DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 09/16/2025.
Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 21, and 28 are independent claims. In Amendment, claims 12-20 are previously cancelled and claims 1, 21, and 28 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original specification does not provide written description to support the newly added limitation in independent claims 1, 21 and 28 “wherein the cost-of-change analysis encompasses a quantification of each of the one or more changes, as a function of time, in terms of benefit, risk, penalty and cost”. At most paragraph [0056] of specification mentions the cost-of-change analysis of these terms loosely, but it would be in a form of alternative rather than all of these factors together.
Claims 2-11, 22-27 and 29 are also rejected for being dependent of claims 1, 21 and 28 respectively without curing the deficiency identifying above.
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 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter in step 1 but these claims is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 21 ad 28 is/are independent claims of a non-transitory machine-readable medium, an apparatus, and method claims respectively which directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “analyzing…”, “performing…wherein the cost of change analysis…and cost”, and “based on …, modifying…” are considered as limitations that can be mentally done in human mind given the set of data. Nothing in these limitations that would prevent to be performed in human mind as required under Prong I step 2A. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all other limitations within these claims are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A including the limitations “a processing system…”, “memory storing instruction…”, and “obtaining parametric data”. All of these additional elements are considered as well-known computer system component that are well known and conventional routine in the technology such as processor and memory and the other limitation of obtaining parametric data is merely considered as pre-activity solution for gathering/collecting data/information. All of these additional elements either individual or in combination would not integrate into the practical application as they do not amount significantly to the judicial exception. Under step 2B, the limitations “a processing system…”, “memory storing instruction…”, and “obtaining parametric data” are considered as well-known computer system component that are well known and conventional routine in the technology such as processor and memory and the other limitation of obtaining parametric data is merely considered as pre-activity solution for gathering/collecting data/information. All of these additional elements either individual or in combination would not integrate into the practical application as they do not amount significantly to the judicial exception as evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Similarly, claims 2-10 and 22-27 and 29 recite additional limitations that can be mentally done in human mind in Prong I step 2A as seen in above. Thus, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate into the practical application.
Similarly, claim 11 recites additional element “the network…” but this network is well-known computer system component that are well known and conventional routine in the technology under Prong II strep 2A. All of these additional elements either individual or in combination would not integrate into the practical application as they do not amount significantly to the judicial exception as evidently identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11 and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eardley et al. (U.S. 10,936,462 B1) in view of Cella et al. (U.S. 11,199,837 B2) and further in view of Clarke, Jr. et al. (U.S. 2004/0221038 A1).
Re claim 1, Eardley et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: obtaining parametric data (e.g. abstract and Figure 3 component 302 and col. 19 lines 3-28 with metric/events associated with issues are obtained); analyzing the parametric data to identify a non-ideality with respect to a configuration (e.g. col. 8 line 35 to col. 9 line 30 wherein the obtain data is analyzed); performing, based on the analyzing of the parametric data, a cost-of-change analysis to identify whether one or more changes to the configuration are warranted (e.g. col. 20 line 40 to col. 21 line 25 with change/impact analysis); and based on the performing of the cost-of-change analysis indicating that at least one change of the one or more changes is warranted, modifying the configuration (e.g. col. 4 line 55 to col. 5 line 30), the modifying resulting in a modified configuration that is different from the configuration (e.g. Figure 3 component 308 and Figure 5 component 506 and col. 21 lines 7-25).
Eardley et al. fail to disclose (1) the configuration is configuration of a network and 2) the cost-of-change analysis encompasses a quantification of each of the one or more changes, as a function of time, in terms of benefit, risk, penalty, and cost.
However, Cella et al. disclose (1) the modification of configuration of a network (e.g. col. 75 line 55 to col. 76 line 50) and 2) the cost-of-change analysis encompasses a quantification of each of the one or more changes, as a function of time, in terms of benefit, risk, penalty, and cost (e.g. col. 358 lines 32-52 and col. 359 lines 22-41 wherein the cost analysis is done on the collected data in terms of several factors including risk of failure, costs, reliability/penalty, and data collection tradeoffs/benefits). In addition, Clarke, Jr. et al. explicitly disclose 2) the cost-of-change analysis encompasses a quantification of each of the one or more changes, as a function of time, in terms of benefit, penalty, and cost (e.g. abstract, paragraphs [0055 and 0066-0067] wherein the cost analysis is done on the collected data in terms of several factors including the cost and penalty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add disclose (1) the configuration is configuration of a network and 2) the cost-of-change analysis encompasses a quantification of each of the one or more changes, as a function of time, in terms of benefit, risk, penalty, and cost as seen in Cella et al. and Clarke, Jr. et al.’s invention into Eardley et al.’s invention because it would enable to improve the network performance by adjusting with the optimal configuration based on all the factors that would impact the decision.
Re claim 2, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the operations further comprise: prior to the obtaining of the parametric data, identifying the configuration of the network as providing a first performance in a first time scale that is less than a second performance that is available via a second configuration of the network in the first time scale, resulting in a first identification (e.g. Eardley et al. - col. 8 line 65 to col. 9 line 30 and col. 9 line 45 to col. 10 line 45 wherein multiple iteration of system performance is collected to analyze for issue in order to remedy); prior to the obtaining of the parametric data, identifying the configuration of the network as providing a third performance in a second time scale that is greater than a fourth performance that is available via the second configuration of the network in the second time scale, resulting in a second identification (e.g. Eardley et al. - col. 8 line 65 to col. 9 line 30 and col. 9 line 45 to col. 10 line 45 wherein multiple iteration of system performance is collected to analyze for issue in order to remedy); based on the first identification and the second identification, selecting the configuration of the network (e.g. Eardley et al. - col. 17 lines 35-62 where configuration can be manually selected); and based on the selecting and prior to the obtaining of the parametric data, configuring the network in accordance with the configuration of the network (e.g. Eardley et al. - col. 8 line 65 to col. 9 line 30 and col. 9 line 45 to col. 10 line 45 and col. 4 lines 7-55 wherein the system is continuously monitor of performance for improving).
Re claim 3, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the operations further comprise: based on the performing of the cost-of-change analysis indicating that none of the changes of the one or more changes is warranted, maintaining the configuration of the network (e.g. Eardley et al. - col. 20 lines 40-60).
Re claim 4, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis identifies an impact of performing each of the changes of the one or more changes and an impact of performing none of the changes of the one or more changes (e.g. Eardley et al. - col. 9 line 45 to col. 10 line 15 and col. 14 lines 50-65).
Re claim 5, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis comprises identifying a probabilistic duration of an impairment of equipment or infrastructure of the network (e.g. Cella et al. – col. 179 lines 14-18).
Re claim 6, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis comprises identifying a probabilistic duration of an increase in demand on resources of the network relative to at least one threshold (e.g. Eardley et al. – col. 10 lines 15-45).
Re claim 7, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis comprises identifying a capacity of available resources in the network over a first time scale and a capacity of resources of the network in a second time scale that is subsequent to the first time scale, wherein the capacity of resources in the second time scale includes resources allocated to a future growth of the network (e.g. Cella et al. – col. 320 line 45 to col. 321 line 3).
Re claim 8, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis comprises an identification of risk in acquiring the resources allocated to the future growth of the network (e.g. Cella et al. – col. 2 lines 25-60 with risk analysis).
Re claim 9, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis comprises identifying a quality of service that is owed to a first user equipment that obtains access to a first communication service via resources of the network (e.g. Cella et al. – col. 75 lines 5-20), identifying an importance of a subscriber associated with a second user equipment that obtains access to at least a second communication service facilitated via the resources of the network, or a combination thereof, wherein the first communication service is associated with an execution of an application by the first user equipment (e.g. Eardley et al. - abstract).
Re claim 10, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the performing of the cost-of-change analysis indicates that a plurality of changes of the one or more changes is warranted, and wherein the modifying of the configuration of the network comprises enacting the plurality of changes (e.g. Eardley et al. - Figure 3 component 308 and Figure 5 component 506 and col. 21 lines 7-25).
Re claim 11, Eardley et al. in view of Cella et al. disclose in Figures 1-8 the network includes a fiber network, a wireless network, or a combination thereof (e.g. Cella et al. – col. 31 lien 65 to col. 32 line 15 with wireless network).
Re claim 21, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 22, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 23, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 24, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 24 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 25, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 25 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 26, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 26 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 27, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 27 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re claim 28, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 28 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 29, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 29 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/16/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The limitation “wherein the cost-of-change analysis encompasses a quantification of each of the one or more changes, as a function of time, in terms of benefit, risk, penalty and cost” in claims 1, 21 and 28 is not found in the original specification wherein the cost analysis is based on all of these factors: benefit, risk, penalty and cost.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 21-29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 11-15 for claims rejected under abstract idea that the identified abstract idea limitations in the rejection cannot be done in human mind and the examiner does not provide any actual proof for this contention.
The examiner respectfully submits that the rejection does not identify all 4 alleged limitations in page 12 of remark as abstract idea limitations but rather only limitations 2-4 are identified as abstract idea limitations which can be mentally done in human mind as explained under the mental process bucket. Under this mental process bucket, the given data can be considered to process by human mind by performing some analysis/evaluation in order to produce some results by making judgement. The first limitation is considered as additional element which is analyzed under Prong II instead of Prong I of step 2A however the obtaining limitation is well known for collecting/obtaining/gathering the data for analysis which is insignificant amount to the judicial exception as identified in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (g).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2004/0221038 A1
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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451