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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12143837. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the same inventive entity or name at least one joint inventor in common and the instant application have a similar invention concept with above patent. Both, the instant application above patent are commonly directed to a system, method and non-transitory machine-readable medium for managing network configuration data from a plurality of location-based service nodes by generating audit values, comparing the data to these reference values and applying corrections to the nodes. The only thing different between the instant application and above patent are likely use a different terminology phrase like “generating reference audit values” and “applying the corrections to each location-based service node” as mention from the instant application versus “transforming the network configuration data into reference audit values” and “sending the corrections to each location-based services node”. Since these different are merely provide the similar concept of the claim invention, therefore it’s obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize above patent to reject the instant application with non-statutory double patenting. Please see the claims mapping in the non-statutory double patenting table below:
Non-statutory Double Patenting Table:
Instant Application No. 18911375
US Patent No. 12143837
1. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations,
1. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations,
the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
the operations comprising: receiving network configuration data from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
transforming the network configuration data into reference audit values;
comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes to generate corrections;
comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data received from each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes to generate corrections;
and applying the corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.
and sending the corrections to each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise translating the network configuration data received in different formats into a unified consistent format.
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise translating the network configuration data received in different formats into a unified consistent format.
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise mapping the unified consistent format of the network configuration data onto the reference audit values.
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise mapping the unified consistent format of the network configuration data onto the reference audit values.
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into reference audit values.
5. The device of claim 4, wherein the different formats comprise comma separated values, extensible markup language, and relational database schema.
5. The device of claim 4, wherein the different formats comprise comma separated values, extensible markup language, and relational database schema.
6. The device of claim 5, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
6. The device of claim 5, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
7. The device of claim 6, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
7. The device of claim 6, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
8. The device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.
8. The device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.
9. The device of claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
9. The device of claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
10. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations,
10. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations,
the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
the operations comprising: receiving network configuration data from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise translating the network configuration data received in different formats into a unified consistent format.
translating the network configuration data received in different formats into a unified consistent format;
transforming the network configuration data in the unified consistent format into reference audit values;
comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes;
comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data received from each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes;
and applying corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.
and sending corrections to each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.
11. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.
11. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into reference audit values.
12. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
12. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
13. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
13. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
14. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.
14. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.
15. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
15. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
16. A method, comprising: generating, by a processing system including a processor, reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
16. A method, comprising: receiving, by a processing system including a processor, network configuration data from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
transforming, by the processing system, the network configuration data into reference audit values;
using, by the processing system, a standard deviation technique to the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes compared to the reference audit values to generate corrections;
applying, by the processing system, a standard deviation technique to the network configuration data received from each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes compared to the reference audit values to generate corrections;
and applying, by the processing system, the corrections to a location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data of the location-based services node deviating from the reference audit values.
and sending, by the processing system, the corrections to a location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data of the location-based services node deviating from the reference audit values.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the standard deviation technique comprises identifying an anomaly if a variance falls outside configurable upper and lower threshold limits.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the standard deviation technique comprises identifying an anomaly if a variance falls outside configurable upper and lower threshold limits.
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising applying, by the processing system, policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising applying, by the processing system, policy rules to transform the network configuration data into reference audit values.
19. The method of claim 16, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
19. The method of claim 16, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, such as evaluation, comparison, and decision making) and abstract. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims directed to the mental process and abstract. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are generic computing device performing routine data processing steps, well understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Below is the analysis:
Claim 1 recited “1. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network; comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes to generate corrections; and applying the corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.”.
Step 2A prong one: Yes, the claim is abstract idea for the following limitation:
. “A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network” is the step of collecting data and determining a value which is directed to mental process and abstract.
. “comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes to generate corrections; and applying the corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.” is the step of processing the data to make a determination based on the results of the comparison which is directed to mental process and abstract.
Step 2A prong two: Yes, the claim is abstract idea because the claim do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims is using generic processing system performing routine data processing steps and they are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Regarding claims 2-9 are further depend on claim 1 and the limitation do not recited any significantly more than the abstract idea as cited above for claim 1, therefore claims 2-9 are also reject for the same reason.
Claim 2 recited “The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise translating the network configuration data received in different formats into a unified consistent format.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 3 recited “The device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise mapping the unified consistent format of the network configuration data onto the reference audit values.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 4 recited “The device of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 5 recited “The device of claim 4, wherein the different formats comprise comma separated values, extensible markup language, and relational database schema.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 6 recited “The device of claim 5, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 7 recited “The device of claim 6, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 8 recited “The device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 9 recited “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 10 recited “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network; comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes; and applying corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.”.
Step 2A prong one: Yes, the claim is abstract idea for the following limitation:
. “A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;” is the step of collecting data and determining a value which is directed to mental process and abstract.
. “comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes; and applying corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.” is the step of processing the data to make a determination based on the results of the comparison which is directed to mental process and abstract.
Step 2A prong two: Yes, the claim is abstract idea because the claim do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims is using generic processing system performing routine data processing steps and they are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Regarding claims 11-15 are further depend on claim 10 and the limitation do not recited any significantly more than the abstract idea as cited above for claim 10, therefore claims 11-15 are also reject for the same reason.
Claim 11 recited “The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 12 recited “The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 13 recited “The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 14 recited “The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 15 recited “The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 16 recited “A method, comprising: generating, by a processing system including a processor, reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network; using, by the processing system, a standard deviation technique to the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes compared to the reference audit values to generate corrections; and applying, by the processing system, the corrections to a location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data of the location-based services node deviating from the reference audit values.”.
Step 2A prong one: Yes, the claim is abstract idea for the following limitation:
. “A method, comprising: generating, by a processing system including a processor, reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;” is the step of collecting data and determining a value which is directed to mental process and abstract.
. “using, by the processing system, a standard deviation technique to the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes” is the steps of apply a standard deviation technique which is direct to the mathematic process and abstract.
. “compared to the reference audit values to generate corrections; and applying, by the processing system, the corrections to a location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data of the location-based services node deviating from the reference audit values.” is the step of processing the data to make a determination based on the results of the comparison which is directed to mental process and abstract.
Step 2A prong two: Yes, the claim is abstract idea because the claim do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims is using generic processing system performing routine data processing steps and they are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Regarding claims 17-20 are further depend on claim 10 and the limitation do not recited any significantly more than the abstract idea as cited above for claim 16, therefore claims 17-20 are also reject for the same reason.
Claim 17 recited “The method of claim 16, wherein the standard deviation technique comprises identifying an anomaly if a variance falls outside configurable upper and lower threshold limits.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 18 recited “The method of claim 16, further comprising applying, by the processing system, policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 19 recited “The method of claim 16, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
Claim 20 recited “The method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.” is directed to abstract idea and do not add any technological improvement.
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.
(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 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323.
Regarding claim 1, Ramachandran et al. disclose A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, (Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323 abstract; paragraphs [0010]-[0012]; [0018]-[0019]; [0024]; [0028]-[0029] [0032]-[0042]; [0045]-[0048]; [0052]-[0053]; figures 1-4;)
According to another embodiment, a computer program product includes a storage medium upon which instructions are recorded that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for auditing and repairing a wireless telecommunications network configuration. The method includes receiving current configuration data of network elements within the network. The current configuration indicates how network elements are configured within the network. The method further includes receiving fault and performance data representing a current level of service quality of the network. The method further includes comparing the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network such that communications are routed and handled for at least one of optimal performance, disaster recovery, and operation continuity. The method further includes determining, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. The method further includes providing repair information for the network elements needing repairs based on a determination that repairs are needed (Ramachandran et al. par. 12).
the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
The configuration audit database 210 receives E911/LBS (location-based services) valid signature configurations and current configuration data for all service topologies, technologies, and vendors, e.g., from vendor network elements, Operations Support Systems (OSSs), performance and fault systems, provisioning and inventory systems, such as the cell site configuration database 150 (illustrated in FIG. 1), and operation support services, including, e.g., an operator 205 utilizing a graphical user interface (GUI). An E911/LBS signature combines parameter settings for network elements from multiple data sources in order to define how an E911/LBS call should be routed and handled. Each specific mix of vendor, technology, protocol, and service class may have its own unique signature (Ramachandran et al. par. 34). At step 410, current configuration data is received from network elements, e.g., network elements 100-140 and databases of records, e.g., database 150, at the ELARS system 160. The current configuration data indicates how communications are routed and handled within the network. At step 420, fault and performance data is received from network elements 100-140 and Operations Support Systems (not shown in the interest of simplifying the illustration) at the ELARS system 160. The fault and performance data represents a current level service quality of the network. The ELARS system 160 compares the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network at step 430. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network for handling and routing communications for optimal performance, disaster recovery, and/or business continuity contingencies. At step 440, the ELARS system 160 determines, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. If repairs are not needed, the process may return to step 410 such that the network is continually audited. If repairs are needed, the ELARS tool 160 transmits repair information to the network elements 100-140 needing repairs at step 450. From step 450, the process returns to step 410, and network configuration auditing continues (Ramachandran et al. par. 52).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets the signature configuration as the reference audit values.
comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes to generate corrections; and applying the corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.
According to another embodiment, a device is provided for auditing and repairing a configuration of a wireless telecommunications network. The device includes an interface for receiving configuration data representing a current configuration of network elements within the network. The interface also receives fault and performance data representing a current level of service quality of the network. The device also includes a processor for comparing the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network such that communications are routed and handled for at least one of optimal performance, disaster recovery, and operation continuity. The processor determines, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. The processor provides repair information for the network elements needing repairs based on a determination that repairs are needed (Ramachandran et al. par. 11). According to exemplary embodiments, an E911/LBS Auditing and Repair System (ELARS) tool automatically identifies configuration errors that deviate from a standard configuration, also referred to herein as signature configuration. The ELARS tool enables self-checking and self-configuration of network elements, automated validation of physical connections between network elements, and automatic detection of configurations that can cause potential outages in the form of calls that may route incorrectly. The ELARS tool may identify and repair E911/LBS configurations that can cause potential outages in the form of calls that may route incorrectly, location errors, incomplete configuration, or loss of redundant paths for location services (Ramachandran et al. par. 19).
Regarding claim 2, Ramachandran et al. disclose The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise translating the network configuration data received in different formats into a unified consistent format.
The configuration audit database 210 receives E911/LBS valid signature configurations and current configuration data for all service topologies, technologies, and vendors, e.g., from vendor network elements, Operations Support Systems (OSSs), performance and fault systems, provisioning and inventory systems, such as the cell site configuration database 150 (illustrated in FIG. 1), and operation support services, including, e.g., an operator 205 utilizing a graphical user interface (GUI). An E911/LBS signature combines parameter settings for network elements from multiple data sources in order to define how an E911/LBS call should be routed and handled. Each specific mix of vendor, technology, protocol, and service class may have its own unique signature (Ramachandran et al. par. 37). According to an exemplary embodiment, a signature configuration is a grouping of related parameter settings from multiple node types associated with various combinations of equipment and requirements (mandated and/or operational) within a heterogeneous telecommunications network. Signature configurations account for interdependencies between nodes where a certain parameter setting on one node impacts performance on other nodes. A signature configuration may be dependent on the vendor, model number or even vendor model software version of upstream and downstream nodes. Signature configurations may be modeled as multi-dimensional array (or similar) data types/classes. Multiple signature configurations may actually produce a desired outcome, though typically within an operator's network there will be a preferred (or golden) signature. According to an exemplary embodiment, additional signature configurations may be provided for contingencies for disaster recovery or business continuity (also referred to herein as operation continuity) (Ramachandran et al. par. 40).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets a signature configuration model is a unified consistent format that receive the configuration data for all service topologies and vendors (e.g. different formats).
Regarding claim 3, Ramachandran et al. disclose The device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise mapping the unified consistent format of the network configuration data onto the reference audit values.
Referring to FIG. 2, the ELARS tool 160 includes a configuration audit database 210 for receiving configuration data, a business rules tool 230 for comparing configuration data with a signature configuration and determining whether repairs are needed based on the comparison and based on received fault and performance data, and a repair tool 250 for initiating repairs when repairs are determined to be needed. Each of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented as distinct devices, or the components may be incorporated into one device. An example of a device within which one or more of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3 (Ramachandran et al. par. 36). According to an exemplary embodiment, configuration parameter settings may be collected from all elements on the E911/LBS service topology path, and a logical map of the network may be created, e.g., by the business rules tool 230, such that there is a complete logical map of the physical topology of the connected elements. This allows automated validation of physical connections between elements by triggering alerts from faults on any physical links. Link failures can be automatically corrected via the repair tool 250 or can be sent to dispatch via auto-ticketing for manual repair, e.g., for problems that may not be automatically corrected (Ramachandran et al. par. 45).
Regarding claim 4, Ramachandran et al. disclose The device of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.
Referring to FIG. 2, the ELARS tool 160 includes a configuration audit database 210 for receiving configuration data, a business rules tool 230 for comparing configuration data with a signature configuration and determining whether repairs are needed based on the comparison and based on received fault and performance data, and a repair tool 250 for initiating repairs when repairs are determined to be needed. Each of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented as distinct devices, or the components may be incorporated into one device. An example of a device within which one or more of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3 (Ramachandran et al. par. 36). The business rules tool 230 compares at least one of multiple signature configurations with the current configuration and determines, based on the comparison and the fault and performance data, whether repairs and/or changes are needed. For the purposes of this disclosure, the terminology "repairs" may refer not only to repairs needed to a network configuration, but also to changes that may be needed to the configuration, e.g., to improve performance, provide operations continuity, and provide disaster recovery (Ramachandran et al. par. 39).
Regarding claim 10, Ramachandran et al. disclose A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, (Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323 abstract; paragraphs [0010]-[0012]; [0018]-[0019]; [0024]; [0028]-[0029] [0032]-[0042]; [0045]-[0048]; [0052]-[0053]; figures 1-4;)
According to another embodiment, a computer program product includes a storage medium upon which instructions are recorded that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for auditing and repairing a wireless telecommunications network configuration. The method includes receiving current configuration data of network elements within the network. The current configuration indicates how network elements are configured within the network. The method further includes receiving fault and performance data representing a current level of service quality of the network. The method further includes comparing the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network such that communications are routed and handled for at least one of optimal performance, disaster recovery, and operation continuity. The method further includes determining, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. The method further includes providing repair information for the network elements needing repairs based on a determination that repairs are needed (Ramachandran et al. par. 12).
the operations comprising: generating reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network;
The configuration audit database 210 receives E911/LBS (location-based services) valid signature configurations and current configuration data for all service topologies, technologies, and vendors, e.g., from vendor network elements, Operations Support Systems (OSSs), performance and fault systems, provisioning and inventory systems, such as the cell site configuration database 150 (illustrated in FIG. 1), and operation support services, including, e.g., an operator 205 utilizing a graphical user interface (GUI). An E911/LBS signature combines parameter settings for network elements from multiple data sources in order to define how an E911/LBS call should be routed and handled. Each specific mix of vendor, technology, protocol, and service class may have its own unique signature (Ramachandran et al. par. 34). At step 410, current configuration data is received from network elements, e.g., network elements 100-140 and databases of records, e.g., database 150, at the ELARS system 160. The current configuration data indicates how communications are routed and handled within the network. At step 420, fault and performance data is received from network elements 100-140 and Operations Support Systems (not shown in the interest of simplifying the illustration) at the ELARS system 160. The fault and performance data represents a current level service quality of the network. The ELARS system 160 compares the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network at step 430. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network for handling and routing communications for optimal performance, disaster recovery, and/or business continuity contingencies. At step 440, the ELARS system 160 determines, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. If repairs are not needed, the process may return to step 410 such that the network is continually audited. If repairs are needed, the ELARS tool 160 transmits repair information to the network elements 100-140 needing repairs at step 450. From step 450, the process returns to step 410, and network configuration auditing continues (Ramachandran et al. par. 52).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets the signature configuration as the reference audit values.
comparing the reference audit values with the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes; and applying corrections to each location-based services node responsive to the network configuration data deviating from the reference audit values.
According to another embodiment, a device is provided for auditing and repairing a configuration of a wireless telecommunications network. The device includes an interface for receiving configuration data representing a current configuration of network elements within the network. The interface also receives fault and performance data representing a current level of service quality of the network. The device also includes a processor for comparing the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network such that communications are routed and handled for at least one of optimal performance, disaster recovery, and operation continuity. The processor determines, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. The processor provides repair information for the network elements needing repairs based on a determination that repairs are needed (Ramachandran et al. par. 11). According to exemplary embodiments, an E911/LBS Auditing and Repair System (ELARS) tool automatically identifies configuration errors that deviate from a standard configuration, also referred to herein as signature configuration. The ELARS tool enables self-checking and self-configuration of network elements, automated validation of physical connections between network elements, and automatic detection of configurations that can cause potential outages in the form of calls that may route incorrectly. The ELARS tool may identify and repair E911/LBS configurations that can cause potential outages in the form of calls that may route incorrectly, location errors, incomplete configuration, or loss of redundant paths for location services (Ramachandran et al. par. 19).
Regarding claim 11, Ramachandran et al. disclose The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise applying policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.
Referring to FIG. 2, the ELARS tool 160 includes a configuration audit database 210 for receiving configuration data, a business rules tool 230 for comparing configuration data with a signature configuration and determining whether repairs are needed based on the comparison and based on received fault and performance data, and a repair tool 250 for initiating repairs when repairs are determined to be needed. Each of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented as distinct devices, or the components may be incorporated into one device. An example of a device within which one or more of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3 (Ramachandran et al. par. 36). The business rules tool 230 compares at least one of multiple signature configurations with the current configuration and determines, based on the comparison and the fault and performance data, whether repairs and/or changes are needed. For the purposes of this disclosure, the terminology "repairs" may refer not only to repairs needed to a network configuration, but also to changes that may be needed to the configuration, e.g., to improve performance, provide operations continuity, and provide disaster recovery (Ramachandran et al. par. 39).
Regarding claim 12, Ramachandran et al. disclose The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
The configuration audit DB 210 retrieves data via a configuration data bus 212, which may be included within the ELARS tool 160. The retrieved data may be obtained by querying various data sources and may include customer profile data 214 from, e.g., a service provider, for building a complete customer profile, inventory data 216 from an inventory database including network-based inventory data, network topology, and logical and physical link data, performance data 218 from a performance OSS, fault data 220 from a fault OSS, configuration data 222 from a configuration OSS, and vendor data 226 from external vendors. The retrieved data may also include network probe data 224 retrieved by "listening" to a signaling system. The configuration data DB 210 may also receive additional data, e.g., call detail record (CDR) data, detailed network elements and support database configuration parameters, parameters for positioning algorithms for all technologies and phases, SS7 type Lb link information, SIGTRAN Lb link information, market topology as well as latitude/longitude information for all cell sites, other IP links from Operations, Administration and Maintenance/Management (OA&M) networks, and information regarding switch and router topology (Ramachandran et al. par. 40). Sectors on a cell site may utilize significantly different signatures, in spite of having exactly the same equipment. For example, a sector servicing an area in which the PSAP has not requested Enhanced 911 service (Phase 0) may use a different signature configuration than a sector that services an area in which the PSAP which requires that latitude/longitude and caller information be provided through the ALI database 128 (Phase 2) (Ramachandran et al. par. 41).
Regarding claim 13, Ramachandran et al. disclose The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
For providing location-based services, the HLR 118 is in communication with the MSC 114 and the VLR via a Commercial Location-Based Service (LBS)/Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) 116. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 communicates with the HLR 118 to acquire user information. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 also communicates with and one or more third party LBS applications 122 via a LBS Gateway 120 to provide location-based services to mobile devices communicating with the network, such as navigational services, fleet tracking, etc. (Ramachandran et al. par. 28). For providing emergency services to the mobile devices, the MSC 114 is in communication with an E911 GMLC/Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 124 and an E911 Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)/PSAP 126. The E911 GMLS/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 communicate with an ALI database (ALI DB) 128 containing information representing a caller's location. The E911 GMLC/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 match a number of an inbound call, e.g., an inbound telephone number or ANI information, to a corresponding location of the caller stored in the ALI DB 128 and then deliver both the number and the location to the appropriate emergency service, e.g., fire, police, and or ambulance, for dispatch (Ramachandran et al. par. 29).
Regarding claim 14, Ramachandran et al. disclose The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.
For providing location-based services, the HLR 118 is in communication with the MSC 114 and the VLR via a Commercial Location-Based Service (LBS)/Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) 116. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 communicates with the HLR 118 to acquire user information. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 also communicates with and one or more third party LBS applications 122 via a LBS Gateway 120 to provide location-based services to mobile devices communicating with the network, such as navigational services, fleet tracking, etc. (Ramachandran et al. par. 28). For providing emergency services to the mobile devices, the MSC 114 is in communication with an E911 GMLC/Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 124 and an E911 Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)/PSAP 126. The E911 GMLS/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 communicate with an ALI database (ALI DB) 128 containing information representing a caller's location. The E911 GMLC/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 match a number of an inbound call, e.g., an inbound telephone number or ANI information, to a corresponding location of the caller stored in the ALI DB 128 and then deliver both the number and the location to the appropriate emergency service, e.g., fire, police, and or ambulance, for dispatch (Ramachandran et al. par. 29).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpret GMLC as a tool to obtain a virtual location service gateway.
Regarding claim 15, Ramachandran et al. disclose The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
Referring to FIG. 2, the ELARS tool 160 includes a configuration audit database 210 for receiving configuration data, a business rules tool 230 for comparing configuration data with a signature configuration and determining whether repairs are needed based on the comparison and based on received fault and performance data, and a repair tool 250 for initiating repairs when repairs are determined to be needed. Each of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented as distinct devices, or the components may be incorporated into one device. An example of a device within which one or more of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3 (Ramachandran et al. par. 36). While the memory 330 is illustrated as residing proximate the processor 310, it should be understood that at least a portion of the memory 330 can be a remotely accessed storage system, for example, a server on a communication network, a remote hard disk drive, a removable storage medium, combinations thereof, and the like. Thus, any of the data, applications, and/or software described above can be stored within the memory 330 and/or accessed via network connections to other data processing systems (not shown) that may include a local area network (LAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), or a wide area network (WAN), for example (Ramachandran et al. par. 49).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets each components 210, 230 and 250 comprise at least one processor, therefore it read on the plurality processors operating in the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323 in view of Xu et al. US 20130198342.
Regarding claim 5, Ramachandran et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 4.
Ramachandran et al. do not explicitly teach The device of claim 4, wherein the different formats comprise comma separated values, extensible markup language, and relational database schema.
Xu et al. teach The device of claim 4, wherein the different formats comprise comma separated values, extensible markup language, and relational database schema. (Xu et al. US 20130198342 abstract; paragraphs [0017]; [0029]-[0030]; figures 1-4;)
The media capabilities may be provided in a device description document that is delivered by the media format negotiation module 40 to the server over the communications network *. The device description document may employ any format that allows the server to parse the information that it needs to select one or more media formats for the client device. In some implementations the device description document may be employ a format that presents the capability information as structured data, which is data that is organized in accordance with a schema. Examples of suitable device description formats that can present the media capability information as structured data include Extensible Markup Language (XML), JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), Ordered Graph Data Language (OGDL) and Comma-Separated Values (CSV). Of course, the information in the device description document may be presented in accordance with other formats and schemas, including those which do not employ structured data formats (Xu et al. par. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to substitute the structured data formats (XML, CSV) and conventional relational database schemas as taught by Xu et al. reference into Ramachandran et al. reference and the result of the substitution would have been a routine design choice yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Xu et al. disclose The device of claim 5, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
The configuration audit DB 210 retrieves data via a configuration data bus 212, which may be included within the ELARS tool 160. The retrieved data may be obtained by querying various data sources and may include customer profile data 214 from, e.g., a service provider, for building a complete customer profile, inventory data 216 from an inventory database including network-based inventory data, network topology, and logical and physical link data, performance data 218 from a performance OSS, fault data 220 from a fault OSS, configuration data 222 from a configuration OSS, and vendor data 226 from external vendors. The retrieved data may also include network probe data 224 retrieved by "listening" to a signaling system. The configuration data DB 210 may also receive additional data, e.g., call detail record (CDR) data, detailed network elements and support database configuration parameters, parameters for positioning algorithms for all technologies and phases, SS7 type Lb link information, SIGTRAN Lb link information, market topology as well as latitude/longitude information for all cell sites, other IP links from Operations, Administration and Maintenance/Management (OA&M) networks, and information regarding switch and router topology (Ramachandran et al. par. 40). Sectors on a cell site may utilize significantly different signatures, in spite of having exactly the same equipment. For example, a sector servicing an area in which the PSAP has not requested Enhanced 911 service (Phase 0) may use a different signature configuration than a sector that services an area in which the PSAP which requires that latitude/longitude and caller information be provided through the ALI database 128 (Phase 2) (Ramachandran et al. par. 41).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Xu et al. disclose The device of claim 6, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
For providing location-based services, the HLR 118 is in communication with the MSC 114 and the VLR via a Commercial Location-Based Service (LBS)/Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) 116. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 communicates with the HLR 118 to acquire user information. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 also communicates with and one or more third party LBS applications 122 via a LBS Gateway 120 to provide location-based services to mobile devices communicating with the network, such as navigational services, fleet tracking, etc. (Ramachandran et al. par. 28). For providing emergency services to the mobile devices, the MSC 114 is in communication with an E911 GMLC/Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 124 and an E911 Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)/PSAP 126. The E911 GMLS/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 communicate with an ALI database (ALI DB) 128 containing information representing a caller's location. The E911 GMLC/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 match a number of an inbound call, e.g., an inbound telephone number or ANI information, to a corresponding location of the caller stored in the ALI DB 128 and then deliver both the number and the location to the appropriate emergency service, e.g., fire, police, and or ambulance, for dispatch (Ramachandran et al. par. 29).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Xu et al. disclose The device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises a virtual location services gateway.
For providing location-based services, the HLR 118 is in communication with the MSC 114 and the VLR via a Commercial Location-Based Service (LBS)/Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) 116. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 communicates with the HLR 118 to acquire user information. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 also communicates with and one or more third party LBS applications 122 via a LBS Gateway 120 to provide location-based services to mobile devices communicating with the network, such as navigational services, fleet tracking, etc. (Ramachandran et al. par. 28). For providing emergency services to the mobile devices, the MSC 114 is in communication with an E911 GMLC/Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 124 and an E911 Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)/PSAP 126. The E911 GMLS/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 communicate with an ALI database (ALI DB) 128 containing information representing a caller's location. The E911 GMLC/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 match a number of an inbound call, e.g., an inbound telephone number or ANI information, to a corresponding location of the caller stored in the ALI DB 128 and then deliver both the number and the location to the appropriate emergency service, e.g., fire, police, and or ambulance, for dispatch (Ramachandran et al. par. 29).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interpret GMLC as a tool to obtain a virtual location service gateway.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Xu et al. disclose The device of claim 8, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
Referring to FIG. 2, the ELARS tool 160 includes a configuration audit database 210 for receiving configuration data, a business rules tool 230 for comparing configuration data with a signature configuration and determining whether repairs are needed based on the comparison and based on received fault and performance data, and a repair tool 250 for initiating repairs when repairs are determined to be needed. Each of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented as distinct devices, or the components may be incorporated into one device. An example of a device within which one or more of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3 (Ramachandran et al. par. 36). While the memory 330 is illustrated as residing proximate the processor 310, it should be understood that at least a portion of the memory 330 can be a remotely accessed storage system, for example, a server on a communication network, a remote hard disk drive, a removable storage medium, combinations thereof, and the like. Thus, any of the data, applications, and/or software described above can be stored within the memory 330 and/or accessed via network connections to other data processing systems (not shown) that may include a local area network (LAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), or a wide area network (WAN), for example (Ramachandran et al. par. 49).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets each components 210, 230 and 250 comprise at least one processor, therefore it read on the plurality processors operating in the system.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323 in view of Tsai et al. US 20070265775.
Regarding claim 16, Ramachandran et al. teach A method, comprising: generating, by a processing system including a processor, reference audit values from network configuration data gathered from a plurality of location-based services nodes in a network; (Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323 abstract; paragraphs [0010]-[0012]; [0018]-[0019]; [0024]; [0028]-[0029] [0032]-[0042]; [0045]-[0048]; [0052]-[0053]; figures 1-4;)
The configuration audit database 210 receives E911/LBS (location-based services) valid signature configurations and current configuration data for all service topologies, technologies, and vendors, e.g., from vendor network elements, Operations Support Systems (OSSs), performance and fault systems, provisioning and inventory systems, such as the cell site configuration database 150 (illustrated in FIG. 1), and operation support services, including, e.g., an operator 205 utilizing a graphical user interface (GUI). An E911/LBS signature combines parameter settings for network elements from multiple data sources in order to define how an E911/LBS call should be routed and handled. Each specific mix of vendor, technology, protocol, and service class may have its own unique signature (Ramachandran et al. par. 34). At step 410, current configuration data is received from network elements, e.g., network elements 100-140 and databases of records, e.g., database 150, at the ELARS system 160. The current configuration data indicates how communications are routed and handled within the network. At step 420, fault and performance data is received from network elements 100-140 and Operations Support Systems (not shown in the interest of simplifying the illustration) at the ELARS system 160. The fault and performance data represents a current level service quality of the network. The ELARS system 160 compares the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network at step 430. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network for handling and routing communications for optimal performance, disaster recovery, and/or business continuity contingencies. At step 440, the ELARS system 160 determines, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. If repairs are not needed, the process may return to step 410 such that the network is continually audited. If repairs are needed, the ELARS tool 160 transmits repair information to the network elements 100-140 needing repairs at step 450. From step 450, the process returns to step 410, and network configuration auditing continues (Ramachandran et al. par. 52).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets the signature configuration as the reference audit values.
compared to the reference audit values to generate corrections; and applying, by the processing system, the corrections to a location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes responsive to the network configuration data of the location-based services node deviating from the reference audit values.
According to another embodiment, a device is provided for auditing and repairing a configuration of a wireless telecommunications network. The device includes an interface for receiving configuration data representing a current configuration of network elements within the network. The interface also receives fault and performance data representing a current level of service quality of the network. The device also includes a processor for comparing the current configuration data to a signature configuration of the network. The signature configuration represents how network elements should be configured within the network such that communications are routed and handled for at least one of optimal performance, disaster recovery, and operation continuity. The processor determines, based on the comparison and the collected fault and performance data, whether repairs are needed to the current configuration of the network. The processor provides repair information for the network elements needing repairs based on a determination that repairs are needed (Ramachandran et al. par. 11). According to exemplary embodiments, an E911/LBS Auditing and Repair System (ELARS) tool automatically identifies configuration errors that deviate from a standard configuration, also referred to herein as signature configuration. The ELARS tool enables self-checking and self-configuration of network elements, automated validation of physical connections between network elements, and automatic detection of configurations that can cause potential outages in the form of calls that may route incorrectly. The ELARS tool may identify and repair E911/LBS configurations that can cause potential outages in the form of calls that may route incorrectly, location errors, incomplete configuration, or loss of redundant paths for location services (Ramachandran et al. par. 19).
Ramachandran et al. do not explicitly teach using, by the processing system, a standard deviation technique to the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes.
Tsai et al. teach using, by the processing system, a standard deviation technique to the network configuration data at each location-based services node in the plurality of location-based services nodes (Tsai et al. US 20070265775 abstract; paragraphs [0031]-[0035]; figures 1-8)
In step 740, GPS_RX/STA receives updated joint GPS/WPS data with standard deviations from associated AP. Subsequently, in 750, the GPS_RX/STA compares the standard deviations of updated joint GPS/WPS data with those of pure updated GPS data obtained by itself. Then, GPS_RX/STA merges two updated data by choosing the ones with better standard deviations in step 760. Finally, GPS_RX/STA transfers the merged updated data to any location-based service system of itself in step 770 (Tsai et al. par. 33).
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to substitute the standard deviation technique as taught by Tsai et al. reference into Ramachandran et al. reference and the result of the substitution would have been predictable for detect deviations between configuration data and reference audit values and to trigger a repair action as needed.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Tsai et al. disclose The method of claim 16, further comprising applying, by the processing system, policy rules to transform the network configuration data into the reference audit values.
Referring to FIG. 2, the ELARS tool 160 includes a configuration audit database 210 for receiving configuration data, a business rules tool 230 for comparing configuration data with a signature configuration and determining whether repairs are needed based on the comparison and based on received fault and performance data, and a repair tool 250 for initiating repairs when repairs are determined to be needed. Each of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented as distinct devices, or the components may be incorporated into one device. An example of a device within which one or more of the components 210, 230, and 250 may be implemented is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 3 (Ramachandran et al. par. 36). The business rules tool 230 compares at least one of multiple signature configurations with the current configuration and determines, based on the comparison and the fault and performance data, whether repairs and/or changes are needed. For the purposes of this disclosure, the terminology "repairs" may refer not only to repairs needed to a network configuration, but also to changes that may be needed to the configuration, e.g., to improve performance, provide operations continuity, and provide disaster recovery (Ramachandran et al. par. 39).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Tsai et al. disclose The method of claim 16, wherein the network configuration data comprises cell position including latitude, longitude, altitude, morphology, azimuth, radius, beamwidth, transmission power, frequency, on-air/off-air status, frequency band, or a combination thereof.
The configuration audit DB 210 retrieves data via a configuration data bus 212, which may be included within the ELARS tool 160. The retrieved data may be obtained by querying various data sources and may include customer profile data 214 from, e.g., a service provider, for building a complete customer profile, inventory data 216 from an inventory database including network-based inventory data, network topology, and logical and physical link data, performance data 218 from a performance OSS, fault data 220 from a fault OSS, configuration data 222 from a configuration OSS, and vendor data 226 from external vendors. The retrieved data may also include network probe data 224 retrieved by "listening" to a signaling system. The configuration data DB 210 may also receive additional data, e.g., call detail record (CDR) data, detailed network elements and support database configuration parameters, parameters for positioning algorithms for all technologies and phases, SS7 type Lb link information, SIGTRAN Lb link information, market topology as well as latitude/longitude information for all cell sites, other IP links from Operations, Administration and Maintenance/Management (OA&M) networks, and information regarding switch and router topology (Ramachandran et al. par. 40). Sectors on a cell site may utilize significantly different signatures, in spite of having exactly the same equipment. For example, a sector servicing an area in which the PSAP has not requested Enhanced 911 service (Phase 0) may use a different signature configuration than a sector that services an area in which the PSAP which requires that latitude/longitude and caller information be provided through the ALI database 128 (Phase 2) (Ramachandran et al. par. 41).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Tsai et al. disclose The method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of location-based services nodes comprises an enhanced serving mobile location coordinator, a gateway mobile location center, a gateway mobile positioning center, a broadcast messaging center, a vendor provided safety link interface, a cell-site information system, or a combination thereof.
For providing location-based services, the HLR 118 is in communication with the MSC 114 and the VLR via a Commercial Location-Based Service (LBS)/Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) 116. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 communicates with the HLR 118 to acquire user information. The Commercial LBS GMLC 116 also communicates with and one or more third party LBS applications 122 via a LBS Gateway 120 to provide location-based services to mobile devices communicating with the network, such as navigational services, fleet tracking, etc. (Ramachandran et al. par. 28). For providing emergency services to the mobile devices, the MSC 114 is in communication with an E911 GMLC/Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 124 and an E911 Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)/PSAP 126. The E911 GMLS/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 communicate with an ALI database (ALI DB) 128 containing information representing a caller's location. The E911 GMLC/MPC 124 and the E911 LEC/PSAP 126 match a number of an inbound call, e.g., an inbound telephone number or ANI information, to a corresponding location of the caller stored in the ALI DB 128 and then deliver both the number and the location to the appropriate emergency service, e.g., fire, police, and or ambulance, for dispatch (Ramachandran et al. par. 29).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran et al. US 20120155323 in view of Tsai et al. US 20070265775 and further in view of Nammi et al. US 20180092086.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ramachandran et al. and Tsai et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 16.
The combination of Ramachandran et al. and Tsai et al. do not explicitly teach The method of claim 16, wherein the standard deviation technique comprises identifying an anomaly if a variance falls outside configurable upper and lower threshold limits.
Nammi et al. teach The method of claim 16, wherein the standard deviation technique comprises identifying an anomaly if a variance falls outside configurable upper and lower threshold limits. (Nammi et al. US 20180092086 abstract; paragraphs [0015]-[0020]; [0038]-[0046]; [0049]-[0057]; [0061]; [0069]-[0071]; figures 1-11;)
In some embodiments, the network node 104 can employ a threshold based analysis wherein predefined threshold values are set with respect to network condition parameters, including traffic amount, traffic type distribution, PRB scheduling separation, spatial layer scheduling, MCS assignments, distances between UEs, and the like, and application of either wideband filtering, time windowing filtering, or sub-band filtering. According to these embodiments, based on a determination that current network conditions indicate one or more network condition parameters are above or below the threshold value, the network can direct a UE to apply either wideband filtering, time domain windowing filtering, or sub-band filtering (Nammi et al. par. 38). For example, the network node 104 can be configured to direct a UE 102 to apply sub-band filtering if the current traffic levels are relatively high (e.g., above a threshold traffic level value) and apply wide-band filtering or time domain windowing filtering if the current traffic levels are relatively low (e.g., below the threshold traffic level value). In another example, the network node 104 can be configured to direct a UE 102 to apply sub-band filtering if the average current traffic type distribution is associated with relatively high bandwidth and/or priority requirements (e.g., above a threshold bandwidth level or priority level), and apply wide-band filtering or time domain windowing filtering if the average current traffic type distribution is associated with relatively low bandwidth and/or priority requirements (e.g., below the threshold traffic level value) (Nammi et al. par. 39).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets the network condition parameters are above or below the threshold value as the variance falls outside configurable upper and lower threshold limits.
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to substitute the threshold value for the minimum and maximum level as taught by Nammi et al. reference into the modified method of Ramachandran et al. and Tsai et al. reference and the result of the substitution would have been predictable for detect the out of range threshold value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG D TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm (pacific time).
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, Brian A Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THANG D TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686