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 .
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 1-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Yes. The claim is directed towards a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. The claim recites calculating a parameter, generating a model using the parameter, and obtaining a result from running the model. The first step of the method from claim 1 recites calculating the first parameter through the mathematical equation defined as “a product of squared probabilistic path loss between a first mobile base station and a ground user and transmission power”. The second step in the method from claim 1 recites “generating a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) model comprising a first model parameter”. Whereby the QUBO model may be expressed as a mathematical calculation for an optimization problem (specification paragraph 0055,0058). Thus the claim recites a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites the additional element of “obtaining a plurality of result values indicating whether each combination of the mobile base stations, channels, and power levels, which is output as a result of annealing the QUBO model comprising the first model parameter to a ground state in the quantum computer, is optimal or not”. A plurality of results from the QUBO model are obtained, but the results are not used in a meaningful manner to impact the performance usage of the communication network. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining the plurality of results was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The obtaining of the plurality of results as indicated by Versata Dev Group Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc. in OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the obtaining results step is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 7-11: Claims 2-5 and 7-11 follow the analysis of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel Dilan Rutnam whose telephone number is 703-756-1374. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30am-5:00pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586.
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).
/Samuel Dilan Rutnam/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471