DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 01/10/2024. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1 and 19-20 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, 19 and 20, claim recites the limitation “generating the plurality of performance metrics from the network data” (line 8 of claims 1 and 20; line 11 of claim 19), which term “generating the plurality of performance metrics” makes it vague and indefinite, because claim already recites “assigning to each signature a plurality of performance metrics” (line 4 of claims 1 and 20; line 7 of claim 19), which suggest that “the plurality of performance metrics” has already been generated. The aforesaid issue leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --wherein the plurality of performance metrics is generated from the network data--.
Regarding claims 2-18, claims are rejected due to their dependency to rejected claim 1.
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.
There are four statutory classes of invention defined in 35 USC § 101: machine, process, article of manufacture and composition of matter. 35 USC § 101. The Supreme Court of the United States has further delineated several subject matter exceptions that are ineligible for patenting. Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010); MPEP § 2106. In particular, claims embracing abstract ideas, physical phenomena and laws of nature are patent ineligible. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), slip op., at 5 (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S 576 (2013), slip op., at 11)); Bilski at 1005-06; MPEP § 2106. According to Alice, the two part analysis of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) should be used for all types of judicial exceptions and all categories of claims. Alice Corp., slip op., at 7, 16, 17. The first part of the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent- ineligible concept." Alice Corp., slip op., at 7. Upon determining that an abstract idea is present in the claim, the second part of the analysis is to determine whether the claim "contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice Corp., slip op., at 11 (citing Mayo, slip op., at 3, 11). Claims, therefore, must do more than merely add insignificant limitations, such as limiting the field of use, adding token extra solution activity that lacks a particular machine or transform and adding wholly conventional machines and acts. See Alice Corp., slip op., at 12-13 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention . “Stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it with a computer' simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result."); Bilski at 1009-10; MPEP § 2106.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Step 1: a process claim. Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations: “generating a plurality of signatures, each signature being associated with a different network problem”, “assigning to each signature a plurality of performance metrics that indicate the network problem associated with the respective signature”, , “generating the plurality of performance metrics from the network data”, “ranking the signatures according to a prioritization scheme to obtain a highest-priority signature”, “presenting the highest-priority signature”, “receiving feedback about the highest-priority signature”, “updating the prioritization scheme using the feedback”, and “triggering a management action on the 5G telecommunications network in dependence on the highest-priority signature” are Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). It is noted that term “action” is a mental process (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, “A computer-implemented” and “An apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations” are applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. The additional limitation “the performance metrics are generated by two or more different types of models” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional element, “receiving network data about a telecommunications network” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (communication) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to update prioritization using the feedback. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitation, “receiving network data about a telecommunications network” is just receiving data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (communication) using a generic computer.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “an action on the network” is a mental process (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “presenting the highest-priority signature further comprises presenting the instructions to perform the action on the network” is a mental process (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, the additional elements “the two or more different types of models comprise a rule-based model, a statistical model, and a machine learning model.” are mathematical concepts and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, the additional elements “the prioritization scheme is a reinforcement learning model” are mathematical concepts and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, the additional elements “assigning a generalized score to each performance metric in each signature by applying a predefined threshold to each performance metric; wherein the prioritization scheme is a logical ranking based at least on a comparison between combined scores of two or more performance metrics in each signature.” are mental processes and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 12, the additional elements “a presenting the highest-priority signature further comprises generating a dashboard comprising the performance metrics and associated network problem from the highest-priority signature” are mental processes and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, the additional elements “generating the dashboard further comprises generating graphs for assigned performance metrics of the highest-priority signature” is a mathematical concept and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Marzban et al. (US 2024/0048977 A1) which disclose a computer implemented method of data signature assignment (¶[0005]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631