DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application, submitted on 12/22/2023, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-8 are directed to methods for managing call count in a telecommunications network. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 9-12 are directed to apparatus, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 13-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls within the “manufacture” category, one of the statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2A, Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
The Examiner has identified independent claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 9 and 13.
Claim 1 recites “for each target network entity in the list of target network entities, and in response to a determination that a call count of the target network entity is greater than a predetermined threshold, adding the target network entity to the output report.” A broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically, determining that a call count of a target network entity is greater than a predetermined threshold, and adding the target network entity to the output report, may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, a human can observe a call count of a target network entity, judge if the call count is greater than a predetermined threshold, and add the target network entity to an output report if the call count is greater than a predetermined threshold. Thus, the limitations encompass observing data and performing an evaluation or judgment.
In Step 2A, Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “initializing a call count management script;” “receiving an input, the input including at least one of an input type, an input target, and a test identifier;” “retrieving a list of target network entities from a database, based on the input;” and “generating an output report.” However, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
In Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the limitations are at best mere instructions which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or outputting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 covers subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claim as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 9 and 13; and hence the claims 9 and 13 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 also recites additional elements of “a wireless access point,” “a user equipment,” and “a virtual radio access network (RAN) server” for performing the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receive interaction data over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. That is, dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to “Mental Processes” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20. While some individual features of claims 1-20 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-20. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
Fujimoto (US 2015/0103993 A1) — This invention relates to a communication control device including a call connection count management unit that acquires a call connection count that indicates a number of calls that are being processed by each of call control servers which performs a call process.
Harris et al. (US 8214253 B1) — The invention relates to determining an incoming-call count by counting the number of incoming calls received by a particular subscriber; determining an outgoing-call count by counting the number of calls originating from the particular subscriber; calculating a ratio based on the incoming-call count and the outgoing-call count; comparing the ratio to an influencer threshold; and indicating that the subscriber is an influencer when the ratio is greater than the influencer threshold.
Omiya (US 20090290700 A1) — The invention relates to management server 10 stores past record data regarding the call volume by collecting from an exchanger, classifies the past record data.
Leung et al. (US 20090201824 A1) — The invention relates to performance of endpoints, client devices and servers within a communication system, determined by collecting call quality data from each endpoint by a quality monitoring server/application.
Savoor et al. (US 20070070989 A1) — The invention relates to a system, method and apparatus for controlling a mass calling event in a VoIP network..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights