DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 11/30/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/30/2022, 06/23/2025, 10/23/2025, and 02/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a system.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a product.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a system architecture specification corresponding to a system design, and a plurality of topological variants of the system architecture specification [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
determining a system architecture graph based on the system architecture specification [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concept];
classifying, by a neural network-based classifier, each of the topological variants as a feasible architecture or an infeasible architecture based on the system architecture graph [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)]; and
identifying a subset of the feasible architectures as system design candidates based on performance predictions [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “receiving”, “processor” and “neural network-based classifier”. The additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). In addition, the additional element of “processor”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, the additional element of “neural network-based classifier”. The “neural network-based classifier” is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the neural network used. The recitation of “neural network-based classifier” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as explained above with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the additional element of “neural network-based classifier” is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claims 2-7, the claims fall into “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per Claim 8, independent claim 8 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 8 recites additional element of “memory”. The “memory” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 9-20, claims 9-20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of dependent claims 1-7, and as such are similar rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over prior art and allowed when amended to overcome the 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ramiro Moreno et al (US Patent No. 11,792,656 B2) discloses determining a suitability of a cell of a network for deployment as a Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) cell. The method includes acquiring data associated with a cell of a network and processing the acquired data associated with the cell of the network using a first machine learnt model to obtain one or more metrics indicative of the suitability of the cell for deployment as a MIMO cell (Abstract); aggregating the plurality of partial indications to generate an overall indication of whether the cell is suitable for deployment as a MIMO cell (Col. 4 lines 27-30); one or more key performance indicators associated with the cell of the network may be generated by combining one or more performance management counters of the cell of the network and/or using one or more traces of at least one call within the cell of the network (Col. 4 lines 34-38).
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “classifying, by a neural network-based classifier, each of the topological variants as a feasible architecture or an infeasible architecture based on the system architecture graph; and identifying a subset of the feasible architectures as system design candidates based on performance predictions”, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 02/18/2026