Detailed Action
This action is in response to amendments filed on 05/21/2026.
This application was filed on 06/27/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6, and 8-15 are pending.
Claims 1-6, and 8-15 are rejected.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 05/21/2026, Applicant amended claims 1-3, 9-15, and submitted replacement drawing sheets. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 01/13/2026.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, all objections to the drawings set forth previously are withdrawn.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, all rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth previously are withdrawn.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, all rejections of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not being a "process", a "machine", a "manufacture", or "composition of matter", as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth previously are withdrawn.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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method of reserving technical resources, wherein the method comprises:
receiving an involuntary cancellation of a given allocated first technical resource before a process utilizing the allocated first technical resource has been successfully completed, wherein the cancellation of the given first technical resource results from a specific cause,
obtaining, for each of a plurality of candidate second resources, a set of properties,
obtaining, for a user corresponding to the allocation of the cancelled first technical resource, historical allocation data for each of the plurality of candidate second resources,
identifying, based on the sets of the properties and historical allocation data, one or more second technical resources among the candidate second resource that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource,
identifying one or more first occasions that caused the allocation of the allocated first technical resource,
identifying an occurrence of a second occasion, which is similar to the one or more first occasions, wherein the second occasion is an occasion correlating with the one or more first occasions,
allocating one or more second technical resources identified to be similar to the allocated one or more first technical resources,
in response to determining the presence of the second occasion, and
in response to determining that the specific cause for the cancellation of the allocated first technical resource is no longer present,
wherein the one or more second technical resources are allocated based on a time of the occurrence of the second occasion.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform certain methods of reserving technical resources (e.g. human activity), wherein the method comprising identifying mentally with aid of pen/paper, based on the sets of the properties and historical allocation data, one or more second technical resources among the candidate second resources that are similar to the previously cancelled allocated first technical resource, identifying mentally with aid of pen/paper one or more first occasions that caused the allocation of the allocated first technical resource, identifying mentally with aid of pen/paper an occurrence of a second occasion, which is similar to the one or more first occasions, wherein the second occasion is an occasion correlating with the one or more first occasions, allocating/assigning mentally with aid of pen/paper one or more second technical resources identified to be similar to the previously allocated one or more first technical resources, in response to determining mentally with aid of pen/paper the presence of a second occasion, and in response to determining mentally with aid of pen/paper that the specific cause for the cancellation of the allocated first technical resource is no longer present, wherein the one or more second technical resources are allocated/assigned based on a time of the occurrence of the second occasion.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computer-implemented method… receiving an involuntary cancellation of a given allocated first technical resource before a process utilizing the allocated first technical resource has been successfully completed, wherein the cancellation of the given first technical resource results from a specific cause… obtaining, for each of a plurality of candidate second resources, a set of properties, obtaining, for a user corresponding to the allocation of the cancelled first technical resource, historical allocation data for each of the plurality of candidate second resources”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computer-implemented method… receiving an involuntary cancellation of a given allocated first technical resource before a process utilizing the allocated first technical resource has been successfully completed, wherein the cancellation of the given first technical resource results from a specific cause… obtaining, for each of a plurality of candidate second resources, a set of properties; obtaining, for a user corresponding to the allocation of the cancelled first technical resource, historical allocation data for each of the plurality of candidate second resources”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. The above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 12 and 13 are medium and system claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 12 and 13are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 14-15 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, and 12-13. In particular
As per claims 2 and 14, the rejection of claim 1 and 13 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more allocated second technical resources are presented to a user for confirmation or decline of the resource.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein past resource allocations are considered for the identification of the second occasion and for the identification of the one or more second resources, using machine learning.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein identifying the one or more second technical resources that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource involves a clustering of similar resources.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the identifying the second occasion similar to the first occasion that caused the allocation of the cancelled first technical resource involves a clustering of similar occasions.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the clustering involves a k-means clustering algorithm.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the cancelled first technical resource is a telecommunication resource, in particular, caused by an overload or breakdown of a base station.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more first occasions that caused the allocation of the first technical resource comprise a streaming event.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein, in response to identifying the occurrence of the second occasion comprising a similar streaming event, a resource provided by a base station with similar bandwidth as the overloaded or broken-down base station is selected.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a LightFM machine learning model is used in the identification of the occurrence of the second occasion
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 further incorporated, further recites wherein past resource allocations are considered for the identification of the second occasion that is similar to the first occasion that caused the initiation of the cancelled allocated first technical resource and for the identification of the one or more second technical resources that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource, using machine learning.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or are merely adding 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Accordingly, claims 1-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikipedia (“Handover”, cited in the IDS submitted on 03/28/2024, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20150199218 A1, referred hereinafter as D5).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A computer-implemented method of reserving technical resources, wherein the method comprises, (D1, page 3, “For the practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list.”).
receiving an involuntary cancellation of a given allocated first technical resource before a process utilizing the allocated first technical resource has been successfully completed, wherein the cancellation of the given first technical resource results from a specific cause, (D1, page 1, “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell” which clearly reads on receiving/detecting an involuntary cancellation (e.g. interference) of a given allocated first technical resource (e.g. channel) before a process utilizing (e.g. ongoing phone call) the allocated first technical resource (e.g. source channel/cell) has been successfully completed, wherein the cancellation of the given first technical resource results from a specific cause (e.g. interference from another phone).).
obtaining, for each of plurality of candidate second resources, a set of properties,(D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells” which reads on obtaining/monitoring, for each of plurality of candidate second resources (e.g. neighboring cells), a set of properties (e.g. signal data)).
a user corresponding to the allocation of the canceled first technical resource, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells” which reads on a user corresponding to the allocation of the canceled first technical resource (e.g. caller with canceled call)).
identifying, based on the sets of properties…, one or more second technical resource among the candidate second resources that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource, (D1, page 3, “practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1 “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells” which clearly reads on identifying one or more second technical resources among the candidate second resources (e.g. one or more channels/target cells selected from list) based on the set of properties (e.g. monitored signal) , that are similar/same to the previously cancelled allocated first technical resource (e.g. source channel/source cell)).
identifying one or more first occasions that caused the allocation of the allocated first technical resource, (D1, pages 1-2 disclose identifying/using first resources/channel/cell based on making call (e.g. first occasion).).
identifying an occurrence of a second occasion, which is similar to the one or more first occasions, wherein the second occasion is an occasion correlating with the one or more first occasions, allocating one or more second technical resources identified to be similar to the allocated one or more first technical resources, in response to determining the presence of the second occasion, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells. In some systems, mainly based on CDMA, a target candidate may be selected among the cells which are not in the neighbor list. This is done in an effort to reduce the probability of interference due to the aforementioned near–far effect.” which clearly reads on identifying/detecting an occurrence of a second occasion (e.g. phone moving away while still on call, handover requested by phone to continue call), which is similar to the one or more first occasions (e.g. first call), wherein the second occasion is an occasion correlating/related with the one or more first occasions (e.g. first call ), allocating one or more second technical resources (e.g. channels/target cell) identified to be similar (e.g. from a list) to the previously allocated one or more first technical resources (e.g. source channel/cell), in response to determining the presence of a second occasion (e.g. request for handover to continue to call)).
and in response to determining that the specific cause for the cancellation of the allocated first technical resource is no longer present, (D1, page 1-2, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 2 “A special case is possible, in which the source and the target are one and the same cell and only the used channel is changed during the handover. Such a handover, in which the cell is not changed, is called intra-cell handover. The purpose of intra-cell handover is to change one channel, which may be interfered or fading with a new clearer or less fading channel”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells. In some systems, mainly based on CDMA, a target candidate may be selected among the cells which are not in the neighbor list. This is done in an effort to reduce the probability of interference due to the aforementioned near–far effect” which clearly reads on in response to determining that the specific cause for the cancellation of the allocated first technical resource is no longer or not present in the second resource/channel based on selection of best target candidate having channel/resources that clearer/less fading for use in order to avoid interference.).
wherein the one or more second technical resources are allocated based on a time of the occurrence of the second occasion, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells. In some systems, mainly based on CDMA, a target candidate may be selected among the cells which are not in the neighbor list. This is done in an effort to reduce the probability of interference due to the aforementioned near–far effect.” which clearly reads on wherein the one or more second technical resources are allocated based on a time of the occurrence of the second occasion (E.g. handover occurs at time of request for handover to continue to call)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose- obtaining, for a user… , historical allocation data for each of the plurality of candidate second resources,… and historical allocation data.
However, D5 (abstract, figure 8 and accompanying text) discloses users past/historical resource allocations resources are considered to calculate believability scores and allocating resources accordingly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of improved performance when scheduling task/jobs in view of availability of resources as disclosed by D5 (0010).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein identifying the one or more second technical resources that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource involves a clustering of similar resources, (D1, page 3-4, “practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1 “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference” which clearly reads on identifying the one or more second technical resources (e.g. channels/cells) that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource involves a clustering of similar resources (e.g. generating/using list of target/best channels/cells)).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the cancelled first technical resource is a telecommunication resource, in particular, caused by an overload or breakdown of a base station, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used.).
As per claim 12-13:
Claims 12-13 are medium and system claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 12-13 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Claim 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikipedia (“Handover”, cited in the IDS submitted on 03/28/2024, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20150199218 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of official notice.
As per claims 2 and 14:
The rejection of claims 1, and 13 further incorporated.
D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein the one or more allocated second technical resources are presented to a user for confirmation or decline of the resource.
However, the examiner takes official notice that one or more allocated second technical resources are presented to a user for confirmation or decline of the resource (e.g. asking user to accept or decline roaming charges using different network resources) was notoriously well known before effective filing the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include, one or more allocated second resources are presented to a user for confirmation or decline of the resource. This would have been obvious with predicable results of allowing user to accept or decline charges for use of certain resources as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3, 5-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikipedia (“Handover”, cited in the IDS submitted on 03/28/2024, referred herein after as D1) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20150199218 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Lakshmikantha (US 20210303985 A1, referred hereinafter as D2).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein… the identification of the second occasion and for the identification of the one or more second resources, (D1, page 3, “practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1 “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference” which clearly reads on identifying one or more second technical resources (e.g. channels/target cells from list), that are similar/same to the previously cancelled allocated first technical resource (e.g. source channel/source cell)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - past resource allocations are considered for [training a model] … using machine learning [to make predictions].
However, D2 (0025) discloses past resource allocations are considered for training a model… using machine learning to make predictions about resource availability and assign/use resources for task/job accordingly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of improved performance when scheduling task/jobs in view of availability of resources as disclosed by D2 (0025, 0110).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the identifying the second occasion similar to the first occasion that caused the allocation of the cancelled first resource involves…, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells. In some systems, mainly based on CDMA, a target candidate may be selected among the cells which are not in the neighbor list. This is done in an effort to reduce the probability of interference due to the aforementioned near–far effect.” which clearly reads on identifying/detecting an occurrence of a second occasion (e.g. phone moving away while still on call, handover requested by phone to continue call), which is similar to the one or more first occasions (e.g. first call), wherein the second occasion is an occasion correlating/related with the one or more first occasions (e.g. first call ), allocating one or more second technical resources (e.g. channels/target cell) identified to be similar (e.g. from a list) to the previously allocated one or more first technical resources (e.g. source channel/cell), in response to determining the presence of a second occasion (e.g. request for handover to continue to call)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - a clustering of similar occasions.
However, D2 (0096-0097) discloses a clustering of similar occasions using k-means clustering.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of improved performance when scheduling task/jobs in view of availability of resources as disclosed by D2 (0025, 0110).
As per claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 further incorporated.
D1 discloses clustering involving generating a list; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - a k-means clustering algorithm.
However, D2 (0096-0097) discloses use of a k-means clustering algorithm.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of improved performance when scheduling task/jobs in view of availability of resources as disclosed by D2 (0025, 0110).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
the identification of a second occasion that is similar to the first occasion that caused the initiation of the previously cancelled allocated first resource and for the identification of the one or more second resources that are similar to the previously cancelled allocated first resource, (D1, page 3, “practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1 “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference” which clearly reads on the identification of a second occasion (e.g. handover request to continue call) that is similar to the first occasion (e.g. phone call) that caused the initiation of the previously cancelled allocated first resource and for the identification of the one or more second resources (e.g. target channel/cell) that are similar to the previously cancelled allocated first resource from list.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein past resource allocations are considered for… using machine learning.
However, D2 (0025) discloses past resource allocations are considered for training a model… using machine learning to make predictions about resource availability and assign/use resources for task/job accordingly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of improved performance when scheduling task/jobs in view of availability of resources as disclosed by D2 (0025, 0110).
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikipedia (“Handover”, cited in the IDS submitted on 03/28/2024, referred herein after as D1) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20150199218 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Chi, Kuang-Hui et al. (“Handover-Supporting Streamlined Networking”, cited in the IDS dated: 03/28/2024, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the one or more first occasions that caused the allocation of the first technical resource comprise a [phone call], (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - streaming event.
However, D3 (title, abstract) discloses handover involving streaming event.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of additionally handling streaming events doing handover events as disclosed by D3 (page 91, section 1).
As per claim 10, the rejection 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein, in response to identifying the occurrence of the second occasion comprising of a similar [event], a resource provided by a base station with similar bandwidth as the overloaded or broken-down base station is selected, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells. In some systems, mainly based on CDMA, a target candidate may be selected among the cells which are not in the neighbor list. This is done in an effort to reduce the probability of interference due to the aforementioned near–far effect.” which clearly reads on in response to identifying the occurrence second occasion comprising of a similar [event]/handover event, a resource provided by a base station (e.g. targeted channel in same device or targeted device) with similar bandwidth as the overloaded or broken-down base station (e.g. interfered channel/source) is selected).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - streaming event.
However, D3 (title, abstract) discloses handover involving streaming event.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of additionally handling streaming events doing handover events as disclosed by D3 (page 91, section 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikipedia (“Handover”, cited in the IDS submitted on 03/28/2024, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20150199218 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Sander-Edwards (US 20210073261 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
… identification of the occurrence of the second occasion, (D1, page 1, 3-4 discloses “In telecommunications there may be different reasons why a handover might be conducted… when phone is moving away… capacity… is used up… channel used by the phone becomes interfered by another phone using the same chancel in a different cell… practical realisation of handovers in a cellular network each cell is assigned a list of potential target cells, which can be used for handing over calls from this source cell to them. These potential target cells are called neighbors and the list is called neighbor list. Creating such a list for a given cell is not trivial and specialized computer tools are used”, page 1, “call is transferred to a different channel in the same cell or to a different channel in another cell in order to avoid interference”, page 4 “During a call one or more parameters of the signal in the channel in the source cell are monitored and assessed in order to decide when a handover may be necessary. The downlink (forward link) and/or uplink (reverse link) directions may be monitored. The handover may be requested by the phone or by the base station (BTS) of its source cell and, in some systems, by a BTS of a neighboring cell. The phone and the BTSes of the neighboring cells monitor each other's signals and the best target candidates are selected among the neighboring cells. In some systems, mainly based on CDMA, a target candidate may be selected among the cells which are not in the neighbor list. This is done in an effort to reduce the probability of interference due to the aforementioned near–far effect.” which clearly reads on identification of the occurrence of the second occasion.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein a LightFM machine learning model is used in…
However, D4 (0187) discloses use of LightFM machine learning model to make prediction/matches.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results using LightFM machine learning model to generate related or similar matches as disclosed by D4 and known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant states that “independent claims as amended recite, "obtaining, for each of a plurality of candidate second resources, a set of properties, obtaining, for a user corresponding to the allocation of the cancelled first technical resource, historical allocation data for each of the plurality of candidate second resources, identifying, based on the sets of properties and the historical allocation data, one or more second technical resources among the candidate second resources” and argues that the “limitations improve the performance of a computer-implemented system by enabling the system to perform functionality that otherwise required subjective human judgement. As set out, for example, in paragraphs 0002 and 0049-0051, explicit ratings for various resources or services may be unavailable. The lack of such ratings complicates the recommendation of resources to a user in response to cancellation of a resource previously allocated to that user. Further, selecting a time at which to make such a recommendation is also complicated by the wide variety of events that may have lead to the cancellation. Previously, the decisions of what to recommend, and when to recommend it, required subjective human judgement - that is, in the absence of the claimed methods and systems, such recommendations were impractical to automate. The claimed subject matter permits automation of such recommendations, and therefore improves the functioning of the computer.”
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, the limitation of “identifying, based on the sets of the properties and historical allocation data, one or more second technical resources among the candidate second resource that are similar to the cancelled allocated first technical resource” are merely mental steps which is properly construed as abstract and limitations “obtaining, for each of a plurality of candidate second resources, a set of properties [and] obtaining, for a user corresponding to the allocation of the cancelled first technical resource, historical allocation data for each of the plurality of candidate second resources” are mere data gathering steps – see MPEP 2106.05(g). Performing various mental steps based on gathered data does not improve computing device and/or technical field.
Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and/or moot in view of modified grounds of rejections.
All other arguments depend on arguments depend arguments addressed above.
The examiner disagrees as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights