DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as well as added claim 26 and submits that no new matter is added by way of amendment. Citations for the corresponding support for the amendments was provided by the applicant.
The cited portions of the disclosure have been evaluated for the amended claims and newly added claim. Examiner agrees that no new matter has been introduced by way of the present amendment.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant submits that the claims as presented address the concerns expressed regarding the previously set forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant further submits that the rejection of the claims does not take into account the precedential Desjardins PTAB decision, particularly with regard to improvements to computational models that reduce system complexity, etc. The applicant argues that the instant claims are similar to eligible claims of Desjardins because the claims recite a specific method for configuring and executing a wireless network simulation using a specifically selected subset of features in a manner that reduces computational complexity and resources required to perform the simulation.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In evaluating the Desjardins decision per the guidance given in the Office Memorandum, dated December 5, 2025, SUBJECT: Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims of the present application are not similar to that claimed by Desjardins. The excerpt from the memorandum is stated herein for discussion:
“In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).”
Particular attention is drawn to the discussion regarding Step 2A Prong Two, where the claim is evaluated to determine if the claim as a whole recites the improvement claimed in the specification. In the present specification, the following problem is described:
[0013]: In a simulation system for a wireless network, the quantity of configuration parameters, KPis, performance metrics, etc. may be relatively large. As such, identifying configuration parameters, KPis, performance metrics, etc. that have a material effect on the results of a given simulation may be relatively time- and/or processor-intensive. Further, implementing or attempting to model all configuration parameters, KPis, metrics, etc. may be relatively difficult, and/or may increase the complexity of simulations that utilize or are based on such configuration parameters, KPis, metrics, etc.
The disclosed invention presents an improvement to such problem by:
[0014]: Embodiments described herein may allow for a determination of features (e.g., configuration parameters, KPis, performance metrics, etc.) that are relevant or significant for one or more network simulation models, and the use of such determined features in executing one or more simulations. The identification of such features may allow for the paring down or reducing of the quantity of features to be implemented in the one or more simulations, which may reduce the complexity of such simulations. Further, models (e.g., network simulation models, predictive models, and/or other types of models) may model dependencies, correlations, etc. between different features.
[0025]: NSS 109 may perform (at 108) one or more simulations (e.g., simulations of wireless network 103 with UEs 105, and/or of one or more other networks and/or sets of UEs) based on the received ranked and/or condensed set of features. As noted above, the ranked and/or condensed set of features may include fewer configuration parameters than the full set of features. For example, configuration parameters for wireless network 103 and/or UEs 105 that are associated with lower ranked (e.g., less important, less significant, etc.) features may not be implemented by NSS 109 during the simulation, thereby reducing the complexity of the simulation performed by NSS 109. Since the remaining features in the ranked and/or condensed set of features may be features identified as having the highest degree of relevance or importance, the resulting distribution of KPis or metrics (e.g., including one or more KPis or metrics associated with feature F1) may be the same or similar to the distribution associated with the full set of features {F1, F2, ... F999}. Further, the identified set of features may be used in a testing or simulation environment to identify KPis, metrics, etc. that may result from modifying some of the features identified as relatively important or relevant, thereby enhancing the predictivity or reliability of simulations performed by NSS 109.
[0059]: If the relative performance of all of the features has been determined (at 1312 - YES), then process 1300 may include performing (at 1316) one or more simulations and/or generating or modifying models based on the determined relative feature importance of the features. For example, as discussed above, the models and/or simulations may be based on fewer than the full set of features, thereby reducing the complexity and/or processing resource demands associated with such models and/or simulations.
Particular attention is drawn to specification [0025], which asserts that reduced complexity in simulations is achieved by not implementing all configuration parameters for the wireless network during the simulation. Likewise in [0014], the specification sets forth that the reduced complexity results from reduced features to be implemented in the one or more simulations. This improvement for demonstrating reduced computational complexity is not reflected in the claims.
For purposes of this discussion, Claim 1 is being analyzed. The claim recites a judicial exception and additional elements identified as not integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, nor amounting to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, as described in previous actions as well as in the updated rejection of this office action. The claim recites a series of steps for ranking a set of features, where the features are associated with a configuration parameter for a wireless network. (“generate a plurality of rankings of a particular set of features, wherein each ranking, of the plurality of rankings, is associated with a particular model of a plurality of models, wherein each feature of the particular set of features is associated with a respective configuration parameter of a plurality of configuration parameters associated with a wireless network, wherein generating the plurality of rankings includes:”). This does not require that the feature is the configuration parameter and only requires association of configuration parameters to features.
The claim further recites the determination of which configuration parameters to implement in the simulation, wherein this determination includes selecting a subset of features. (“determine which configuration parameters, of the plurality of configuration parameters, to implement in a simulation of the wireless network, wherein determining which configuration parameters to implement includes: selecting a subset of features, of the particular set of features, based on the relative measures of feature importance of the particular set of features;”). Determining which configuration parameters may encompass determining the value of the configuration parameters to use and does not require that the determined configuration parameters are a subset of configuration parameters.
The claim further recites configuring and performing the simulation of the wireless network using configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features without using all the features as configuration parameters (“configure the simulation of the wireless network using configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation; and”). This does not require that the simulation is configured using a subset of configuration parameters which would yield the asserted improvement. This only requires that the configuration and performance of the simulation be based on configuration parameters associated with the features, wherein not all the features are used.
That is- there exists an interpretation where the claim recites the ranking of features where all of the features are not configuration parameters, which could yield a result of paring down a feature which is not a configuration parameter, and thereby not reducing the number of configuration parameters used in the simulation. Such a scenario would not demonstrate the asserted improvement because the simulation would still be operating on the full set of configuration parameters, regardless of the paring down of features associated with configuration parameters. For clarity, an exemplary scenario is presented:
Say a particular set of features comprises four features, namely F1, F2, F3, and F4.
{
F
1
,
F
2
,
F
3
,
F
4
}
When read in light of the specification, features may be configuration parameters, KPIs, performance metrics, etc. ([0014]). Consider F1-F3 to be configuration parameters, and F4 to be a KPI.
Feature Number
Feature Type
F
1
Configuration parameter
F
2
Configuration parameter
F
3
Configuration parameter
F
4
KPI
Each feature of this set is associated with one of three configuration parameters CP1, CP2, CP3. Assume the simulation of the wireless network typically considers three configuration parameters as inputs, wherein CP1-CP3 would be a full set of configuration parameters that would yield a complex simulation process, as typical in the art. As an example, F1 is associated with CP1; F2 is associated with CP2, F3 is associated with CP3, and F4 is also associated with CP3.
Feature
Feature Type
Associated Configuration Parameter
F
1
Configuration parameter
C
P
1
F
2
Configuration parameter
C
P
2
F
3
Configuration parameter
C
P
3
F
4
KPI
C
P
3
In the ranking process, let’s assume that the features are ranked accordingly: 1. F1, 2. F2, 3. F3, and 4. F4. According to such rankings features F1-F3 are selected as the subset, as indicated by the circled features. Which configuration parameters to implement are determined according to the association of the features to the configuration parameters. In this scenario, configuration parameters CP1-CP3 are determined as which configuration parameters to implement based on the selection of features F1-F3 because these configuration parameters are associated to the feature.
Feature Rank
[AltContent: oval]Feature
Feature Type
Associated Configuration Parameter
1
F
1
Configuration parameter
C
P
1
2
F
2
Configuration parameter
C
P
2
3
F
3
Configuration parameter
C
P
3
4
F
4
KPI
C
P
3
Per this scenario, configuring the simulation and performing the simulation according to CP1-CP3 does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the simulation because the simulation typically would require those three configuration parameters, as set forth above. Such a scenario does not demonstrate a reduced complexity to the simulation because the simulation merely operates in its otherwise normal capacity. Accordingly, the claims do not reflect the improvement set forth in the specification and therefore the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two in the PEG analysis for 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections to claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20-25 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the claims to incorporate an additional feature not previously claimed and argues that the prior art of record does not suggest or disclose such feature(s).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4, 7, 22, and 25 are directed to a device which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
generate a plurality of rankings of a particular set of features[[..]]wherein generating the plurality of rankings includes:. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a particular set of features and making a judgment as to how the features should be ranked. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a ranking is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values. Therefore, this claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
identifying a first output, of the particular model, that is based on all features of the particular set of features, including a first feature and a second feature of the particular set of features The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a full feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying a second output, of the particular model, that is based on a first subset of the particular set of features, wherein the first subset includes the second feature and does not include the first feature of the particular set of features, features The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a partial feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying a third output, of the particular model, that is based on a second subset of the particular set of features, wherein the second subset includes the first feature and does not include the second feature of the particular set of features, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a partial feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a first measure of similarity between the first output and the second output, This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first output and second output to make a judgement as to a similarity between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a similarity measure is the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determining a second measure of similarity between the first output and the third output, and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first output and third output to make a judgement as to a similarity between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a similarity measure is the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
ranking the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity, wherein the plurality of rankings indicate the ranking of the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating measures of similarity so as to make a judgement on the ranking of the first and second features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim recites the terms ranking and measure of similarity, the claim further includes the recitation of the mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determine, based on the plurality of rankings, relative measures of feature importance associated with one or more features, of the particular set of features, with respect to one or more other features of the particular set of features;The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the plurality of rankings to make a judgment of relative measures of features importance between features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a relative measure of feature importance is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values. Therefore, this claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determine which configuration parameters, of the plurality of configuration parameters, to implement in a simulation of the wireless network, wherein determining which configuration parameters to implement includes:The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating configuration parameters to make a judgement as to which configuration parameters are to be implemented in a simulation of a wireless network. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a subset of features, of the particular set of features, based on the relative measures of feature importance of the particular set of features; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to what features to use based on evaluation of the relative measures of feature importance. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The recitation of the relative measures of feature importance is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between features. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
one or more processors configured to:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation invokes the use of a generic computer as a tool to perform an existing process.
wherein each ranking, of the plurality of rankings, is associated with a particular model of a plurality of models, wherein each feature of the particular set of features is associated with a respective configuration parameter of a plurality of configuration parameters associated with a wireless network; This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the element generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use.
configure the simulation of the wireless network using configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” with regard to the values determined as part of the mental process (the selected subset of features). Furthermore, the limitation invokes the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process which is configuring a simulation using configuration parameters identified by a user.
perform the simulation of the wireless network based on the configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation of the wireless network- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” with regard to the values determined as part of the mental process (the configuration parameters). Furthermore, the limitation invokes the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process, which is running a simulation of a network using corresponding configuration parameters input as part of setting up the simulation.
The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generically reciting the words “Apply It” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which would require further evaluation to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process or reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid and wherein the use of the tasks is directed toward a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-12, 14, and 23 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
generate a plurality of rankings of a particular set of features [[…]] wherein generating the plurality of rankings includes: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a particular set of features and making a judgment as to how the features should be ranked. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a ranking is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values. Therefore, this claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
identifying a first output, of the particular model, that is based on all features of the particular set of features, including a first feature and a second feature of the particular set of features, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a full feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying a second output, of the particular model, that is based on a first subset of the particular set of features, wherein the first subset includes the second feature and does not include the first feature of the particular set of features, features The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a partial feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying a third output, of the particular model, that is based on a second subset of the particular set of features, wherein the second subset includes the first feature and does not include the second feature of the particular set of features, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a partial feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a first measure of similarity between the first output and the second output, This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first output and second output to make a judgement as to a similarity between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a similarity measure is the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determining a second measure of similarity between the first output and the third output, and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first output and third output to make a judgement as to a similarity between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a similarity measure is the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
ranking the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity, wherein the plurality of rankings indicate the ranking of the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating measures of similarity so as to make a judgement on the ranking of the first and second features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim recites the terms ranking and measure of similarity, the claim further includes the recitation of the mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determine, based on the plurality of rankings, relative measures of feature importance associated with one or more features, of the particular set of features, with respect to one or more other features of the particular set of features; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the plurality of rankings to make a judgment of relative measures of features importance between features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a relative measure of feature importance is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values. Therefore, this claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determine which configuration parameters, of the plurality of configuration parameters, to implement in a simulation of the wireless network, wherein determining which configuration parameters to implement includes: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating configuration parameters to make a judgement as to which configuration parameters are to be implemented in a simulation of a wireless network. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a subset of features, of the particular set of features, based on the relative measures of feature importance of the particular set of features; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to what features to use based on evaluation of the relative measures of feature importance. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The recitation of the relative measures of feature importance is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between features. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein each ranking, of the plurality of rankings, is associated with a particular model of a plurality of models, wherein each feature of the particular set of features is associated with a respective configuration parameter of a plurality of configuration parameters associated with a wireless network; This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the element generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use.
configure the simulation of the wireless network using configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” with regard to the values determined as part of the mental process (the configuration parameters). Furthermore, the limitation invokes the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process which is configuring a simulation using configuration parameters identified by a user.
perform the simulation of the wireless network based on the configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation of the wireless network- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” with regard to the values determined as part of the mental process (the configuration parameters). Furthermore, the limitation invokes the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process, which is running a simulation of a network using corresponding configuration parameters input as part of setting up the simulation.
The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generically reciting the words “Apply It” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which would require further evaluation to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process or reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid and wherein the use of the tasks is directed toward a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-18, 20-21 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
generate a plurality of rankings of a particular set of features. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a particular set of features and making a judgment as to how the features should be ranked. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a ranking is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values. Therefore, this claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
identifying a first output, of the particular model, that is based on all features of the particular set of features, including a first feature and a second feature of the particular set of features The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a full feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying a second output, of the particular model, that is based on a first subset of the particular set of features, wherein the first subset includes the first feature and does not include the first feature of the particular set of features, features The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a partial feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
identifying a third output, of the particular model, that is based on a second subset of the particular set of features, wherein the second subset includes the first feature and does not include the second feature of the particular set of features, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of an output of a model according to a partial feature set. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a first measure of similarity between the first output and the second output, This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first output and second output to make a judgement as to a similarity between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a similarity measure is the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determining a second measure of similarity between the first output and the third output, and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a first output and third output to make a judgement as to a similarity between them. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a similarity measure is the recitation of a mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
ranking the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity, wherein the plurality of rankings indicate the ranking of the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating measures of similarity so as to make a judgement on the ranking of the first and second features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim recites the terms ranking and measure of similarity, the claim further includes the recitation of the mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determining, based on the plurality of rankings, relative measures of feature importance associated with one or more features, of the particular set of features, with respect to one or more other features of the particular set of features; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the plurality of rankings to make a judgment of relative measures of features importance between features. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of a relative measure of feature importance is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values. Therefore, this claim limitation also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determining which configuration parameters, of the plurality of configuration parameters, to implement in a simulation of the wireless network, wherein determining which configuration parameters to implement includes: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating configuration parameters to make a judgement as to which configuration parameters are to be implemented in a simulation of a wireless network. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting a subset of features, of the particular set of features, based on the relative measures of feature importance of the particular set of features; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to what features to use based on evaluation of the relative measures of feature importance. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The recitation of the relative measures of feature importance is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between features. Therefore, this claim limitation additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein each ranking, of the plurality of rankings, is associated with a particular model of a plurality of models, wherein each feature of the particular set of features is associated with a respective configuration parameter of a plurality of configuration parameters associated with a wireless network; This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the element generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use.
configuring the simulation of the wireless network using configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” with regard to the values determined as part of the mental process (the configuration parameters). Furthermore, the limitation invokes the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process which is configuring a simulation using configuration parameters identified by a user.
performing the simulation of the wireless network based on the configuration parameters associated with the selected subset of features, without using all features of the particular set of features as configuration parameters for the simulation of the wireless network- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” with regard to the values determined as part of the mental process (the configuration parameters). Furthermore, the limitation invokes the use of a computer as a tool to perform an existing process, which is running a simulation of a network using corresponding configuration parameters input as part of setting up the simulation.
The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and generically reciting the words “Apply It” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which would require further evaluation to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process or reciting the words “apply it” or equivalent and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the method recites the performance of a sequence of tasks that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid and wherein the use of the tasks is directed toward a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations identifying a first ranking of the particular set of features, and identifying a second ranking of the particular set of features which can both reasonably be read to entail making an observation and judgement of the particular set of features to derive a ranking. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of identifying a ranking is the recitation of a mathematical relationship between values and therefore this claim additionally includes the recitation of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations the first ranking being based on a first model of the plurality of models; and and the second ranking being based on a second model of the plurality of models. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitations wherein the first ranking includes the first feature as a highest ranked feature and further includes the second feature as a feature that is ranked lower than the first feature, and and wherein the second ranking includes the second feature as a highest ranked feature and further includes the first feature as a feature that is ranked lower than the second feature, which can both reasonably be read to include the recitation of the mathematical relationships between feature ranks with the inclusion of the terms “highest” and “lower” as the terms indicating the ordering of the ranks. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation determine a first ranking, of the plurality of rankings, based on an output of the first model that is based on the particular set of features provided as input to the first model, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating model output to determine a feature ranking. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the limitation includes the recitation of a mathematical relationship of ranked values and therefore the claim additionally recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation provide the particular set of features as input to a first model of the plurality of models; and. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because an element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), the element requires further evaluation to determine if the element is beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, providing a set of features to a model includes transmitting data over a network. The courts have found that the computer function of transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner. The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation identifying a particular feature, of the particular set of features, that is present within at least a first threshold quantity of highest ranked positions in at least a second threshold quantity of rankings of the plurality of rankings, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating values to determine if they fall within threshold quantities. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Because the limitation includes the evaluation of values with respect to a threshold quantity, the limitation further includes the recitation of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 2. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 2.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 3. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 3.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 4. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 4.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 7. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 7.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to a combination of the limitations recited in claims 2 and 3. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 2 and 3. The particular ordering and combination of the limitations does not impose meaningful limits on the claim that would effectively integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 5. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 4.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 20
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 7. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 7.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 21
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 21, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 21 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 21 additionally recites the limitation wherein the plurality of configuration parameters associated with the wireless network include at least one of: beamforming parameters, Multiple-Input Multiple-Output ("MIMO") parameters, radio resource parameters, traffic queuing parameters, access control parameters, or handover thresholds. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 22
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 22, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 21. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 21.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 23
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 23, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
The limitations are substantially similar to that recited in claim 21. For brevity, the rationale is not provided again and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as provided previously for claim 21.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 24
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 24, the judicial exception of independent claim 8 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 24 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 24 additionally recites the limitation wherein the plurality of configuration parameters associated with the wireless network include one or more handover thresholds, and wherein the configuration parameters used to configure the simulation do not include the one or more handover thresholds. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 25, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 25 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 25 additionally recites the limitation wherein the plurality of configuration parameters associated with the wireless network include one or more handover thresholds, and wherein the configuration parameters used to configure the simulation do not include the one or more handover thresholds. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 26
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 26, the judicial exception of independent claim 15 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 26 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 26 additionally recites the limitation wherein the plurality of configuration parameters associated with the wireless network include one or more handover thresholds, and wherein the configuration parameters used to configure the simulation do not include the one or more handover thresholds.. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20-26 would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A complete prior art search has been performed for the claims; however, the search did not reveal prior art that fairly teaches or suggests the features in the claims. Specifically, independent claims are considered allowable over the prior art since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references found either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claims, including at least:
identifying a first output, of the particular model, that is based on all features of the particular set of features, including a first feature and a second feature of the particular set of features,
identifying a second output, of the particular model, that is based on a first subset of the particular set of features, wherein the first subset includes the second feature and does not include the first feature of the particular set of features,
identifying a third output, of the particular model, that is based on a second subset of the particular set of features, wherein the second subset includes the first feature and does not include the second feature of the particular set of features,
determining a first measure of similarity between the first output and the second output,
determining a second measure of similarity between the first output and the third output, and
ranking the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity, wherein the plurality of rankings indicate the ranking of the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity;
determine, based on the plurality of rankings, relative measures of feature importance associated with one or more features, of the particular set of features, with respect to one or more other features of the particular set of features;
as claimed in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
The closest prior art includes
Toure et al (European Patent Publication No. EP 3849231 A1) which discloses a system, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, and a methodology that ranks and selects features for a communication network. The ranking is described as being based on an influence in a machine learning model but otherwise Toure is silent as to how the ranking process is performed. Tour further discloses configuring a network according to configuration parameters based on identified dominant features and further discloses performing tests in simulation based on selected configuration parameters for the network.
Bulut (Bulut, O., “Effective Feature Selection: Recursive Feature Elimination Using R”, January 11, 2021, Medium.com) which discloses a recursive feature elimination approach for ranking features wherein features are recursively eliminated when they are found to have low importance. However, this approach consecutively removes features under consideration and does not generate outputs including: a second output based on a subset of the features including the second feature and not a first feature, nor a third output based on a subset of the features including the first feature and not including the second feature, as required by the claims.
Nixon et al (UK Patent Publication No. GB 2452167 A) which discloses the configuration of a simulation using configuration parameters of the wireless network as configuration parameters for the simulation.
Liu et al (Liu, J., Danait, N., Hu, S., and Sengupta, S., “A Leave-One-Feature-Out Wrapper Method for Feature Selection in Data Classification”, 2013, 6th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, pp 656-660) which discloses a wrapper type feature selection methodology for selecting and removing redundant, irrelevant, or noisy features where features are selected according to the evaluation of the error value of a full feature set compared to a feature subset with one of the features removed from the set. While the methodology is suggested as being combined as a subsequent step to other feature ranking methods as a supplementary tool, the rule set forth for selecting the feature (evaluation of error value of full feature set vs feature subset- equivalent to a measure of similarity per the claims) is not used as a rule to rank the feature, as required by the claims in at least the limitation “ranking the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity, wherein the plurality of rankings indicate the ranking of the first and second features based on the first and second measures of similarity;”.
These references, taken alone or in combination, would not render the claims of the present application obvious over the prior art. No other references have been found that would suggest any alternative combinations to cure the deficiencies of the cited art.
For the reasons stated herein, the independent claims are allowable over the prior art. When taken as a whole, the dependent claims have been found allowable over the prior art for at least the above features recited in the independent claims upon which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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 at (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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights