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 .
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9, 14-16, and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the term “speed values” in the limitation “based on the travel speeds of the multiple communication devices… assigning speed values to different segments of a travel path” is indefinite because it is unclear what specific type of “speed” is being assigned to the segments. When read in light of the specification, the application discusses two distinct interdependent speed metrics for planning the base station deployment: (1) the physical travel speed of the device (e.g., “60mph” vehicle speed, see the Specification as originally filed, page 18, lines 21-28), and (2) the data transmission speed or spectral efficiency required to support that moving device (e.g., “1.34 bit/second/hertz” to transfer a “500 Mb packet”, see the Specification, page 18, lines 21-28) ). Because both physical velocity and data transmission rates are utilized as key variables in the Specification to determine the contiguous wireless coverage, the naked term “speed values” in the claim creates an ambiguity. It is unclear whether the system is mapping the physical vehicle velocity limits to the geographical segments or assigning a required data transmission rate/spectral efficiency value to the network segment based on the vehicles’ physical speeds. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be reasonably determined.
Regarding Claims 5-6, and 15-16 depend from claim 4 or 14, respectively, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, claims 9 and 19 recite the limitation “the second wireless channel being greater in magnitude than the first wireless carrier frequency.” However, the term “second wireless channel” does not appear in respective independent claims 1 and 11, nor is it introduced earlier in claims 9 and 19. Therefore, “the second wireless channel” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, the phrase “the second wireless channel being greater in magnitude than the first wireless carrier frequency” of these claims is technically ambiguous and confusing. A “channel” and a “carrier frequency” refer to different technical characteristics of a wireless network. It is unclear whether “greater in magnitude” means the second wireless network operates at a higher frequency band (e.g., 5GHz vs. 2.4 GHz) than the first wireless network, or if the second wireless channel has a wider bandwidth than the first wireless channel. The direct comparison of these two different terms using the vague modifier “greater in magnitude” leaves the reader unable to determine the scope of the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Alice/Mayo Step 2A (Abstract Idea):
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite a method, system, and computer-readable medium comprising the steps of:
(1) receiving wireless service usage information indicating travel speeds of multiple communication devices in a geographical region, a first wireless network providing first wireless services in the geographical region;
(2) receiving a metric indicating second wireless services to provide in the geographical region via a second wireless network; and
(3) based on the travel speeds of the multiple communication devices and the metric, producing a wireless base station installation plan to install the second wireless network.
These limitation describes the concepts of collection data, analyzing data, and outputting result. Furthermore, the limitation of “producing a wireless base station installation plan to install the second wireless network” is mental process. The courts have repeatedly held that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis are abstract ideas. An individual could practically perform these steps in the human mind or with a pen and paper by reviewing vehicular speed data, applying a predetermined mathematical threshold (e.g., minimum bits), and calculating or plotting candidate locations for base stations on a map. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
2. Alice/Mayo Step2B (Significantly More):
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claims merely recited generic computer components functioning in a routine and conventional capacity. For instance, the recitation of “communication management hardware” (Claims 11-20) and “Computer-readable storage hardware” (Claim 21) simply invokes generic hardware to execute the abstract idea with expected speed and efficiency.
Furthermore, the claims conclude merely with the generation of information data (“installation plan”). The claims lack any ensuing physical action or dynamic technical adjustment to a system. For example, the claims do not recited automatically reconfiguration network nodes, dynamically adjusting wireless signal routing to prevent handoff failure, or physically controlling the installation of the network infrastructure based on the generated plan. The recited hardware merely process information, which does not improve the functioning of a computer or wireless network itself.
Accordingly, the claims amount to nothing more than an abstract idea implemented on generic computer hardware and are therefore patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Randall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160157106, hereinafter “Randall”).
.
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Randall unless otherwise mentioned.
Randall discloses Techniques for providing a small cell deployment plan and comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding Claim 1, Randall teaches A method comprising:
receiving wireless service usage information indicating travel speeds of multiple communication devices in a geographical region, a first wireless network providing first wireless services in the geographical region
Randall discloses receiving and evaluating geolocation data and user mobility including the speed of movement of mobile device across a network area, to determine if users are moving quickly, e.g., >7m/s; see [0015], [0017], and [0035])
para [0015]: In terms of user mobility, it should be appreciated that if most users, at a given location, are moving quickly (e.g., in cars on free-flowing roads), then even though traffic density may be high, it may not make sense to deploy a small cell at that high-density locale since users only spend a small amount of time within that coverage footprint.
para [0017]: user mobility may be measured against a threshold. For example, an average user mobility of greater than a given threshold (say 7 m/s) may indicate that a particular location may be a poor choice for installing a small cell (e.g., despite traffic density data/figures suggesting that it could be), due to the limited time for which the small cell could serve such users, as just discussed.
para [0035]: the geolocation module 220 may be used to receive information (interpreted as “wireless service usage information indicating travel speeds”) from a mobile device associated with geolocation or the determining of the geographic location of that mobile device, such as: GPS-derived timing and/or location information, signal strength data, round-trip signal (propagation) timing for signals from the base-station to the mobile device and/or from the mobile device to the base-station (interpreted as “a first wireless network providing first wireless services”), direction-of-arrival of signals to/from the mobile device, speed of movement of the mobile device, direction of movement, etc., and may also use that information to calculate and determine where the mobile device is traveling to so that this information could be further processed to provide an approximate location of one or more mobile devices within the estimated coverage area (interpreted as “in a geographical region”).);
receiving a metric indicating second wireless services to provide in the geographical region via a second wireless network (para [0034]: Metrics module 210 may be used to collect, use, and determine network congestion/capacity based on one or more of the metrics described herein, or other relevant metrics/parameters. It should be appreciated that these metrics/parameters/measurements may be stored as well over a period of time and may be associated with user, network, and/or business/financial data or trends.) (para [0038]: Simulation module 240 may be used to analyze the impact of adding a small cell in a network (the small cell is interpreted as “a second wireless network”, see page 11 of the Specification of the instant application, lines 28-29 : “the second wireless network as a so-called small cell network” ) at one or more proposed locations. Simulation module 240 may be used to predict the impact upon a network and/or a plurality of users in the network. Simulation module 240 may also incorporate KPI scores as part of its simulation analysis.); and
based on the travel speeds of the multiple communication devices and the metric, producing a wireless base station installation plan to install the second wireless network (para [0027]: It should be appreciated that in such a scenario, an operator may weigh a combination of some or all of the above metrics (plus, potentially, other additional metrics), to form an overall KPI score. The precise metrics to be used, and their relative weights, may vary from operator to operator and perhaps also from location to location. If this weighted KPI score, calculated for a given location within the network, exceeds an operator-determined minimum threshold, then a small cell deployment may make sense at that particular location.) (para [0032]: the small cell deployment planning module may contain one or more components including: metrics module 210, processing module 220, geolocation module 230, simulation module 240, and error logging and reporting module 250.) (para [0037]: Processing module 230 may be used to analyze the various metrics for the network and users to determine potential small cell deployment locations. In some embodiments, KPI scores may be generated and such results may be used to plan small cell deployment. ...) (para [0038]: Simulation module 240 may be used to analyze the impact of adding a small cell in a network (interpreted as “to install the second wireless services”) at one or more proposed locations. Simulation module 240 may be used to predict the impact upon a network and/or a plurality of users in the network. Simulation module 240 may also incorporate KPI scores as part of its simulation analysis.) (para [0052]: once all (or a defined set of) locations have been assessed, KPI/metrics data may be stored (block 318), analyzed, and/or tested to ascertain if any of these assessed locations meets the required criteria for the installation of a small cell (block 324). If one or more locations meet the required criteria (block 326), then at block 328, the method may output one or more recommended locations before the method terminates.)
Regarding Claim 11, it is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except limitations “communication management hardware” (Fig. 2, a small cell deployment planning module 200) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, it is a computer-readable storage hardware claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except limitations “Computer-readable storage hardware having instructions stored thereon,” (para [0072]: one or more processors operating in accordance with instructions may implement the functions associated with providing a small cell deployment plan in accordance with embodiments as described above. If such is the case, it is within the scope of the present disclosure that such instructions may be stored on one or more processor readable storage media) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 2, Randall teaches The method as in claim 1, Randall further teaches wherein the metric indicates a minimum threshold number of bits to communicate from the second wireless network to a communication device in the geographical region during a communication session (para [0014]: With regard to traffic density (interpreted as “bits to communicate”), the higher the density, the more likely a small cell deployment will make sense, in terms of alleviating congestion on an umbrella macro cell or base station.) (para [0026]: even though 30 or more sites might meet the operator's small cell deployment criteria, defined as one or more of their metrics exceeding the minimum threshold at which a deployment would be considered to be sufficiently advantageous .
Regarding Claim 3, Randall teaches The method as in claim 1, Randall further teaches wherein the first wireless network includes first wireless base stations to provide the first wireless services to the multiple communication devices (para [0003]: wireless communications systems employ radio network subsystems with macro cells using one or more high-powered base stations (interpreted as “first wireless network”). Although advances in technology have made it possible for these base stations to cover relatively large geographical areas, there may still exist regions within these covered areas that need additional network capacity. For example, a hotspot with a large population of people using their mobile devices may cause a disproportionate amount of network usage. Small cells (interpreted as “second wireless network”) have been traditionally used to add coverage to a network in such areas.); and
wherein producing the wireless base station installation plan includes:
proposing installation of second wireless base stations in the second wireless network at different locations in the geographical region to support the second wireless services (claim 10 of Randall: wherein the recommendation for base station deployment is based on assessing performance of the mobile communications network and performing simulation analysis to determine impact of placing an additional base station for all designated locations with the mobile communications network.).
Regarding Claim 8, Randall teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein the wireless service usage information is generated by a first wireless network service provider operating the first wireless network in the geographical region, the first wireless network operative to monitor the travel speeds of the multiple communication devices as indicated by the wireless service usage information (para [0035]: Geolocation module 220 may be used to determine geolocation or geolocation-derived data associated with a mobile device. For example, as discussed herein, the geolocation module 220 may be used to receive information from a mobile device associated with geolocation or the determining of the geographic location of that mobile device (interpreted as “the wireless service usage information is generated by a first wireless network service provider”), such as: GPS-derived timing and/or location information, signal strength data, round-trip signal (propagation) timing for signals from the base-station to the mobile device and/or from the mobile device to the base-station, direction-of-arrival of signals to/from the mobile device, speed of movement of the mobile device, direction of movement, etc., and may also use that information to calculate and determine where the mobile device is traveling to so that this information could be further processed to provide an approximate location of one or more mobile devices within the estimated coverage area. Furthermore, this information may be used in in conjunction with satellite-based navigational measurements, such as GPS (Global Positioning System), GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System), Galileo (European-based satellite navigation), or other similar data.).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 3.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 8, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 8.
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 7, 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall in view of Tsuda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230337123, hereinafter “Tsuda”).
Regarding Claim 7, Randall teaches The method as in claim 1, Randall discloses the first wireless network (e.g., umbrella macro cell, see para [0014]) and the second wireless network (e.g., small cells, see para [0003]) provide wireless service to communication devices. However, Randall fails to explicitly teach wherein the first wireless network is configured to support wireless communications using a first wireless channel; and wherein the second wireless network is configured to support wireless communications using a second wireless channel.
Tsuda discloses a heterogeneous wireless network architecture comprising a macro cell (corresponding to the first wireless network, e.g., (R)AN 330 and a small cell (corresponding to the second wireless network, e.g., (R)AN2 530. Tsuda explicitly teaches a user equipment can establish connections with both networks simultaneously, such as via Dual Connectivity (DC) (see para [0266] of Tsuda), and that the small cell can operate at a frequency different from the operating frequency of the macro cell (para [0310] of Tsuda : It goes without saying that some or all of the processing of the above-described example can be applied to a case where the PLMN provider provides a service corresponding to S-NSSAI different between a macro cell and a small cell operating at a frequency (for example, a frequency higher than the operating frequency of the macro cell) different from that of the macro cell within a coverage of the macro cell. At this point, the macro cell corresponds to the base station device 2011 or the (R)AN 330, and the small cell corresponds to the base station device 2021 belonging to NPN_1 or the (R)AN2 530…). Providing simultaneous connections and operating on different frequencies inherently requires the first wireless network to be configured to support wireless communication using a first wireless channel, and the second wireless network to be configured to support wireless communication using a second wireless channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the small cell deployment method of Randall with the channels and frequency configuration of Tsuda. The motivation to combine these teaching would be to enable simultaneous data transmission to the user equipment (e.g., utilizing Dual Connectivity) and to minimize cross-tier radio interference between the macro cell and the newly added small cells, thereby improving overall network throughput and connection stability as taught by Tsuda.
Regarding Claim 9, Randall teaches The method as in claim 1, Randall discloses the locations of installing wireless base stations in the second wireless network (small cells) within the first wireless network (e.g., umbrella macro cell, see para [0014]) based on service requirements and traffic. However, Randall fails to explicitly teach wherein the first wireless network supports a first wireless carrier frequency; and wherein locations of installing wireless base stations in the second wireless network are based on the second wireless network implementing a second wireless carrier frequency, the second wireless channel being greater in magnitude than the first wireless carrier frequency.
Tsuda discloses a heterogeneous network environment comprising a macro cell (first wireless network) and a small cell (second wireless network) disposed within the coverage of the macro cell. Tsuda explicitly teaches that the small cell operates at a frequency that is higher than the operating frequency of the macro cell (para [0310] of Tsuda: … a small cell operating at a frequency (for example, a frequency higher than the operating frequency of the macro cell) different from that of the macro cell within a coverage of the macro cell…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the network deployment planning method of Randall with the heterogeneous network frequency configuration of Tsuda. The motivation to combine would be to increase data capacity in targeted hotspot areas by utilizing higher frequency bands for small cells, as taught by Tsuda. Furthermore, since higher carrier frequencies explicitly suffer from greater path loss and shorter propagation distances, it would have been a matter of common sense and standard engineering practice for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the specific “location of installing” the small cells (as in Randall) based directly on the physical propagation characteristics of implementing that higher second wireless carrier frequency.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 7.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 9.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150304863, hereinafter “Gupta”).
Regarding Claim 10, Randall teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein producing the wireless base station installation plan includes:
Randall discloses a method/system for network planning that generates an installation plan based on predetermined metrics, including the travel speed of a mobile terminal.
However, Randall fails to explicitly teach via the wireless base station installation plan, proposing installation of a sequence of new wireless base stations in the second wireless network, the proposed sequence of the new wireless base stations operative to provide the second wireless services as continuous wireless services in accordance with the metric.
Gupta discloses utilizing road network information and user mobility (trajectories) for advanced network planning to provide continuous services to mobile users along a travel path (see paragraphs [0001-0002] of Gupta; The present invention generally relates to wireless communication networks, and more particularly relates to utilizing road network information and user mobility for network planning. …One goal of network planning is to enhance the experience of the users who heavily access the network while on the move (mobile users). However, providing seamless connectivity to mobile users is challenging since users switch base stations frequently, and connectivity has to be maintained along the path of travel.). Specifically, Gupta teaches tracking user mobility to identify specific road segments (i.e., travel paths) traversed by users and identifying areas with insufficient service coverage along these paths, such as areas causing dropped calls (see paragraphs [0035], [0045-0047] of Gupta). To resolve these inadequate coverage areas and provide seamless connectivity to mobile users who switch base stations frequently along their path or travel, Gupta explicitly teaches a network planning method that deploys new base stations in strategic locations along the identified road segment.
para [0026] of Gupta: A network monitoring system (NMS) 126 is implemented within or communicatively coupled to the wireless communication network 102. The NMS 126, in one embodiment, monitors user mobility within the network 102 and correlates user mobility information with road-network information for network planning. In this embodiment, the NMS 126 utilizes call detail records (CDRs) 128, road-network information 130, and geographic information system (GIS) data 132 to determine mobility (trajectory) information 134 of mobile users within the network 102. Mobility information 134 comprises, for example, data identifying specific road segments travelled by mobile users, data identifying the base stations associated with these road segments, and geographic location associated with the road segments and base stations. The mobility information 134, in some embodiments, also comprises data identifying the road segments that contribute load on specific base stations. Data identifying road segments that do not have wireless service coverage (or that have inadequate wireless service coverage) can also be included within the mobility information 134. Network operators can utilize the mobility information 134 for advanced network planning. For example, network operators can utilize the mobility information 134 to deploy new base stations in strategic locations, move base stations to appropriate locations, resolve areas with inadequate wireless service coverage, and/or the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the metric-based network planning system of Randall to incorporate the trajectory-based installation plan taught by Gupta, which includes planning a sequence of new wireless base stations along the travel path. The motivation for this combination is to enhance the experience of mobile users by ensuring seamless, continuous connectivity along heavily traveled routes (para [0002] of Gupta). By applying the teaching of Gupta to the system of Randall, a person of ordinary skill in the art would strategically deploy a sequence of new base stations along the known travel paths of high-mobility users to eliminate coverage holes and prevent dropped calls during frequent handovers, yielding predictable and expected improvements in network reliability.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 10, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights