … or in the prosecution history, …” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is also cited and Applicants are reminded that they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed prior art could be used as an obviousness type Office correspondence.
Bishop (USPGPUB 2017/0075693), which discloses generally to a processing framework for stream processing systems, and in particular to providing an improved stream processing framework that uses a combination of concurrent and multiplexed processing;
Woolward (USPGPUB 2017/0279770), which discloses receiving metadata about a deployed container from a container orchestration layer, where container is deployed in a server. A model is retrieved using the determined application or service. A high-level declarative security policy associated with the deployed container is generated using model that indicates application or service with which the deployed container is permitted to communicate. A low-level firewall rule set is produced using the high-level declarative security policy. The low-level firewall rule set is applied to data network traffic;
Tekade (USPGPUB 2016/0077925), which utilizing multiple threads to facilitate parallel data copying to reduce an amount of time associated with backing up data. A request to copy application is received that indicates a number of available threads. A first available thread is used to select files from the application for backup. Selecting a file includes adding files to a work queue and creating backup work items associated with the work queue files. The files in the work queue are processed by a multiple threads in parallel such that an amount of time associated with backup up the application is reduced; and
Stojanovic (U.S. Patent 10,620,924), which discloses integrating data obtained from various sources, and are particularly related to ontology induction through statistical profiling and reference schema matching.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
August 18, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights