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 amended application filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
371
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
86
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “determining”, “classifying” and “identifying” steps fall under mathematical concept and/or mental process (i.e. a human using pen and paper as a physical aid). Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mathematical concepts and/or mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
336
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite how the machine learning model itself is improved, how the optimization is performed, or how the engineering systems controlled. Further, examiner consulted the specification whether the disclosed invention improves technology and to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. After carefully examined the claimed solution to problem recited in applicant argument, the claims do not reflect to cover a particular solution to a problem. The claims merely use the ML technique like mathematical function.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image4.png
298
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applicants indicated clearly the “converting” step is simply the computational conversion, which falls under mathematical concepts.
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 by converting the system architecture specification into a graph structure in which each element of the system architecture specification is represented as a node, with directed edges between nodes denoting connections, the directed edges including data on input and output ports on the connected nodes [“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
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 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 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights