DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to claims filed 30 October 2025 for application 17926744 filed 21 November 2022. Currently claims 1, 2, 4-13, 26 and 50-56 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 2, 4-13, 26 and 50-56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In step 1, claims 1 and 26 are directed to the statutory category of a method and a system.
In step 2a prong 1, claims 1 and 26 recite, in part, identifying matching criteria and determining whether node satisfies a match. The limitations of identifying and determining are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer”, “distributed network”, “processing circuitry”, and “memory” in the context of the claims, the limitations encompass determining similar nodes to a current node in the mind or with aid. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In step 2a prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “computer”, “distributed network”, “processing circuitry”, and “memory”. The computer components in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C. The claim also recites the additional element of receiving a request for transfer learning comprising a description and identifier. This limitation amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting information. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
In step 2b, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer”, “distributed network”, “processing circuitry”, and “memory” to perform the steps of the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The step of receiving a request for transfer learning comprising a description and identifier was considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity in step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-13, and 50-56 recite further limitations including, in part, clustering nodes based on the matching, the environment comprising parameters, the use case comprises a relation, fetching matching criteria from a knowledge base, the first criteria comprises a rule, the matching criteria comprises a rule, the approximates are a similarity match, signaling a request and receiving a response, the identifier is a network slice instance, signaling a request to fetching the model and signaling the model to the second node, and signaling a message when there isn’t a match. These limitations amount to the same abstract idea identified above in step 2a prong 1. Further additional elements of signaling requests are recited. These limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting and receiving information and thus do not amount to a practical application in step 2a prong 2 nor significantly more than an abstract idea itself in step 2b.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite patent eligible subject matter as it is a specific method and the invention takes place in a specific technological environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. An abstract idea has been identified in taking a description of an environment and a use case, identifying matching information between the local and a second node and determining whether there is a match. This could all be performed in the human mind by a person comparing and matching computing nodes in similar configurations. The computing nodes are determined to be generic computer components in step 2a prong 2 and step 2b and thus do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner recommends incorporating any specific machine learning training or construction steps or specific actions taken after a match has been found that would amount to some change in the environment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp8-12, filed 30 October 2025, with respect to the §102 and §103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §102 and §103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 ERIC NILSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5246. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-3.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571)-272-3677. 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.
/ERIC NILSSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151