DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 24 June 2025. Cancellation of claims 2, 5, 12 and 15 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 20 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 11, representative of claims 1, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites invention directed to providing a service to a service user; verifying a contribution of in intermediary in provisioning of the service; and, compensating the intermediary by giving them a reward based upon their contribution, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising, sales and marketing). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: providing a service to a service user terminal through a wireless network, verifying the contribution of the intermediary nodes which were used to provide end-to-end connectivity (e.g analyzing the Call Detail Records (CDR) to determine how much reward should be given to the intermediaries), performing mathematical calculation to determine contribution of each intermediary node to determine their share of revenue, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising, sales and marketing). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception
Also, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: defining that compensation will be provided to owners of the RIS resources whose resources were used for providing service, and calculate share of revenue for the owners of the RIS resources, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising, sales and marketing). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: “one or more processors” for executing computer-executable programs, “a transitory memory configured to store the computer executable program (software) where the program is configured to enable a call originating carrier providing a service to a user terminal through sequence of RIS Nodes belonging to a sequence of intermediaries carriers, to seamlessly end the call at the destination carrier; analyzing collected data (e.g., CDR) for verifying the contribution provided by each of the RIS node(s) that were involved for completing the call, and providing a reward to the sequence of carriers based upon the contribution of their RIS nodes. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g,. a generic computer).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3 – 4, 6 – 10, 13 – 14 and 16 – 20, dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding descriptions of various data, how they will be accessed, performing of some mathematical calculation for determining reward amount, using public ledger like blockchain to record the data associated with the call, verification of data using the blockchain technology, and reciting that some algorithm will be used for data verification. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. US Publication 2022/0360433 in view of Liu et al. published article “Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces: Principles and Opportunities” and TutorialsPoint published article “Telecom Interconnect Billing”.
Regarding claim 11 and represented claim 1, Srivastava teaches system and method for mitigating international revenue share fraud. Srivastava teaches In an international call, the call is transferred through a sequence of carriers, from a caller to a callee (e.g., InterCarrier Compensation). The caller pays the first carrier for the call, and in each handoff, the sending carrier pays (gives the reward) the receiving carrier for handling the call and passing the call to the next carrier [Srivastava, 0002].
Srivastava does not recite the carrier to be Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS) service providing carrier. However, Liu teaches RIS-enhanced cellular networks are illustrated, where RISs are deployed for bypassing the obstacles between BSs (Base Stations) and users (see at least Fig. 1). Thus, the quality of service (QoS) in heterogeneous networks and the latency performance in mobile edge computing (MEC) networks are improved. On the other hand, RISs can act as a signal reflection hub to support massive connectivity via interference mitigation in device-to-device (D2D) communication networks [16], or RISs can cancel undesired signals by smartly designing the passive beamforming in the context of physical layer security (PLS) [Liu, page 1547].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Srivastava by adopting teachings of Liu to and use RIS to enhance the capacity and coverage of wireless networks by smartly reconfiguring the wireless propagation environment to enhance their current network-infrastructure for the sixth-generation (6G) of communication networks.
Srivastava in view of Liu teaches reward system and method for a reward method for blockchain-based [Srivastava, 0018] Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS) infrastructure sharing (Liu, RIS surfaces being used as reflectors to transmit signals between two base-stations or from base-station to a user) [Liu, see at least Fig 14, page 1547, 1563], the reward method being performed by a reward apparatus for blockchain-based RIS infrastructure sharing (Srivastava, creating an encrypted CDR; encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system, the encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system) [Srivastava, 0018], the reward method comprising:
transmitting, based on an operation by one or more processors, a Wireless-Signal to a Smartphone (Srivastava, a communications network 125 is presented for providing broadband access 110 to a plurality of data terminals 114 via access terminal 112, wireless access 120 to a plurality of mobile devices 124 and vehicle 126 via base station or access point 122, voice access 130 to a plurality of telephony devices 134, via switching device 132 and/or media access 140 to a plurality of audio/video display devices 144 via media terminal 142) [Srivastava, 0019] through an RIS node
PNG
media_image1.png
139
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Srivastava Fig.2 modified with teachings of Liu, Fig. 14 - page 1563];
verifying, by the one or more processors, a contribution of the RIS node to provision of the Wireless-Signal quantified by the RIS node by implementing a first blockchain network (Srivastava, Blockchain 215 provides a tamper-proof decentralized log of the delivery tasks and their execution, and these records can be used to track handoffs and discover points of failure, i.e., the carrier that dropped the call ( or failed to handover an item); encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system the encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system) [Srivastava, 0032, 0018]; and
providing, by the one or more processors, a reward to the RIS node depending on the contribution (Srivastava, in each handoff, the sending carrier pays to the receiving carrier for handling the call and passing the call on to the next carrier or the callee 202 (e.g., $0.7, $0.4, etc.)) [Srivastava, 0027].
Srivastava in view of Liu does not explicitly teach Quality-of-Service (QoS). However, TutorialsPoint teaches Quality Standards are defined, particularly for time to provision circuits and for call blocking levels, and remedies are defined for when those standards are not met [TutorialsPoint, page 5].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Srivastava in view of Liu by adopting teachings of Liu and consider define QoS to ensure that the provided services conforms to the QoS provisioning agreements.
Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein verifying the contribution comprises:
calculating a first contribution by quantifying usage or RIS resources based on quality of wireless signal (e.g., one of the aspects considered in QoS) for the service and a service usage time, whichare received from the service user terminal (Srivastava, CDR comprises: identifiers for the call, a caller, a callee, a carrier, the next carrier, the time and date, or a combination thereof) [Srivastava, claim 11];
calculating a second contribution by quantifying task details of an RIS device related to instructions of the telecommunication service provider regarding the service (TutorialsPoint, Netting process, Before, After) [TutorialsPoint, page 4]; and
calculating a total contribution by summing the first contribution and the second contribution (TutorialsPoint, Netting process) [TutorialsPoint, page 4].
Regarding claim 13 and represented claim 3, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method wherein verifying the contribution further comprises: recording the quality of the wireless signal for the Wireless-Signal and the Wireless-Signal usage time, which are received from the Smartphone, on the first blockchain network and verifying the contribution based on the quality of the wireless signal and the Wireless-Signal usage time, recorded on the first blockchain network (Srivastava, Blockchain 215 provides a tamper-proof decentralized log of the delivery tasks and their execution, and these records can be used to track handoffs and discover points of failure, i.e., the carrier that dropped the call ( or failed to handover an item); encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system the encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system) [Srivastava, 0032, 0018, Fig. 2B and associated disclosure].
Regarding claim 14 and represented claim 4, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein verifying the contribution comprises: requesting the RIS node to perform a task of an RIS device in compliance with instructions of a telecommunication Wireless-Signal provider regarding the service (Srivastava, In an international call, the call is transferred through a sequence of carriers, from a caller to a callee (e.g., InterCarrier Compensation). The caller pays the first carrier for the call, and in each handoff, the sending carrier pays (gives the reward) the receiving carrier for handling the call and passing the call to the next carrier) [Srivastava, 0002].
Regarding claim 16 and represented claim 6, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein verifying the contribution further comprises: recording the instructions of the telecommunication Wireless-Signal provider regarding the Wireless-Signal on the first blockchain network and verifying the contribution based on the instructions of the telecommunication Wireless-Signal provider regarding the service, recorded on the first blockchain network (Srivastava, Blockchain 215 provides a tamper-proof decentralized log of the delivery tasks and their execution, and these records can be used to track handoffs and discover points of failure, i.e., the carrier that dropped the call ( or failed to handover an item); encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system the encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system) [Srivastava, 0032, 0018, Fig. 2B and associated disclosure].
Regarding claim 17 and represented claim 7, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein verifying the contribution further comprises: quantifying, by the Smartphone, Wireless-Signal provision details for the task details of the RIS device, recording the quantified Wireless-Signal provision details on the first blockchain network, and verifying the contribution based on the Wireless-Signal provision details recorded on the first blockchain network (Srivastava, Blockchain 215 provides a tamper-proof decentralized log of the delivery tasks and their execution, and these records can be used to track handoffs and discover points of failure, i.e., the carrier that dropped the call ( or failed to handover an item); encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system the encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system) [Srivastava, 0032, 0018, Fig. 2B and associated disclosure].
Regarding claim 18 and represented claim 8, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein providing the reward comprises: recording, by the RIS device, the reward on a second blockchain network and allowing the reward to be verified through RIS nodes participating in the second blockchain network (Srivastava, Blockchain 215 provides a tamper-proof decentralized log of the delivery tasks and their execution, and these records can be used to track handoffs and discover points of failure, i.e., the carrier that dropped the call ( or failed to handover an item); encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system the encrypting, by the processing system, the encrypted CDR using a committee encryption key, thereby creating a double encrypted CDR; recording, by the processing system) [Srivastava, 0032, 0018, Fig. 2B and associated disclosure; also see 0050].
Regarding claim 19 and represented claim 9, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein:
the first blockchain network verifies a first blockchain transaction related to the contribution [Srivastava, 0032, 0018, Fig. 2B and associated disclosure], and
the second blockchain network verifies a second blockchain transaction related to the reward (Srivastava, In step 235, the processing system checks for a potential fraud, due to high call rates and failed calls. If no fraud is suspected, then the process ends. However, if there is a potential fraud, the process continues to step 236, where the processing system submits a fraud request for decryption of the CDRs recorded in the blockchain for the call to an entity possessing a committee decryption key. In an embodiment, the entity comprises a set of members of a committee) [Srivastava, 0050].
Regarding claim 20 and represented claim 10, as combined and under the same rationale as above, Srivastava in view of Liu and TutorialsPoint teaches system and method, wherein:
the first blockchain transaction is processed based on a first consensus algorithm of the first blockchain network to which the telecommunication Wireless-Signal provider belongs (TutorialsPoint, to calculate the cost/price of the event as per the rating tariff (also referred to as rate plan), apply any applicable rating time discount, etc.) [TutorialsPoint, page 40], and
the second blockchain transaction is processed based on a second consensus algorithm of the second blockchain network to which the RIS node belongs (TutorialsPoint, InterConnect billing concerned with calculating the amounts to be paid to and received from each of the network operators that our infrastructure connects in order for successful call origination and termination. The CDR for interconnecting calls keep the call routing information as a group of valid values to identify the carrier and country details.) [TutorialsPoint, page 3].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the amended claimed invention is not an abstract idea is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review, it is deemed that the amended claimed invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 and have been responded to above in Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because cited prior art does not teach the added limitations in independent claims is acknowledged and considered.
However, combination of cited prior teaches the amended claimed invention and have been responded to in the updated Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section. Also, cited reference TutorialPoints teaches Interconnect Invoicing [see at least, page 3].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raleigh et al. US Publication 2014/0098671 teaches system and method for sharing of revenue for intermediate networking devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
September 16, 2025