Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/454,934

PREDICTION OF A METRIC OF QUALITY OF A NETWORK

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Aug 24, 2023
Examiner
BOKHARI, SYED M
Art Unit
2473
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nokia Solutions And Networks Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
694 granted / 841 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
872
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
72.8%
+32.8% vs TC avg
§102
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§112
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, anycorrection of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground ofrejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would bethe same under either status. 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 13 and 15 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. Claim 13 recites " a method for building a prediction model adapted to predict a value of a metric of a quality of a point-to-multipoint telecommunications network, the method comprising the steps of: …”. Analysis Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the claims are analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. Step one: Are the claims at issue directed to process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 13 recites " a method for building a prediction model adapted to predict a value of a metric of a quality of a point-to-multipoint telecommunications network, the method comprising the steps of: …” ( Step 1: YES). Step 2A (Prong 1): Judicial Exception recited? The claim is then analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites "a method for building a prediction model adapted to predict a value of a metric of a quality of a point-to-multipoint telecommunications network, the method comprising the steps of: …”. This claim recites the steps of an abstract idea perform by a prediction model (Step 2A (Prong 1): Yes). Step 2A (Prong 2): Integrated into a practical application? The claim recites "a method for building a prediction model adapted to predict a value of a metric of a quality of a point-to-multipoint telecommunications network, the method comprising the steps of: …”. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the prediction model. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application performed by a machine because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong 2): No). Step 2B: Does the claim provides an inventive concept? As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the prediction model. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on the prediction model cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible (Step 2B: No). Dependent claim 15 is also rejected by the similar reasons as described above. Claim Objections Claims 1-3, 5-6 and clam 8-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, numerical numbers assigned to the apparatus and of its components should be removed. Regarding claim 2, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 3, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 5, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 6, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 8, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 9, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 10, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 11, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 12, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 13, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 14, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Regarding claim 15, numerical numbers assigned to the components should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner Comments The claims 1-12 will be allowable. The claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35USC 101. However, it will be allowable if the rejection is overcome. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vasseur et al. (US 2018/0204129 A1) and Cionca et al. (US 2024/0040400 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M BOKHARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3115. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday. 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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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. /SYED M BOKHARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2473 12/31/2025 /JUTAI KAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12574823
RADIO LINK CONTROL (RLC) RECONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557002
Assigning User Plane Functions (UPFs) within a 5G core network
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12557074
WIRELESS LINK CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549648
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD USING MULTIPLE LINKS, AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TERMINAL USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549996
CELL OUTAGE COMPENSATION OPTIMIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 841 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month