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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 142-161 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12108268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims of the pending application are transparently found in US 12108268. Please see below for mapping:
Claim-by-Claim: Mapping
Claim 142:
Claim 142 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 9, 10, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 142 is directed to a computer system for processing, persistent storage, and analysis of heterogeneous radio network measurement data, including a system controller, processing unit, Radio Network Measurement Data database, and RF metric/parameter database. Patent claim 1 recites producing RF log files or data streams containing radio network measurement data from multiple heterogeneous radio communications networks. Patent claim 9 recites processing or partial processing of collected radio network measurement data and management of storage and upload of the data to an external Radio Network Measurement Data Management System. Patent claim 19 recites forwarding radio network measurement data to an external Radio Network Measurement Data Management System, where the data and extracted RF parameter data can be stored indefinitely and used for processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and temporal and point-in-time analysis. Therefore, the claimed computer system is merely the expected management-system implementation for processing and storing the data generated and uploaded by the patented monitoring device.
Claim 143:
Claim 143 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 143 further limits the received radio network measurement data to timestamped and geo-tagged RF parameter data arising from measuring, testing, or monitoring multiple radio network types, including cellular, P25, TETRA, Wi-Fi, LoRA, NB-loT, CAT-M1/CAT-M2, and other private or government radio networks. Patent claims 1-8 recite measuring and monitoring multiple heterogeneous radio communications networks, including cellular, P25, TETRA, Wi-Fi, LoRA, NB-loT, and CAT-M1/CAT-M2 networks. Patent claim 9 recites associating collected radio network measurement data with accurate geographic location data. Patent claim 19 recites forwarding such data to the Radio Network Measurement Data Management System for storage, processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and analysis.
Claim 144:
Claim 144 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 144 further recites that the computer system may operate in a cloud, on-premises, or hybrid computing environment. Patent claim 19 already recites an external Radio Network Measurement Data Management System and other external computing servers or systems used for storing, processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and analysis of radio network measurement data. Implementing that management system in a cloud, on-premises, or hybrid environment would have been an obvious implementation choice and does not render the claim patentably distinct.
Claim 145:
Claim 145 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 145 further recites RF Measurement Data decoders that import log files or streamed data, decode the data, extract network-specific RF parameters, store the parameters, and process log-file or APl-streamed data in real time, near real time, or based on a trigger. Patent claim 1 recites RF log files or data streams containing radio network measurement data. Patent claim 9 recites storage and upload of the radio network measurement data to an external Radio Network Measurement Data Management System as RF log files or streamed data. Patent claim 19 recites forwarding the data via API or flow-based message/data stream, storing RF parameter data extracted from the measurement data, and supporting processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and analysis. Providing decoders to extract and store the RF parameters from the log files or data streams would have been an obvious and expected part of the same data management system.
Claim 146:
Claim 146 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 2-8, 9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 146 further recites storing RF parameters in a database that may be segmented by time, geography, network type, radio technology, network operator, or combinations thereof. Patent claim 1 recites measurement data from heterogeneous networks of different types and technologies. Patent claims 2-8 recite specific network types. Patent claim 9 recites geographic location association. Patent claim 19 recites indefinite storage of RF parameter data and temporal and point-in-time analysis. Segmenting the stored RF parameter database by time, geography, network type, technology, and operator would have been an obvious organizational arrangement for the same stored RF measurement data.
Claim 147:
Claim 147 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 147 further recites that the RF Parameter Database can import, persistently store; index, search, and retrieve very large amounts of RF parameter data, including exabytes of data. Patent claim 19 recites that RF parameter data extracted from radio network measurement data can be stored indefinitely and made available for processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and analysis. Scaling the database to persistently store, index, search, and retrieve large quantities of such data is an obvious implementation detail of the patented data management system.
Claim 148:
Claim 148 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 148 further recites that the Radio Network Measurement Data database can import, persistently store, index, search, and retrieve very large amounts of RF Measurement Data, including exabytes of data. Patent claim 9 recites storage and upload of collected radio network measurement data, and patent claim 19 recites indefinite storage of the radio network measurement data and extracted RF parameter data. Providing a database scaled for very large amounts of the same data would have been an obvious implementation of the patented Radio Network Measurement Data Management System.
Claim 149:
Claim 149 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 10, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 149 further recites user authentication/authorization, access control, a data querying engine, graphical query-building tools, personalized query libraries, map or building-plan overlays, reports, export files, and combining data to create new datasets. Patent claim 19 recites a Radio Network Measurement Data Management System that supports processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and temporal arid point-in-time analysis of stored data by users or data analysis applications. Patent claims 10 and 11 recite user-device/external-computing-system interaction and remote management. Providing user access control, graphical query tools, reports, exports, and map-based visualization would have been an obvious and patentably indistinct way to implement the same querying, visualization, reporting, and analysis functions.
Claim 150:
Claim 150 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 2-8, 10, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 150 further recites GUls for users of different skill levels, GIS overlays, composite maps, temporal analysis, benchmarking, black spot/no spot identification, and queries across same-type or different-type radio networks. Patent claim 19 recites processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and temporal and point-in-time analysis of stored data. Patent claims 1 and 2-8 recite the collection of measurement data for multiple heterogeneous radio network types. Patent claim 16 recites wide-area fleet-based testing and monitoring. Patent claims 17 and 18 recite scanning and Wi-Fi spectrum measurement functionality. Using the stored heterogeneous RF data to generate GUls, GIS overlays, benchmarking views, black spot/no spot identification, and cross-network comparisons would have been an obvious use of the same stored measurement data and is not patentably distinct.
Claim 151:
Claim 151 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 151 further recites preserving raw RF Measurement Data, cross-referencing raw data to decoded RF parameter data, and using an RF Report Generator to generate reports with recursive query/report logic and suppression of empty report pages or elements. Patent claim 1 recites RF log files or data streams containing radio network measurement data. Patent claim 9 recites storing collected radio network measurement data. Patent claim 19 recites indefinite storage of the radio network measurement data and extracted RF parameter data, and supports processing, querying, visualization, reporting, and analysis. Preserving raw data, cross-referencing extracted parameters to the raw data, and generating reports based on query logic would have been an obvious implementation of the patented reporting and analysis system.
Claim 152:
Claim 152 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 17, 18, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 152 further recites an extensible radio network data analytics engine, RF transmitter location, identification of transmitter orientation and power, tracking rogue transmitters or IMSI catchers, and identifying coverage issues with root-cause and rectification recommendations. Patent claim 19 recites data analysis applications supported by the Radio Network Measurement Data Management System. Patent claim 17 recites scanning radio frequencies, recording RF parameter measurements, determining frequencies or bands being used by different networks, and determining whether interference exists. Patent claim 18 recites Wi-Fi spectrum analysis including access points, client devices, relationships, and congestion. Patent claim 20 recites processing, storage, analysis, and alert generation based on monitored or derived EME data. Using the same stored RF parameter data to locate transmitters, identify rogue transmitters, detect coverage issues, and recommend corrective action would have been an obvious analytics application of the patented system.
Claim 153:
Claim 153 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 10, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 153 further recites a Fault Prediction Engine that scans RF parameter data using Al pattern matching or other algorithmic techniques to identify patterns correlated with future radio network fault conditions and generate alerts or map highlights. Patent claim 19 recites data analysis applications supported by the Radio Network Measurement Data Management System and temporal/point-in-time analysis of stored data. Patent claim 1O recites analysis of radio network measurement data. Patent claim 17 recites identifying interference and collecting measurement data regarding detected interference. Applying pattern matching to the stored RF parameter data to identify likely future faults would have been an obvious analytic use of the same stored data.
Claim 154:
Claim 154 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 154 further recites an EME Analyzer that derives EME levels from radio power metric data recorded by monitoring devices, stores timestamped and geolocated EME data, and discriminates EME by network type, operator, technology, band, channel, transmitter, and antenna. Patent claim 20 recites monitoring and measuring EME levels or deriving EME levels from measured RF parameters associated with network operators, radio networks, radio technologies, bands, channels, or combinations thereof, recording corresponding EME data, and forwarding the data to the Radio Network Measurement Data Management System for processing, storage, analysis, and threshold determination. Claim 154 is therefore not patentably distinct from the EME functionality recited in the patented claims.
Claim 155:
Claim 155 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 155 further recites determining changes in EME level over time by network type, operator, technology, band, channel, transmitter, antenna, or combinations thereof. Patent claim 19 recites temporal and point-in-time analysis of stored data. Patent claim 20 recites deriving EME levels from measured RF parameters associated with radio network operators, networks, technologies, bands, channels, and combinations thereof. Determining changes in EME levels over time is an obvious temporal analysis of the EME data already recited in the patented claims.
Claim 156:
Claim 156 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 9, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 156 further recites determining cumulative EME levels based on measured data at a geographic location over a user- or system-defined time period. Patent claim 9 recites associating radio network measurement data with accurate geographic location data. Patent claim 19 recites temporal analysis of stored data. Patent claim 20 recites determination of whether user-defined or programmatically derived instantaneous or cumulative EME threshold levels have been exceeded. Thus, cumulative EME determination by location and time is not patentably distinct.
Claim 157:
Claim 157 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 9, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 157 further recites specifying an EME operating range with upper and lower threshold EME values for selected network/operator/technology/band/channel/transmitter/antenna combinations at a geographic location, including defining a geographic area by polygon or coordinates. Patent claim 20 recites user-defined or programmatically derived instantaneous EME threshold levels for network operators, radio networks, technologies, bands, channels, and combinations thereof. Patent claim 9 recites geographic location association, and patent claim 19 recites visualization and analysis. Defining the geographic area using graphical polygons or coordinates would have been an obvious user-interface implementation for the same threshold-based EME analysis.
Claim 158:
Claim 158 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 158 further recites specifying a cumulative EME operating range using upper/lower threshold values and a date or time range. Patent claim 20 recites user-defined or programmatically derived instantaneous or cumulative EME threshold levels, and patent claim 19 recites temporal analysis. Specifying a date or time range for cumulative EME analysis is an obvious implementation of the temporal cumulative EfvE analysis recited or suggested by the patented claims.
Claim 159:
Claim 159 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 159 further recites presenting derived EME level data graphically as GIS overlays on maps to allow users to query and visualize EME compliance. Patent claim 19 recites visualization, reporting, querying, and analysis of stored RF parameter data. Patent claim 20 recites EME data processing, storage, analysis, and threshold determination. Presenting that EME data as GIS overlays is an obvious visualization of the same EME data in the patented data management system.
Claim 160:
Claim 160 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 160 further recites generating alerts or highlighting an issue when an EME level is outside a prescribed EME operating range. Patent claim 20 recites automatically generating an alert if an instantaneous or cumulative EME level threshold is exceeded. Claim 160 is therefore not patentably distinct.
Claim 161:
Claim 161 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,268. Claim 161 further recites outputting derived EME level data in reports produced by the RF Report Generator or in exportable datasets for analysis by a separate system. Patent claim 19 recites reporting and analysis of stored RF parameter data by users, data analysis applications, or other external computing servers or systems. Patent claim 20 recites forwarding EME data to the Radio Network Measurement Data Management System for processing, storage, analysis, and threshold determination. Generating reports or exportable datasets from the same EME data would have been an obvious reporting/export function of the patented system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 142-161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 142-161 are generally narrative and indefinite, fail to conform with current U.S. claiming practice, and appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. The claims contain numerous grammatical, idiomatic, antecedent-basis, and internal-consistency defects that make the scope of the claims unclear.
In particular, the pending claims are written in an extended narrative style, with long chains of functional descriptions, examples, alternatives, intended results, and explanatory language. This style does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed computer system. The defects are not merely minor typographical errors because the language affects whether particular items are required claim limitations, optional examples, intended uses, or mere descriptions of desired results.
Regarding Claim 142,
Claim 142 is indefinite because the claim recites “a radio frequency ('RF') metric database” in lines 4-5, but later recites storing RF parameters in “an RF Parameter Database.” It is unclear whether the RF metric database and the RF Parameter Database are the same database or different databases in lines 10-11. The claim also recites storing the received radio network measurement data in “a database” in line 12, without clearly identifying whether that database is the previously recited Radio Network Measurement Data database or another database. Accordingly, claim 142 fails to clearly identify the required database structures and their relationship to the claimed system.
Regarding Claims 143,
Claim 143 recites that the received radio network measurement data comprises timestamped and geo-tagged data containing RF parameter values from various radio networks “is provided” in line 8. This wording is unclear because it is not apparent what structure, function, or limitation is being added to the claimed computer system. Claim 143 also include the feature “RF measurement data” in parenthesis. It is unclear whether this feature is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 144,
Claim 144 recites that the system is adapted to operate in cloud, on-premises, or hybrid computing environments “is provided” in line 4. This also fails to clearly recite a further limitation of the claimed computer system. The phrase “is provided” appears to be narrative or translation-style language rather than limiting claim language.
Regarding Claim 145,
Claim 145 is indefinite because it contains internally inconsistent and grammatically unclear extraction language. For example, the claim recites that RF parameters resulting from cellular network measurement “will be extracted from the RF parameters” by a cellular RF Measurement Data Decoder in lines 5-6. This is unclear because RF parameters cannot logically be extracted from the RF parameters themselves. It appears that applicant may have intended to recite extraction from RF Measurement Data, but the claim does not clearly say so.
The same issue appears in the LoRA portion of the claim, which recites that RF parameters resulting from LoRA measurement “will be extracted from the RF parameters” by a LoRA RF Measurement Data Decoder. The scope is therefore unclear as to what data is being decoded and what data is being extracted.
Claim 145 also include the feature “set of measurement Data Decoders” in parenthesis. It is unclear whether this feature is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 146,
Claim 146 is indefinite because the phrase “such as 3G, 4G and 5G cellular” is exemplary language within the claim. It is unclear whether 3G, 4G, and 5G are required limitations of the claimed database segmentation or merely examples of radio technology. Exemplary language in claims may be indefinite when it is unclear whether the examples are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 146 is further indefinite because the phrase “on a basis of any combination of temporality, geography, network type, radio technology and network operator” does not clearly identify which combinations are required, optional, selectable, or supported by the claimed database.
Regarding Claim 150,
Claim 150 is rejected as indefinite because it is prolix. The claim contains a very long series of repeated functional recitations, examples, alternatives, intended results, and explanatory statements such that the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. MPEP 2173.05(m) provides that claims may be rejected as prolix when long recitations or unimportant details render the scope indefinite.
Claim 150 also contains repeated and internally inconsistent language regarding “no spots”. The claim appears to recite substantially similar limitations twice regarding multiple networks of the same type operated by multiple network operators. It is unclear whether the repeated clauses define separate limitations, duplicative limitations, or alternative embodiments.
Regarding Claim 151,
Claim 151 js indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 150 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 150.
Claim 151 is recites “images such as building plans and maps”. It is unclear whether building plans and maps are required image types or merely examples. The claim should affirmatively recite the required image types or remove exemplary language from the claim.
Regarding Claim 152,
Claim 152 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 151 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 151.
Claim 152 is further indefinite because it recites “radio network data data analytics engine, which appears to contain a duplication or mistranslation. It is unclear whether the claim requires a radio network data analytics engine, a radio network data-data analytics engine, or some other component.
Claim 152 also recites that the system uses “artificial intelligence (Al) pattern matching and other algorithmic techniques.” The phrase “other algorithmic techniques” is open-ended and does not provide clear boundaries for the claimed functionality.
Regarding Claim 153,
Claim 153 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 152 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 152.
Claim 153 is also indefinite because it recites that the Fault Prediction Engine predicts when faults are “likely” to occur. The term “likely” is a relative term and the claim provides no objective standard for determining when a predicted fault is “likely”.
Claim 153 further recites that the system may "highlight the coverage issue" when a fault prediction is made. A fault prediction is not necessarily the same thing as a coverage issue, and the claim does not clearly explain what coverage issue is being highlighted. This creates uncertainty as to the scope of the claimed Fault Prediction Engine.
Regarding Claim 154,
Claim 154 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 152 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 152.
Claim 154 is also indefinite because it includes exemplary language, including “such as 3G or 4G or SG.” It is unclear whether 3G, 4G, and 5G are required radio technologies or merely examples. The claim further recites numerous categories and combinations of network type, operator, technology, band, channel, transmitter, and antenna, but does not clearly state which combinations are required and which are optional.
Regarding Claim 155,
Claim 155 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 154 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 154.
Claim 155 also recites determining "the changes in EME level emitted over time" by various categories and combinations. The phrase is grammatically unclear because it is not clear whether the EME level is emitted, whether changes are emitted, or whether EME levels are determined from emissions. The metes and bounds of the claimed EME analysis are therefore unclear.
Regarding Claim 156,
Claim 156 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 155 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 155.
Claim 156 also recites determining cumulative EME levels "over any user or system-defined time period" and "over prescribed time periods." It is unclear whether the claim requires any user-defined time period, any system-defined time period, prescribed time periods, or all of these alternatives. The claim should clearly recite the required
time-period limitation.
Regarding Claim 157,
Claim 157 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 156 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 156.
Claim 157 is also indefinite because it recites that the EME Analyser is adapted to “make provision for” a user, application, process, or external system to specify an EME operating range. The phrase “make provision for” is vague and does not clearly identify the required structure, programming, interface, or operation of the claimed computer system.
Regarding Claim 158,
Claim 158 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 157 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 157.
Claim 158 also uses the vague phrase “make provision for” and therefore fails to clearly identify the required structure, programming, interface, or operation of the claimed computer system. The claim further recites a cumulative EME operating range bounded by threshold values and by a date range or time range, but does not clearly distinguish between the claimed operating range and the later determination of cumulative EME level.
Regarding Claim 159,
Claim 159 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 158 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 158.
Claim 159 is also indefinite because it recites determining whether EME emitted by various combinations is “within prescribed EME levels”. The claim does not clearly identify the source, definition, or objective boundaries of the prescribed EME levels, nor does it clearly state whether the prescribed levels are the same as the EME operating ranges of claims 157 and 158.
Regarding Claim 160,
Claim 160 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 159 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 159.
Claim 160 is also indefinite because it recites that the EME Analyser may “highlight the coverage issue” when an EME level is outside a prescribed EME operating range. The claim does not provide clear antecedent basis for “the coverage issue” in the EME-analysis context. An EME threshold violation is not necessarily a coverage issue. It is therefore unclear what condition is highlighted and what limitation is required.
Regarding Claim 161,
Claim 161 is indefinite because it depends from indefinite claim 160 and therefore inherits the indefiniteness of claim 160.
Claim 161 is also indefinite because it recites outputting EME level data in reports “which allows users to generate reports” or in exportable datasets. The claim does not clearly identify whether the EME Analyser outputs the reports, whether the RF Report Generator generates the reports, whether the users generate the reports, or whether the EME Analyser merely supplies data for report generation.
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.
Claims 142, 144, 146-148 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinbeck et al. (US 20190274059, hereinafter “Kleinbeck”), and further in view of Tapia et al. (US 20190132757, hereinafter “Tapia”).
Regarding claim 142, Kleinbeck discloses,
A computer system for the processing, persistent storage and analysis of heterogeneous radio network measurement data ([0105]-[0107] teaches RF/spectrum data from apparatus units being communicated to a server and database in a virtualized or cloud-based computing system, and further teaches spectrum analysis over different wireless protocols.); the computer system comprises a system controller, a processing unit, a Radio Network Measurement Data database, and an RF metric database ([0108] and [0151] teach a spectrum-management device including a signal spectrum analyzer coupled to a database system and interface, and further teaches history/static databases for stored measured signal data and parameters.); the system controller is adapted to analyze received radio network measurement data ([0108] teaches identifying, classifying, cataloging, processing, and analyzing RF measurement data), determines a type of radio network to which the heterogeneous radio network measurement data pertains ([0112] teaches determining signal protocol, modulation, and system-in-use information.), the RF parameters that the received radio network measurement data contains ([0131] teaches determining RF/signal parameters including signal power, bandwidth, center frequency, time, location, modulation type, protocol, and carrier/system information), decodes the received radio network measurement data and extracts the RF parameters from it ([0109] teaches using 1/Q data to demodulate and translate signals, extract modulation/protocol information, and distill signal metrics and network information.), indexes and persistently stores the RF parameters in an RF Parameter Database ([0131] teaches storing signal parameters, protocol data, location, and time in a history database and updating matching records); persistently stores the received radio network measurement data in a database ([0105] and [0109] teach storing original RF/IQ data and apparatus-unit data in databases, including local databases and a remote server/database), makes original data and extracted RF parameters available for querying, visualization, reporting, analysis including temporal analysis, and derivation of other data from the extracted RF parameters ([0185]-[0186] teach querying stored SigDB data, GUI access, CSV /PDF reporting, visualization of analytics, reports based on time periods and variance, and derived RF-analysis outputs).
However, Kleinbeck does not expressly use applicant's exact labels “Radio Network Measurement Data database” and “RF Parameter Database” as separate named databases. Kleinbeck also does not describe the backend as cleanly as an data-management platform that uses data adaptors to receive multiple network-performance data types, decode input formats into metadata, store original/converted/calculated data in unified storage, and expose that data.
In the same field of endeavor, Tapia discloses, Computer system with processing, persistent storage, and analysis functions ([0017]-[0018] teaches a wireless communication analytics platform implemented on computing devices/cloud servers, with a data-management layer for processing and storage.), System controller, processing unit, Radio Network Measurement Data database, and RF metric/RF parameter database ([0022] teaches processors, memory, a data-collection platform, a data-processing module, unified storage, and API management.), heterogeneous radio network measurement data ([0016] teaches receiving different wireless earner data types, including VoLTE, circuit-switched, Wi-Fi call data, handset reports, and network-performance data.), Decode received measurement data and extract parameters ([0025] teaches using data adaptors and a data-processing module to decode input data into metadata and feed it to other modules.), persistently store original measurement data and extracted or derived data ([0026]teaches unified storage that stores input data files, converted-format data, and calculated data.), make original data and extracted RF parameters available for querying, visualization, reporting, analysis, temporal analysis, and derived-data generation ([0029] teaches API access to stored data, analytics engines, aggregation by time, computed KPis, and analytic views including maps and time charts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement Kleinbeck RF/spectrum-management server/database and SigDB functionality using Tapia’s known wireless-network data collection, decoding, unified storage, API, analytics, reporting, and visualization architecture, because both references address collection, storage, processing, analysis, and reporting of wireless/RF network-related data using server/database systems [0010]-[0011].
Regarding claim 144, the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 142), in addition Tapia discloses,
wherein the system is adapted to operate either within a cloud computing environment, in an on-premises computing environment, or in a combination of cloud and on-premises computing environments is provided (the cloud layer may facilitate the deployment, configuration, and activation of local and cloud servers, as well as facilitate the deployment, configuration, and activation of applications and/or services, [0017]).
Regarding claim 146, the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 142), further Kleinbeck discloses,
wherein the RF parameters are stored in a database system having one or more distributed physical databases that may be logically segmented in which RF parameter value data are stored (‘RF Parameter Database’), such that the RF Parameter Database is adapted to be temporally segmented, or segmented on a basis of geographic locations from which RF parameter data have been collected, or on a basis of radio network types, or on a basis of radio technology (such as 3G, 4G and 5G cellular), or on a basis of individual network operators, or on a basis of any combination of temporality, geography, network type, radio technology and network operator (the history or historical database 232 may include measured signal data 234 for signals that have been previously identified by the spectrum management device 202. The measured signal data 234 may include the raw RF energy measurements, time stamps, location information, one or more signal parameters for any identified signals, such as center frequency, bandwidth, power, number of detected signals, frequency peak, peak power, average power, signal duration, etc., and identifying information determined from the characteristics listing 236. In an embodiment, the history or historical database 232 may be updated as signals are identified by the spectrum management device 202 [0126]-[0132]).
Regarding claim 147, the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 146), further Kleinbeck discloses,
wherein the RF Parameter Database is adapted to resiliently and reliably import, persistently store and index very large amounts of data, and so is capable of persistently storing and indexing exabytes of RF parameter data, and of rendering all stored data searchable and immediately retrievable ([0131] the processor 214 may determine signal parameters such as center frequency, bandwidth, power, number of detected signals, frequency peak, peak power, average power, signal duration for the identified signals. In block 316 the processor 214 may store the signal parameters of each identified signal, a location indication, and time indication for each identified signal in a history database 232; [0185] Thus the master database or “SigDB” is operable to be applied and connect to the units, and may include hardware and software commercially available, for example SQL Server 2012, and to be applied to provide a user the criteria to upgrade/update their current sever network to the correct configuration that is required to operate and access the SigDB. Also, the SigDB is preferably designed, constructed and as a full hardware and software system configuration for the user, including load testing and network security and configuration. Other exemplary requirements include that the SigDB will include a database structure that can sustain a multiplicity of apparatus units' information).
Regarding claim 148, the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 146), further Kleinbeck discloses,
herein the Radio Network Measurement Data database is adapted to resiliently and reliably import, persistently store and index very large amounts of data, and so is capable of persistently storing and indexing exabytes of RF Measurement Data, and of rendering all stored data searchable and immediately retrievable ([0131] the processor 214 may determine signal parameters such as center frequency, bandwidth, power, number of detected signals, frequency peak, peak power, average power, signal duration for the identified signals. In block 316 the processor 214 may store the signal parameters of each identified signal, a location indication, and time indication for each identified signal in a history database 232; [0185] Thus the master database or “SigDB” is operable to be applied and connect to the units, and may include hardware and software commercially available, for example SQL Server 2012, and to be applied to provide a user the criteria to upgrade/update their current sever network to the correct configuration that is required to operate and access the SigDB. Also, the SigDB is preferably designed, constructed and as a full hardware and software system configuration for the user, including load testing and network security and configuration. Other exemplary requirements include that the SigDB will include a database structure that can sustain a multiplicity of apparatus units' information).
Claims 143 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinbeck, in view of Tapia and further in view of Dabbs et al. (US 20220263700, hereinafter “Dabbs”).
Regarding claim 143, the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 142), the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia does not disclose, wherein the received radio network measurement data comprises timestamped and geo-tagged data containing RF parameter values that arise from the measurement, testing, or monitoring of multi-technology cellular radio networks, P25 and TETRA 2-way trunked radio networks, Wi-Fi, IoT-specific networks including those supporting LoRA, NB-IoT, and CAT-M1/CAT-M2 and maritime, aircraft, military and other private and government radio networks (‘RF Measurement Data’) is provided.
In the same field of endeavor, Dabbs discloses, wherein the received radio network measurement data comprises timestamped and geo-tagged data containing RF parameter values that arise from the measurement, testing, or monitoring of multi-technology cellular radio networks, P25 and TETRA 2-way trunked radio networks, Wi-Fi, IoT-specific networks including those supporting LoRA, NB-IoT, and CAT-M1/CAT-M2 and maritime, aircraft, military and other private and government radio networks (‘RF Measurement Data’) is provided ([0005] This class of LPWAN includes LoraWAN, Sigfox, Weightless, and others, with users operating both private and public networks. Nodes operate using a block of license-free spectrum (e.g., 169 MHz, 433 MHz, 868 MHz, 915 MHz bands), which are available across much of the globe on a non-exclusive, non-coordinated basis; [0011] Private narrowband spectrum, such as that used by P25, TETRA, and DMR voice and data systems, offers unique benefits for LPWANs. These channels are licensed for exclusive use, with high power base-to-mobile channels and a predictable, low noise floor over a geographic area; [0014] private narrowband channels, DMR, P25, and TETRA specifications currently support machine-to-machine data transmission, and manufacturers offer various solutions for machine-to-machine data over private channels using these technologies.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kleinbeck and Tapia by specifically providing wherein the received radio network measurement data comprises timestamped and geo-tagged data containing RF parameter values that arise from the measurement, testing, or monitoring of multi-technology cellular radio networks, P25 and TETRA 2-way trunked radio networks, Wi-Fi, IoT-specific networks including those supporting LoRA, NB-IoT, and CAT-M1/CAT-M2 and maritime, aircraft, military and other private and government radio networks (‘RF Measurement Data’) is provided, as taught by Dabbs for the purpose of providing an efficient roaming algorithm in which a mobile node can consider a potentially large number of total possible channels, in both a time-efficient and energy-efficient manner [0016].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 145 and 149-161 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 145, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts, Kleinbeck and Tapia, whether taken alone or in combination does not teach the following novel feature: “The computer system comprising a set of radio network-specific RF Measurement Data importation and decoding functions (‘set of RF Measurement Data Decoders’) that either automatically or manually import RF Measurement Data in a form of either log files or streamed data, decode the imported RF Measurement Data to extract radio network-specific RF parameters pertaining to a radio network that was tested, measured or monitored, and store the RF parameters in a virtualised database that comprises one or more distributed physical databases that may be logically segmented, wherein the RF parameters that result from a measurement or monitoring or testing of cellular networks will be extracted from the RF parameters by a cellular RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters that result from the measurement or monitoring or testing of P25 networks will be extracted from RF Measurement Data by a P25 RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters that result from the measurement or monitoring or testing of TETRA networks will be extracted from RF Measurement Data by a TETRA RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters that result from the measurement or monitoring or testing of Wi-Fi networks will be extracted from RF Measurement Data by a Wi-Fi RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters that result from the measurement or monitoring or testing of LORA networks will be extracted from the RF parameters by a LoRA RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters that result from the measurement or monitoring or testing of NB-IoT networks will be extracted from RF Measurement Data by a NB-IoT RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters that result from the measurement or monitoring or testing of CAT-M1 and CAT-M2 networks will be extracted from RF Measurement Data by a CAT-M1/CAT-M2 RF Measurement Data Decoder; the RF parameters including, but not being limited to, RSRP and RSSI that describe received power levels, SiNR and ECNO that describe signal to noise levels, radio band and channel identifiers, PCI and SSID that identify serving cells or transmitters, TXP that describes transmission power, MIMO rank and Layer 3 cellular messages; and wherein the set of RF Measurement Data Decoders is adapted to automatically analyse an RF Measurement Data log file when the log file is loaded into a log file importation directory, determine a type of RF Measurement Data and radio network-type specific decoding processes to invoke, and invoke an appropriate decoder function to process contents of the RF Measurement Data log file; and wherein the set of RF Measurement Data Decoders is adapted to automatically analyse streamed RF Measurement Data imported into the system via an application programming interface (‘API’), determine the type of RF Measurement Data and the radio network-type specific decoding processes to invoke, and invoke the appropriate decoder function to process the streamed RF Measurement Data in real time or in near real time, or at any time of a user's choosing, or in response to a timed or programmatic trigger”, in combination with the other limitations in claim 142.
Regarding claim 149, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts, Kleinbeck and Tapia, whether taken alone or in combination does not teach the following novel feature: “The computer system comprising a user authentication and authorisation system and a data access control system that allow for access to functions and features, and to segmented data stored in the RF Parameter Database and the Radio Network Measurement Data database to be restricted to specific users or groups of users; and wherein the computer system further comprising a data querying engine that interprets data querying commands and language and executes queries against any data that is stored in the RF Parameter Database, and any data that is stored in the Radio Network Measurement Data database; and wherein the data querying engine is adapted to provide one or more graphical data query building tools for building data queries by graphically selecting and linking symbols representing data query commands or groups of data query commands, thereby alleviating a need for a user to understand data querying commands and language; and wherein the data querying engine is adapted to allow each user to build customised data queries to be executed against any data stored in the Radio Network Measurement Data database and any data stored in the RF Parameter Database as and when required, and to be persistently stored in personalised data query libraries such that a user can execute any such query against any data stored in any database at any time; and wherein the data querying engine is adapted to return data from the RF Parameter Database that can be represented graphically on an authorised user's computing device screen as an overlay on a map or a plan of a building or site; or used to populate a report; or may be used to populate a file for export from a Radio Network Measurement Data Management System; or combined with other data that may be sourced from the Radio Network Measurement Data Management System or from elsewhere to produce a new dataset”, in combination with the other limitations in claim 142.
Claims 150-161 are allowed as those inherit the allowable subject matter from
claim 149.
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20220052753: A cellular network management system manages terrestrial base station communications and orbital base station communications with user equipment to provide wireless service and allocate links among terrestrial base stations and orbital base stations according to base station availability determined from state space predictions.
US 20220337977: The present invention relates generally to methods and apparatus for locating wireless devices, also called mobile stations (MS), such as those used in analog or digital cellular systems, personal communications systems (PCS), enhanced specialized mobile radios (ESMRs), and other types of wireless communications systems.
US 20220038902: The present disclosure is related to reconfigurable radio equipment and edge computing, and in particular, to technologies for cyber security and radio equipment supporting certain features ensuring protection from fraud, and testing interfaces related to reconfigurable radio equipment. Other embodiments may be described and/or claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights