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 01/25/2024. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1, 10 and 15 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-9 and 11-12 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, claim recites the limitation “a third weight associated with a priority level” (line 13 of claim 1), which term “a priority level” makes it vague and indefinite, because claim earlier recites “determining respective priority levels”(line 10 of claim 1). It is not clear whether “a priority level” is one the “respective priority levels” or all of the “respective priority levels”, or none of them, i.e., it is different from them, which 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 --the respective priority levels--.
Regarding claim 2, claim recites the limitation “the establishment causes” (line 10 of claim 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the respective establishment causes--.
Regarding claim 11, claim recites the limitation “a first weight associated with establishment causes” (line 1 of claim 11), which term “establishment causes” makes it vague and indefinite, because claim 10, in which claim 11 dependent upon, earlier recites “for each user equipment of the group of user equipment, determining, by the system, a respective establishment cause” (line 4 of claim 10). It is not clear whether “establishment causes” is the same as or different from the “respective establishment cause” for all, or any, or none of the user equipment of the group of user equipment, which 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 --a first weight associated with the respective establishment cause--.
Regarding claims 3-9, and 12 claims is/are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1 and 11, correspondingly.
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 1-3 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.)
Regarding claims 1, Step 1: system/method/process claim
Step 2A, Prong 1: limitations “determining respective establishment causes”, “determining respective bearer types”, “determining respective priority levels”, “ranking the respective user equipment”, “determining that a serving-capacity criterion is satisfied with respect to the group of user equipment and based on the respective rankings”, “prioritizing service offered to the respective user equipment.” are Mental Process (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 element, “a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations” are applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (processor) 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 limitation “for respective user equipment of a group of user equipment for which broadband cellular communications are being facilitated via a network comprising the system” represents the environment in which the judicial exception is used and thus a mere indication of technological environment or the field of use (i.e., the user equipment) in which the judicial exception is performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, limitation “broadband cellular communications are being facilitated via a network comprising the system” is also an insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation, “a first weight associated with the respective establishment causes is greater than a second weight associated with the respective bearer types, and wherein the second weight is greater than a third weight associated with a priority level” is also an insignificant extra-solution activity.
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, “a first weight associated with the respective establishment causes is greater than a second weight associated with the respective bearer types, and wherein the second weight is greater than a third weight associated with a priority level” simply compares limitations by their associated weight values, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, broadband cellular communications is always facilitated by a network. Therefore, limitation “broadband cellular communications are being facilitated via a network comprising the system” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (user equipment) using a generic computer.
Regarding claim 2, limitations “determining a first bearer priority value based on a first bearer type of the respective bearer types associated with the first bearer, and a first priority level of respective priority levels associated with the first bearer”, “determining a second bearer priority value based on a second bearer type of the respective bearer types associated with the second bearer, and a second priority level of respective priority levels associated with the second bearer”, and “determining a user equipment priority value based on the first bearer priority value, the second bearer priority value, and a first establishment cause of the establishment causes that is associated with the first user equipment, wherein the first user equipment is ranked among the respective user equipment according to the user equipment priority value” are Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Regarding claim 3, limitations “wherein the user equipment priority value corresponds to a higher priority value of the first bearer priority value and the second bearer priority value” is a Mental process (comparing and analyzing).
Regarding claims 10, Step 1: method/process claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: limitations “facilitating, by a system, broadband cellular communications with a group of user equipment; for each user equipment of the group of user equipment”, “determining, by the system, a respective establishment cause, a respective bearer type, and a respective priority level”, “ranking the respective user equipment”, “ranking, by the system, each of the user equipment of the group of user equipment based on the respective establishment cause, the respective bearer type, and the respective priority level to produce ranks”, “determining that a serving-capacity criterion is satisfied with respect to the group of user equipment”, and “prioritizing, by the system, service offered to the respective user equipment based on the ranks.” are Mental Process (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 limitation “broadband cellular communications with a group of user equipment” is also an insignificant extra-solution activity.
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, “broadband cellular communications with a group of user equipment” simply refers to use of user equipment in in broadband cellular communication, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (group of user equipment).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the ranking is performed based on a first weight associated with establishment causes, a second weight associated with bearer types, and a third weight associated with a priority level.” is Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Regarding claim 12, limitations “wherein the first weight is greater than the second weight, and wherein the second weight is greater than the third weight.” are Mental process (comparing and analyzing).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “based on removing the first bearer, determining, by the system, an updated user equipment score based on the second bearer score and independent of the first bearer score”, and “updating, by the system, the ranks based on the updated user equipment score” are Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). The additional element “wherein the ranks are first ranks, wherein the first ranks comprise a user equipment score for a user equipment of the group of user equipment, wherein the user equipment score is based on a first bearer score that corresponds to a first bearer of the user equipment and a second bearer score that corresponds to a second bearer of the user equipment” are insignificant extra-solution (data gathering).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations “based on adding a third bearer that corresponds to the user equipment, determining, by the system, a third bearer score that corresponds to the third bearer”, “determining, by the system, an updated user equipment score based on the first bearer score, the second bearer score, and the third bearer score” and “updating, by the system, the ranks based on the updated user equipment score” are Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). The additional element “wherein the ranks are first ranks, wherein the first ranks comprise a user equipment score for a user equipment of the group of user equipment, wherein the user equipment score is based on a first bearer score that corresponds to a first bearer of the user equipment and a second bearer score that corresponds to a second bearer of the user equipment” are insignificant extra-solution (data gathering).
Regarding claims 15, Step 1: system/method/process claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: limitations “determining respective establishment causes, respective bearer types, and respective priority levels”, “ranking the respective user equipment based on the respective establishment causes, the respective bearer types, and the respective priority levels to produce respective ranks”, and “determining that a serving-capacity criterion is satisfied with respect to the group of user equipment”, and “prioritizing respective services offered to the respective user equipment based on the respective ranks.” are Mental Process (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 non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising a processor to perform operations”, are applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (processor) 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 limitation “for respective user equipment of a group of user equipment” represents the environment in which the judicial exception is used and thus a mere indication of technological environment or the field of use (i.e., the user equipment) in which the judicial exception is performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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.
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (user equipment) using a generic computer.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “wherein the respective user equipment are associated with respective groups of one or more bearers”, “determining respective user equipment ranking scores of the respective user equipment based on respective bearer scores of respective bearers of the respective groups of one or more bearers” and “wherein ranking the respective user equipment is performed based on the respective user equipment ranking scores” are Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations “the prioritizing is configurable to be performed at a slice level of the system, at a cell level of the system, or at a system level of the system” is merely data/status obtaining and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations “the respective establishment causes comprise an emergency event, a high priority access event, or a mobile originated voice event” is merely data/status and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations “the respective bearer types comprise a delay critical guaranteed bit rate type, a guaranteed bit rate type, or a non-guaranteed bit rate type” is merely data/status and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations “the respective user equipment are ranked based on respective quality-of-service levels associated with the respective user equipment” is merely data/status obtaining and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
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).
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
