DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 09/08/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 14-17 are currently pending.
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, 3-9, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a system (machine = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Prong One: claim recites:
identify elements of the networked communication system, the elements including a vertex (V) that represents a communication node and a state of the communication node, and an interaction (E) between at least two Vs;
define an interaction-dependent function that gives a transition probability for each E as a function of dynamical parameters of the networked communication system, wherein a V specific interaction-dependent function, provides a probability that, when one or more perturbations occurs, Vi will be in state s' given that it is currently in state s and its Vdi neighbors are currently in states si………sd;
define a network reliability, RG,P(w), that represents a probability that a V's state holds when the one or more perturbations occurs; sample a sample size, S… S being date related to the perturbation; evaluate only O(SD) of the possible 2E terms in a Taylor series, wherein D is expansion order, identify interpolating polynomials between the Taylor series at point x = 0 and point x = 1 that are bounded;
define a cost function that optimizes a property of the networked communication system for a fixed cost;
cause the perturbation to the networked communication system until RG,P(w) = zero for a particular x to estimate sensitivity of one or monotonic properties of the networked communication system to an individual element;
estimate the sensitivity of the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of one or monotonic properties
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mathematical graph operations, which are mathematical concepts: relationships, formulas or equations, calculations. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitation "elements of the networked communication system, the elements including a vertex (V) that represents a communication node and a state of the communication node, and an interaction (E) between at least two Vs”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical graphs are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“[0006]… for the network to be a networked dynamical system… a communication system, a system of autonomous or semi-autonomous robots, a power system, biological systems, epidemiological models, etc. Networked systems comprise of elements. An element is a constituent and the interaction between the constituent of that element and a constituent of another element. A constituent is denoted as a vertex, V. An interaction is denoted as an edge, E. The V's and E's can be modeled by mathematical functions. For instance, if the networked system is an epidemiological model, the V's can be people and the E's can be their interactions with each other. If the networked system is a power system, the V's can be capacitors, transformers, etc. and the E's can be which capacitor is taken on or off line. If the networked system is a communication system, the V's can be radios and the E's can be whether the radio is transmitting in a noisy environment”.
As to the limitations "estimate the sensitivity of the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of one or monotonic properties", under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical graph operations are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“[0049]… sensitivity analysis for edge-targeted perturbations, in which a specific set of interaction probabilities are perturbed" and/or "[0084]… perturbative approximations to Birnbaum importance can accurately estimate the sensitivity of monotonic properties of a dynamical system… [00142] For dynamics in which a particular interaction can occur only once, e.g., SIR dynamics, the Birnbaum importance of each edge is an affine function of its probability".
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the additional elements: a processor, a memory, and store the RG,P(w) in a memory. They are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “receiving data related to elements of the networked communication system”, “receive instructions related to a perturbation”, and “from data stored in the memory”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power. See also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements: "for prioritizing upgrades to a networked communication system”, “prioritize changes to the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of the networked communication system“, and “implement one or more changes of the prioritized changes, resulting in upgrading the networked communication system", but so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements: a processor, a memory, and store the RG,P(w) in a memory. They are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, which is described in the specification (underline emphasis added): "[00187]… machine 2500 can be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing instructions". The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations "for prioritizing upgrades to a networked communication system”, “prioritize changes to the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of the networked communication system“, and “implement one or more changes of the prioritized changes, resulting in upgrading the networked communication system" appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The Examiner notes that the limitations prioritizing, upgrading and implementing are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. For example, the Specification reads "[00212]… processor 2502 can be configured to prioritize changes to the networked system 2900 based on the estimated sensitivity of the networked system 2900, and generate output that includes the prioritized changes. [00213] The processor 2502 can be configured to upgrade the networked system, detect community structure, prioritize network constituents for hardening against attack, understand the risk of cascading failures in infrastructure networks, etc. based on the output". The specification further reads "[0051] Sensitivity analysis is often used to prioritize changes to a network, e.g., targeting, hardening, or upgrading”.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim 12 recites substantially the same elements as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons above.
Dependent claims, Prong One: The claim limitations further the mathematical concepts of their independent claims: mathematical graph operations, evaluations, polynomials. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: Dependent claims do not include additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims do not include additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 14-17 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
A reason for the indication of allowable subject matter was provided in the Office Action dated 03/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Claim rejections remain. Applicant argues, (see page 7, 5th paragraph to page 9, 1st paragraph):
‘… In a previous reply, Applicant explained how the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and, if they are, how limitations recited by the claims remove them from abstraction. In response, the PTO states:
… The claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished…
To the contrary, the claims indeed recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. For instance, Applicant's disclosure states:
"The methods described here are not heuristics, but interpolations between perturbative approximations-essentially Taylor series in interaction probabilities about two points. The interpolation is designed to match all the known Taylor series coefficients at both points, while obeying positivity and unitarity constraints. The approximation is two-fold: 1) sample S crucial structures from an enormous set and 2) evaluate only O(SD) of the possible 2E terms in the Taylor series, for D<<E. The nature of this approximation is unusual: it is possible to construct an interaction network whose sensitivity matches the estimate using the samples from step (1); or, taking the sampled Taylor coefficients to be exact, tight bounds for the truncation error in (2) can be developed.
Applicant's published application ¶ [0053].
Claim 1, in part, recites "identify interpolating polynomials between the Taylor series at point x 0 and point x 1 that are bounded... cause the perturbation to the networked communication system until RG,(C)zero for a particular, to estimate sensitivity of one or monotonic properties of the networked communication system to an individual element; estimate the sensitivity of the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of one or monotonic properties; prioritize changes to the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of the networked communication system…
Clearly, the claims specifically prescribe how "it is possible to construct an interaction network whose sensitivity matches the estimate." This interaction network whose sensitivity matches the estimate is used to prioritize upgrades to the networked system, which results in a technological improvement by: 1) allowing the system to estimate sensitivity in a less computationally complex manner; and 2) facilitating estimating sensitivity of a networked system that has more than a few dozen constituents - something that is infeasible with known methods. In stark contrast to allegations set forth by the PTO, the claims prescribe steps that are more than a mere implementation of a mathematical concept; rather the algorithms embodied by the claims act upon the system to cause it to function in a specific way. For instance, the prioritization of the upgrade will depend on the sensitivity, which will depend on the interpolation of transition probabilities of E and a V during a perturbation - e.g., in the exemplary scenario discussed by Applicant's disclosure, the "[s]olution identifies the best set of radios to upgrade within a specific budget to maximize the probability of successful transmission." Applicant's published application ¶ [0240]. By estimating sensitivity of one or monotonic properties of the networked system to an individual element, the claimed system/method can more accurately and efficiently prioritize changes to the system and implement one or more changes of the prioritized changes, resulting upgrading the networked system. This is clearly a practical application of any alleged abstract idea to which the claims are directed. Thus, even if the claims were directed to the alleged abstract idea of mathematical concepts, the claims require a practical application of the alleged abstract idea…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]… the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements… In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception’
‘2106.04… II… A… 2. Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?… If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B… For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice… either at Prong Two or in Step 2B’
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of…’.
‘2106.07(a)… II… After identifying the judicial exception in the rejection, identify any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and explain why they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception’
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… (f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception… (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception'.
'2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]... the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity… the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B...'.
About "additional elements", BASCOM2, (BASCOM hereinafter) reads:
“the ‘elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements [beyond those that recite the abstract idea”.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because Applicant's arguments conflate judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One) with additional elements (Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B). Throughout the prosecution of this application, in accordance with the guidance set forth in MPEP and in several decisions, BASCOM (supra) for example, the Examiner does not conflate judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One) with additional elements (Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B).
As set forth in the previous rejection, Applicant's argument was and still is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "for prioritizing upgrades to a networked communication system”, “prioritize changes to the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of the networked communication system“, and “implement one or more changes of the prioritized changes, resulting in upgrading the networked communication system", they are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations. These claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) supra and Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As to Applicant's argument about the limitations "estimate the sensitivity of the networked communication system based on the estimated sensitivity of one or monotonic properties", this estimate is substantially drawn to mathematical and/or numerical concepts: computations. Mathematical graph operations are also mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“[0006]… A constituent is denoted as a vertex, V. An interaction is denoted as an edge, E. The V's and E's can be modeled by mathematical functions… [0084]… perturbative approximations to Birnbaum importance can accurately estimate the sensitivity of monotonic properties of a dynamical system to individual elements of its interaction network… [00142] For dynamics in which a particular interaction can occur only once, e.g., SIR dynamics, the Birnbaum importance of each edge is an affine function of its probability".
The claims may provide improved math but do not provide limitations such that an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology is realized (underline emphasis added). An improved abstract idea is an abstract idea, a species of the genus abstract idea. The claimed invention lacks “improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field". (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) supra). Math cannot be "additional element(s)" because math is an abstract idea. About "additional elements", see MPEP 2106.05(f) and BASCOM supra.
Applicant identifies no additional elements from the claims which the Applicant considers non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of additional elements such that an improvement to the computer itself or any other technology is realized. Instead, Applicant identifies entire claim limitations which include abstract ideas. Applicant's arguments do not elaborate how the claimed invention’s additional elements/limitations considered both individually and in combination integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or amount to significantly more in Step 2B. (See MPEP 2106.05(a) supra).
Examiner notes that the specification is mute about ¶ [0240]. Examiner invites Applicant to use the Specification of record in the present Application and not the U.S. Pre–Grant publication.
Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571) 272-3652. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016)