DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 4 September 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims.
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 4 September 2023.
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 2-4, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-8 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 9-14 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 15-20 are directed toward an apparatus (machine). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 2 will also include the analysis of the elements of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
selecting a parameter of a dataset, which is provided to the AI/ML model as input, based on the indicator (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgment to select a parameter based upon the indicator, for providing the parameter to an AI/ML model as input)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (claim 1, lines 2-3)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 1, lines 4-5)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (claim 1, lines 2-3)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 1, lines 4-5)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 3 will also include the analysis of the elements of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
selecting the AI/ML model from multiple AI/ML models (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgment to select a an AI/ML model from among a plurality of models)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (claim 1, lines 2-3)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 1, lines 4-5)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (claim 1, lines 2-3)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 1, lines 4-5)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 4 will also include the analysis of the elements of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the indicator is mapped to a scenario or configuration of the network environment (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to map the indicator to the scenario or configuration of the network environment)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (claim 1, lines 2-3)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 1, lines 4-5)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (claim 1, lines 2-3)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 1, lines 4-5)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
determining… an indicator related to a network environment surrounding a user equipment (UE) (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a observation to determine an indicator related to a network environment surrounding a user equipment)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a processor of a network node
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
transmitting, by the processor, the indicator to the UE which utilizes the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model executed by the UE
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a processor of a network node
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
transmitting, by the processor, the indicator to the UE which utilizes the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model executed by the UE
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the indicator is mapped to a scenario or configuration of the network environment (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to map the indicator to the scenario or configuration of the network environment)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim depends upon claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the indicator comprises an integer or real number mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a observation to determine an indicator, comprising an integer or real number, related to a network environment surrounding a user equipment)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 12:
With respect to claim 12, the claim depends upon claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no limitations considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the transmitting of the indictor comprises transmitting the indicator in a radio resource control (RRC) parameter
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the transmitting of the indictor comprises transmitting the indicator in a radio resource control (RRC) parameter
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
With respect to claim 13, the claim depends upon claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no limitations considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the transmitting of the indicator comprises transmitting the indicator via a downlink control information (DCI) signaling
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the transmitting of the indicator comprises transmitting the indicator via downlink control information (DCI) signaling
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14:
With respect to claim 14, the claim depends upon claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
There are no limitations considered under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the transmitting of the indicator comprises transmitting the indicator in a media access control (MAC) control element (CE)
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the transmitting of the indicator comprises transmitting the indicator in a media access control (MAC) control element (CE)
The additional element of “providing the output and the identified portion of the received input corresponding to the determined bias at the interface on the computing device”. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, the claim depends upon claim 15. The analysis of claim 16 will also include analysis of the elements of claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
selecting a parameter of a dataset, which is provided to the AI/ML model as an input, based on an indicator (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgment to select a parameter based upon the indicator, for providing the parameter to an AI/ML model as input)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (claim 15, line 3)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (claim 15, lines 4-5)
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surround the UE (claim 15, lines 6-7)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 15, lines 8-9)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (claim 15, line 3)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (claim 15, lines 4-5)
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surround the UE (claim 15, lines 6-7)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 15, lines 8-9)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
With respect to claim 17, the claim depends upon claim 15. The analysis of claim 15 will also include the analysis of the elements of claim 17.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
selecting the AI/ML model from multiple AI/ML models (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgment to select a an AI/ML model from among a plurality of models)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (claim 15, line 3)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (claim 15, lines 4-5)
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surround the UE (claim 15, lines 6-7)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 15, lines 8-9)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (claim 15, line 3)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (claim 15, lines 4-5)
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surround the UE (claim 15, lines 6-7)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 15, lines 8-9)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 18:
With respect to claim 18, the claim depends upon claim 15. The analysis of claim 18 will also include the analysis of the elements of claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the indicator is mapped to a scenario or configuration of the network environment (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to map the indicator to the scenario or configuration of the network environment)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (claim 15, line 3)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (claim 15, lines 4-5)
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surround the UE (claim 15, lines 6-7)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 15, lines 8-9)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (claim 15, line 3)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (claim 15, lines 4-5)
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surround the UE (claim 15, lines 6-7)
This additional element amounts to data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (claim 15, lines 8-9)
The AI/ML model is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Köse et al. (US 12283976, filed 12 September 2022, hereafter Köse).
As per independent claim 1, Köse discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (column 1, line 63- column 2, line 13: Here, a plurality of network parameters characterizing a communication channel between a first and second wireless device are received)
utilizing, by the processor, the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (column 7, lines 1-45: Here, a machine learning model, incorporated in a decision engine. This includes a training operation for training the device using the network parameters (Figure 15; column 17, lines 15-40))
As per dependent claim 2, Köse discloses wherein the utilizing of the indicator comprises selecting a parameter of a dataset, which is provided to the AI/ML model as an input, based on the indicator (column 1, line 63- column 2, line 13: Here, a parameter is selected based on the characterization of a communication channel between the first and second wireless device).
As per dependent claim 4, Köse discloses wherein the indicator is mapped to a scenario or configuration of the network environment (column 1, line 63- column 2, line 13: Here, the parameters correspond to the configuration of the communication channel (configuration of the network environment). The examiner interprets this correspondence to be analogous to the claimed mapping).
As per dependent claim 6, Köse discloses wherein the receiving of the indicator comprises receiving the indicator in a radio resource control (RRC) parameter (column 1, lines 34-45: Here, radio frequency is one of the communication channels between a first and second wireless device. Parameters characterizing the communication channel (radio frequency) between the device are obtained).
As per independent claim 9, Köse discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a network node (Figure 16), an indicator related to a network environment surrounding a user equipment (column 1, line 63- column 2, line 13: Here, a plurality of network parameters characterizing a communication channel between a first and second wireless device are received)
transmitting, by the processor, the indicator to the UE which utilizes the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model executed by the UE (column 7, lines 1-45: Here, a machine learning model, incorporated in a decision engine. This includes a training operation for training the device using the network parameters (Figure 15; column 17, lines 15-40))
With respect to claims 10 and 12, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 4 and 6, respectively. Claims 10 and 12 are similarly rejected.
As per independent claim 15, Köse discloses an apparatus implementable in a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (Figure 16; column 17, line 61- column 18, line 15)
a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations (Figure 16; column 17, line 61- column 18, line 15)) comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver, from a network an indicator related to a network environment surrounding the UE (column 1, line 63- column 2, line 13: Here, a plurality of network parameters characterizing a communication channel between a first and second wireless device are received)
utilizing the indicator as an additional input with respect to an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) model (column 7, lines 1-45: Here, a machine learning model, incorporated in a decision engine. This includes a training operation for training the device using the network parameters (Figure 15; column 17, lines 15-40))
With respect to claims 16 and 18, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2 and 4, respectively. Claims 16 and 18 are similarly rejected.
As per dependent claim 20, Köse discloses wherein the receiving of the indicator comprises receiving the indicator in a radio resource control (RRC) parameter (column 1, lines 34-45: Here, radio frequency is one of the communication channels between a first and second wireless device. Parameters characterizing the communication channel (radio frequency) between the device are obtained), via download control information (DCI) signaling, or in a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köse and further in view of Juluri et al. (US 2024/0044961, filed 4 August 2022, hereafter Juluri).
As per dependent claim 3, Köse discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Köse fails to specifically disclose wherein the utilizing the indicator comprises selecting the AI/ML model from multiple AI/ML models.
However, Juluri, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward selecting an AI/ML model, discloses selecting the AI/ML model from multiple AI/ML models (paragraph 0058: Here, a machine learning model is selected from a candidate list of machine learning models to be further trained and/or adjusted via a tuning operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Juluri with Köse, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for selecting and tuning a machine learning model to improve the selected model (Juluri: paragraph 0058).
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 3. Claim 17 is similarly rejected.
Claims 5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Köse and further in view of Wu et al. (US 11956769, filed 8 April 2022, hereafter Wu).
As per dependent claim 5, Köse discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Köse fails to specifically disclose wherein the indicator comprises an integer or a real number.
However, Wu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward signaling in a wireless communication manner, discloses wherein the indicator is an integer (column 4, lines 17-36: Here, a first signal reference is transmitted as a positive integer) or a real number. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Wu with Köse, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for transmitting signal data (Wu: column 4, lines 17-36).
As per dependent claim 7, Köse discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Köse fails to specifically disclose wherein the receiving of the indicator comprises receiving the indicator via downlink control information (DCI) signaling.
However, Wu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward signaling in a wireless communication manner, discloses receiving the indicator via downlink control information (DCI) signaling (Claim 1: Here, signaling is performed using DCI). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Wu with Köse, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for signaling via DCI (Wu: Claim 1).
As per dependent claim 8, Köse discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Köse fails to specifically disclose wherein the receiving of the indicator comprises receiving the indicator in a medium access control (MAC) control element CE.
However, Wu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward signaling in a wireless communication manner, discloses receiving the indicator in a medium access control (MAC) control element CE (column 28, lines 12-52: Here, signaling is performed in a MAC CE). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Wu with Köse, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for signaling in a MAC CE (Wu: column 28, lines 12-52).
With respect to claims 11 and 13-14, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 5 and 7-8, respectively. Claims 11 and 13-14 are similarly rejected.
With respect to claim 19, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 5. Claim 19 is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sather et al. (US 12579430): Discloses training a process iteratively by selecting different input value sets in order to adjust a network’s configurable parameters (column 10, line 58- column 11, line 16)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights