DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 12,096,258 (‘258 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of the ‘258 Patent, as noted in the chart below, they are not patentably distinct as the claim scope of the current Application is either anticipated by or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the claim scope of the ‘258 Patent.
Current Application
‘258 Patent
1. (Currently Amended) A method for identifying a type of a source of interference received in a wireless telecommunications network, the method comprising:
receiving Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) data of the wireless telecommunications network;
producing, using the OAM data, first per-Physical Resource Block (per-PRB) interference data for a cell of the wireless telecommunications network, the first per-PRB interference data including interference data for each of a plurality of PRBs of the cell for each of a plurality of intervals within a period of time; and
producing, using a trained machine learning (ML) model and based on the first per-PRB interference data, one or more interference source type indications.
1. A method for determining a type of a source of interference received in a wireless telecommunications network, the method comprising:
receiving Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) data of the wireless telecommunications network;
producing, using the OAM data, first per-Physical Resource Block (per-PRB) interference data for a cell of the wireless telecommunications network, the first per-PRB interference data including interference data for each of a plurality of PRBs of the cell for each of a plurality of intervals within a period of time; and
producing, using a trained machine learning (ML) model and based on the first per-PRB interference data, one or more interference source type indications ...
2. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the first per-PRB interference data further includes metadata corresponding to the equipment of the cell comprising an indicator of a vendor of the equipment.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first per-PRB interference data further includes metadata corresponding to equipment of the cell, metadata corresponding to an operating configuration of the cell, or both.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the metadata corresponding to the equipment of the cell includes an indicator of a vendor of the equipment.
3. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the first per-PRB interference data further includes metadata corresponding to the equipment of the cell comprising an indicator of an operator of the cell.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first per-PRB interference data further includes metadata corresponding to equipment of the cell, metadata corresponding to an operating configuration of the cell, or both.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the metadata corresponding to the equipment of the cell includes an indicator of a vendor of the equipment, an operator of the cell, or both…
4. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the OAM data includes topology data, configuration management data, and performance management data.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the OAM data includes topology data, configuration management data, and performance management data.
5. (New) The method of claim 4, wherein the topology data comprises at least one of, for a base station of the cell: geographic coordinates of the base station, antenna azimuth, vertical and horizontal antenna beamwidth, antenna height, mechanical tilt, and electrical tilt.
Although not taught by the ‘258 Patent claims, in the same art of interference detection, Yun (US 10,605,890)(“Yun”) teaches using topology data comprises at least one of, for a base station of the cell: geographic coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) of the base station (i.e., “the antenna latitude and longitude of a base station”, see col. 5, lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further specify latitude/longitude values corresponding to the geographic name of the base station in Winters (see ¶0013). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved interference detection/localization (see Yun, col. 17, lines 42-54).
6. (New) The method of claim 5, wherein the geographic coordinates of the base station comprise latitude and longitude values.
Although not taught by the ‘258 Patent claims, in the same art of interference detection, Yun teaches wherein the geographic coordinates of the base station comprise latitude and longitude values (i.e., “the antenna latitude and longitude of a base station”, see col. 5, lines 55-65).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining the claims of the ‘258 Patent and Yun in claims 5 applies equally well to claim 7.
7. (New) The method of claim 5, wherein the topology data further indicates a deployment type of the cell selected from at least an indoor deployment, an outdoor deployment, and a distributed antenna system.
Although not taught by the ‘258 Patent claims, in the same art of interference detection, Yun further teaches wherein the topology data further indicates a deployment type of the cell selected from at least an indoor deployment, an outdoor deployment, and a distributed antenna system (i.e., “site deployment type (e.g. indoor, outdoor, distributed antenna system, etc.)”, see col. 5, lines 59-60).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining the claims of the ‘258 Patent and Yun in claim 5 applies equally well to claim 7.
8. (New) The method of claim 5, further comprising: classifying an interference source type based on the topology data using the ML model.
1 … using a trained machine learning (ML) model and based on the first per-PRB interference data, one or more interference source type indications
9. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein producing the one or more interference source type indications includes: preprocessing the first per-PRB interference data to produce preprocessed data; and inputting the preprocessed data to the ML model, wherein preprocessing the first per-PRB interference data includes: when a bandwidth of the first per-PRB interference data is less than a baseline bandwidth, stretching or zero-padding the first per-PRB interference data to produce the preprocessed data having the baseline bandwidth.
1…wherein producing the one or more interference source type indications includes: preprocessing the first per-PRB interference data to produce preprocessed data; when a bandwidth of the first per-PRB interference data is less than a baseline bandwidth, stretching or zero-padding the first per-PRB interference data to produce the preprocessed data having the baseline bandwidth; inputting the preprocessed data to the ML model; and producing the one or more interference source type indications using an output of the ML model.
10. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein producing the one or more interference source type indications includes: preprocessing the first per-PRB interference data by performing contrast enhancement on the first per-PRB interference data to produce preprocessed data; and inputting the preprocessed data to the ML model.
1…wherein producing the one or more interference source type indications includes: preprocessing the first per-PRB interference data to produce preprocessed data; when a bandwidth of the first per-PRB interference data is less than a baseline bandwidth, stretching or zero-padding the first per-PRB interference data to produce the preprocessed data having the baseline bandwidth; inputting the preprocessed data to the ML model; and producing the one or more interference source type indications using an output of the ML model.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein preprocessing the first per-PRB interference data includes: performing contrast enhancement on the first per-PRB interference data to produce the preprocessed data.
Claims 11-20 recite substantially identical subject matter as claims 1-10, and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of the ‘258 Patent for the same reasons as illustrated in the table 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winter et al. (US 2023/0088342)(“Winter”).
As per claim 1, Winter teaches a method for identifying a type of a source of interference received in a wireless telecommunications network, the method comprising:
receiving Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) data of the wireless telecommunications network (i.e., receiving “input data” from eNB, see ¶0013, including, for example, “date and time data”, “data identifying a network device”, “interference per PRB number data”, read as OAM data);
producing, using the OAM data, first per-Physical Resource Block (per-PRB) interference data for a cell of the wireless telecommunications network, the first per-PRB interference data including interference data for each of a plurality of PRBs of the cell for each of a plurality of intervals within a period of time (i.e., “process the PRB images, with a first machine learning model, to associate labels with each of the PRB images”, see ¶0025, read as producing interference data/labels on a per-PRB basis, also see ¶0035, which describes the set of PRB images as corresponding to a plurality of intervals (e.g., 24 hourly data points), within a period of time (i.e., four days of data)); and
producing, using a trained machine learning (ML) model and based on the first per-PRB interference data, one or more interference source type indications (i.e., “may process the array of potential issues, with a second machine learning model, to determine probability scores associated with the potential issues (i.e., one or more interference source type indications).”, see ¶0044).
As per claim 4, Winter further teaches wherein the OAM data includes topology data (e.g., “data identifying a network device” and/or “a name of a geographic region in which eNB 110 is located”), configuration management data (e.g., “branch identification data”), and performance management data (e.g., “average RF interference”)(see ¶0013).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 4 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter in view of Wilson (US 2015/0350940)(“Wilson”).
As per claims 2 and 12, Winter does not expressly teach wherein the first per-PRB interference data further includes metadata corresponding to the equipment of the cell comprising an indicator of a vendor of the equipment.
Nevertheless, in the same art of cellular network management/maintenance, Wilson illustrates the use and benefit of associating metadata of equipment of a cell with corresponding interference data (see for example, Figs. 8-11, i.e., “Antenna manufacturer A”, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further associate per-PRB interference data with a relevant indicator of an equipment vendor (e.g., “Antenna manufacturer A”, etc.). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for easier recognition of the manufacture/vendor associated with the per-PRB interference data in Winter.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter in view of Laukkanen (US 2016/0095012)(“Laukkanen”).
As per claim 3, Winter does not expressly teach wherein the first per-PRB interference data further includes metadata corresponding to the equipment of the cell comprising an indicator of an operator of the cell.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless network interference detection, Laukkanen teaches storing, together with interference data, an operator name of an interfering cell (see for example, ¶0079).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly store together with the interference data (i.e., PRB images see ¶0025 of Winter, read as first per-PRB interference data) the name of an operator of the cell/network device corresponding to the interference data/PRB images. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to further identify and/or notify the cell operator of wireless network issues detected by the ML model in Winter.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter, in view of Yun et al. (US 10,605,890)(“Yun”).
As per claim 5, Winter fails to teach the topology data comprises at least one of, for a base station of the cell: geographic coordinates of the base station, antenna azimuth, vertical and horizontal antenna beamwidth, antenna height, mechanical tilt, and electrical tilt.
As per claim 6, Winter further fails to teach the geographic coordinates of the base station comprise latitude and longitude values.
Nevertheless, in the same art of interference detection, Yun teaches using topology data comprises at least one of, for a base station of the cell: geographic coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) of the base station (i.e., “the antenna latitude and longitude of a base station”, see col. 5, lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further specify latitude/longitude values corresponding to the geographic name of the base station in Winters (see ¶0013). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved interference detection/localization (see Yun, col. 17, lines 42-54).
As per claim 7, Winter does not expressly teach, however, Yun further teaches wherein the topology data further indicates a deployment type of the cell selected from at least an indoor deployment, an outdoor deployment, and a distributed antenna system (i.e., “site deployment type (e.g. indoor, outdoor, distributed antenna system, etc.)”, see col. 5, lines 59-60).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Winter and Yun in claims 5-6 applies equally well to claim 7.
As per claim 8, Winter further teaches: classifying an interference source type based on the topology data using the ML model (see ¶0015, where the input data, including topology data see ¶0013, is used to classify interference).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 5-8 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (over the prior art) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, James Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights