Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the “YES” and “NO” leading from fig. 3, step 316, are transposed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (judicial exception) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims recite capacity dimensioning of cell sites which is an abstract idea and a mental process according to prong 1 of step 2A of the 2019 (2024) subject matter eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A); note: counter-examples of eligibility as Electric Power Group and Classen Immunotherapies; “In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); … [and]
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)…”).
Additionally, according to prong 1 of step 2A of the 2019 (2024) subject matter eligibility guidance, the specification of the instant application identifies the mental process as calculating a number of cell sites for a sub-area based on a user input (generally, paras. 27-30 and specifically, para. 28, penultimate sentence; fig. 5).
The claims fail to provide an additional element beyond the judicial exception or an integration into a practical application for prong 2 of step 2A of the guidance. For example, the recitations of a computing apparatus (processor) and memory for performing the determinations (figs. 4-5) fail to add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A), “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984; [and]
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984…”).
Further, the claims fail to include additional elements that are significantly more than a judicial exception for step 2B of the guidance (note: the independent claims simply include displaying a determination without adopting the determinations by configuring the network or exchanging operating mode information to improve the network or network devices (MPEP 2106.05(a), (d) and (g), see BASCOM as improving a computer or network itself as an eligible method; see Electric Power Group and Mortgage Grader where monitoring and data manipulation are ineligible methods). Examiner notes the specification of the instant application, mentions deploying or upgrading the cell sites to improve a telecommunications network (para. 19, third, sentence; para. 31, last sentence).
Although the improvement is in the area of telecommunication networks, the improvement of the claims for making or displaying determinations is insufficient by itself to improve a telecommunication network. The improvement of a telecommunications network would require the network to be adjusted for the determined cell sites (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), second paragraph,
“…However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology…. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach, whether alone or in combination, the claimed invention as a whole, and in particular, determining a number of cell sites for a sub-area in a target service area based on a determined number of coverage sites and a number of capacity sites, both of which are based on determinations using the respective inputs as claimed. The closest prior art is: Bourgeois et al. (US 2023/0345257) for disclosing coverage of UEs (paras. 72 and 77; figs. 4-5) and adding to the number of cell sites based on the coverage (para. 99 and fig. 8, item 83); Shafran et al. (US 2003/0186693; figs. 1-2; paras. 34 and 36; note: frequency allocation) and Sawaya et al. (US 2006/0240834; figs. 1-2 and 5; note: allocating a number of transceivers) for optimizing the allocation of a network by analyzing sub-areas having sub-types; and, Bales et al. (US 8,265,634) for calculating and displaying a number of sites for initial deployment (figs. 2-3 and 8-9; col. 4, lines 51-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462