DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0221381 (hereinafter Homchaudhuri), in view of Bobick, U.S. Patent No. 5,987,320 (hereinafter Bobick).
Regarding claim 1, Homchaudhuri discloses a method (disclosed is a method for wireless communications, according to [0005], [0045]) comprising:
detecting a codec rate change during a voice quality test of a UE connecting to a base station in a mobile network such that a test segment during which the codec rate change occurred is identified (a change of codec bit rates during voice communication in a TWT (target wake time) [“test segment”] is ascertained, according to [0100], whereby the communication takes place between a phone and a cellular base station, according to [0042]-[0043], Fig. 1 [elements 104 and 114], whereby voice quality metrics of the communication are monitored [“voice quality test”], according to [0054], [0071], [0114]);
reducing, based on detecting that the codec rate change occurred during the test segment, a weight of the test segment within a voice quality assessment (in response to ascertaining that the codec bit rate has changed, L2 link reliability is adjusted by lowering an NSS (number of spatial streams) link parameter (which is an instantaneously adjustable parameter that is associated with TWT slots, according to [0090]), which causes mitigation of fading conditions, according to [0100]-[0101]); and
performing, in response to the voice quality assessment indicating that a quality score is below a threshold, a remedial action such that voice quality for subscriber UEs connecting to the base station is improved (in response to determining that call quality has been compromised [e.g., below a threshold that corresponds to the “compromised” assessment], the voice call is handed off in order to improve user experience, according to [0114]).
Homchaudhuri does not expressly disclose that the UE is a testing UE that emulates a subscriber UE.
Bobick discloses that the UE is a testing UE that emulates a subscriber UE (disclosed is a test terminal that is a standard cellular telephone that receives voice input from a test operator, according to column 3 lines 13-41, column 4 lines 43-50, column 5 lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri with Bobick such that the UE is a testing UE that emulates a subscriber UE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an evaluation of signal quality, voice quality, and overall operating quality in a wireless communication network (Bobick: column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 10).
Claim 17 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one physical computing processor, cause a computing device (the invention of Homchaudhuri is implemented by the execution of instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, according to [0136]) to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the system comprising: at least one physical computing processor of a computing device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one physical computing processor, cause the computing device (the invention of Homchaudhuri is implemented by a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by said processor, according to [0135]-[0136]) to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Homchaudhuri does not expressly disclose that each test segment in a set of test segments used for the voice quality assessment comprises a sentence.
Bobick discloses that each test segment in a set of test segments used for the voice quality assessment comprises a sentence (the test terminal transmits test sentences, according to column 6 lines 14-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Bobick such that each test segment in a set of test segments used for the voice quality assessment comprises a sentence.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an evaluation of signal quality, voice quality, and overall operating quality in a wireless communication network (Bobick: column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 10).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Homchaudhuri does not expressly disclose that each sentence comprises a Harvard sentence.
Bobick discloses that each sentence comprises a Harvard sentence (the test sentences may correspond to a collection of eight Harvard sentences, according to column 6 lines 14-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Bobick such that each sentence comprises a Harvard sentence.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an evaluation of signal quality, voice quality, and overall operating quality in a wireless communication network (Bobick: column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 10).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Homchaudhuri discloses that the voice quality assessment comprises calculating a Mean Opinion Score (MOS) (MOS is calculated, according to [0070], [0081], [0102]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Homchaudhuri discloses adjusting an algorithm used to calculate the quality score based on the detected codec rate change (TWT and link parameters are adjusted based on a detected change of codec rate, according to [0100], whereby these adjusted TWT and link parameters are used to calculate congestion, according to [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Homchaudhuri does not expressly disclose that the voice quality test is performed on both originating and terminating ends of a test call.
Bobick discloses that the voice quality test is performed on both originating and terminating ends of a test call (a voice quality test is performed using the test terminal [“originating”] and a quality testing apparatus [“terminating”], according to column 3 lines 13-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Bobick such that the voice quality test is performed on both originating and terminating ends of a test call.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an evaluation of signal quality, voice quality, and overall operating quality in a wireless communication network (Bobick: column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 10).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Homchaudhuri does not expressly disclose that the voice quality test is performed during a drive test to assess network performance across different geographic locations.
Bobick discloses that the voice quality test is performed during a drive test to assess network performance across different geographic locations (the voice quality test is performed by having a test operator drive to various locations throughout the coverage area of the wireless system, according to column 5 lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Bobick such that the voice quality test is performed during a drive test to assess network performance across different geographic locations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an evaluation of signal quality, voice quality, and overall operating quality in a wireless communication network (Bobick: column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 10).
Claims 18 and 20 do not differ substantively from claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tsoutsaios, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0071297 (hereinafter Tsoutsaios).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that detecting the codec rate change comprises analyzing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload information.
Tsoutsaios discloses that detecting the codec rate change comprises analyzing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload information (the change of a codec from a compressed codec to an uncompressed codec is detected based on the reception of RTP media packets, according to [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Tsoutsaios such that detecting the codec rate change comprises analyzing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize the amount of digital signal processor resources that are used (Tsoutsaios: [0009], [0049]-[0050]).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yuan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2026/0136231 (hereinafter Yuan).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that detecting the codec rate change comprises detecting changes in a bit rate index in Medium Access Control (MAC) layer messages.
Yuan discloses that detecting the codec rate change comprises detecting changes in a bit rate index in Medium Access Control (MAC) layer messages (a codec bit rate increase is accompanied by a data rate increase that is commanded by a medium access control control element (MAC CE), according to [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Yuan such that detecting the codec rate change comprises detecting changes in a bit rate index in Medium Access Control (MAC) layer messages.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for variations in propagation delay (Yuan: [0002]).
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bauer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0261895 (hereinafter Bauer).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that detecting the codec rate change comprises monitoring vocoder settings of the testing UE.
Bauer discloses that detecting the codec rate change comprises monitoring vocoder settings of the testing UE (a codec bit rate change is detected by observing a vocoder change event, according to [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Bauer such that detecting the codec rate change comprises monitoring vocoder settings of the testing UE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect lost, late, and early packet events (Bauer: [0025]-[0028]).
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Anehill et al., CN 1348670 A (hereinafter Anehill).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that the remedial action comprises adjusting transmission power of the base station.
Anehill discloses that the remedial action comprises adjusting transmission power of the base station (when voice quality is bad, voice quality is improved by increasing base station transmit power, according to page 3 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Anehill such that the remedial action comprises adjusting transmission power of the base station.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that speech is intelligible (Anehill: Abstract).
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wellington, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0011227 (hereinafter Wellington).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that the remedial action comprises adjusting antenna tilt of the base station.
Wellington discloses that the remedial action comprises adjusting antenna tilt of the base station (an operator adjusts antenna tilt to improve voice call quality, according to [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Wellington such that the remedial action comprises adjusting antenna tilt of the base station.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve dropped call performance (Wellington: [0004]).
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sridhar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0194937 (hereinafter Sridhar).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that the codec rate change is detected based on a mapping table between a bit rate index and corresponding codec rates.
Sridhar discloses that the codec rate change is detected based on a mapping table between a bit rate index and corresponding codec rates (a given codec rate has a corresponding data rate, according to [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Wellington such that the codec rate change is detected based on a mapping table between a bit rate index and corresponding codec rates.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid congestion and the loss of packets (Sridhar: [0035]).
12. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Malfait, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0143977 (hereinafter Malfait).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that reducing the weight of the test segment comprises excluding the test segment from being used by the voice quality assessment.
Malfait discloses that reducing the weight of the test segment comprises excluding the test segment from being used by the voice quality assessment (if a given sample is determined to not be speech, then that sample is discarded and not used for quality assessment, according to [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Malfait such that reducing the weight of the test segment comprises excluding the test segment from being used by the voice quality assessment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent non-speech sounds from affecting speech analysis (Malfait: [0058]).
13. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri in view of Bobick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0190725 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Homchaudhuri and Bobick discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Homchaudhuri discloses that the interface device is connected to a laptop running a testing tool that controls test call setup and voice quality assessment (an access terminal that connects to the base station may be a laptop, according to [0043]-[0044], Fig. 1 [elements 104 and 116], whereby said access terminal monitors call quality metrics, according to [0054]).
Neither Homchaudhuri nor Bobick expressly discloses that the testing UE is connected to an interface device that simulates audio input and output.
Yang discloses that the testing UE is connected to an interface device that simulates audio input and output (a CCM (call control module) connects to a mobile terminal and simulates voice as part of a test call service, according to [0056]-[0058], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Homchaudhuri as modified by Bobick with Yang such that the testing UE is connected to an interface device that simulates audio input and output.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to test a carrier frequency channel between a mobile terminal and a base station (Yang: [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights