Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 06/18/2026.
Claims Status
Claims 17-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 21-24 have been newly added.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending in this application
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 .
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0022155), the prior art discloses that he user equipment determines, based on the TAC and a tracking area list (TAL), whether the TAL needs to be updated; see abstract. If it is determined that the TAL needs to be updated, the user equipment sends a tracking area update request to the network device; see abstract.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are allowed over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant remarks, filed on 06/18/2026, argues that claim 1 as a whole integrates the concept of identifying user equipment, based on usage, into a patent-eligible practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Specifically, the claim is rooted in a telecommunications provisioning context and is directed to producing a concrete provisioning artifact tied to a tracking area code (TAC) for 5G SA upgrade control. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments to the claims provide further details regarding the manipulation of the data (e.g. joining/filtering data sets), but fails to integrated the concept in such a way that changes/improves the operations of the network. As a result, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant remarks, filed on 06/18/2026, argues that claim 9 as a whole integrates the concept of identifying user equipment, based on usage, into a patent-eligible practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Specifically, the claim is rooted in a telecommunications provisioning context and is directed to producing a concrete provisioning artifact tied to a tracking area code (TAC) for 5G SA upgrade control. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments to the claims provide further details regarding the manipulation of the data (e.g. identifying a base station based to usage information), but fails to integrated the concept in such a way that changes/improves the operations of the network. As a result, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
“a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising”:
“determining a set of base stations in a tracking area having a tracking area code (TAC), wherein user equipment of a subscriber will be upgraded for fifth generation (5G) stand-alone (SA) service in the tracking area”;
“identifying a plurality of user equipment that each use one or more base stations in the set more than any other base stations outside of the set“; and
“providing a listing of the plurality of user equipment and the TAC of the tracking area associated with the one or more base stations in the set to a provisioning subsystem”
“wherein the providing comprises: generating an enablement table by joining (i) a first dataset associating respective user equipment identifiers with respective base stations and (ii) a second dataset associating respective base stations with respective TACs, resulting in a joined result”; and
“filtering the joined result to obtain the listing”.
Under step 2A prong one, the limitations:
The limitations “determining a set of base stations in a tracking area having a tracking area code (TAC), wherein user equipment of a subscriber will be upgraded for fifth generation (5G) stand-alone (SA) service in the tracking area” and “identifying a plurality of user equipment that each use one or more base stations in the set more than any other base stations outside of the set“ only work on a set of data, which would be practical to be performed in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). As result, the claim is not patent eligible because recites limitations that comprise mental steps.
In addition, the limitations “generating an enablement table by joining (i) a first dataset associating respective user equipment identifiers with respective base stations and (ii) a second dataset associating respective base stations with respective TACs, resulting in a joined result” and “filtering the joined result to obtain the listing” only work on a set of data, which would be practical to be performed in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). As result, the claim is not patent eligible because recites limitations that comprise mental steps.
Under step 2A prong two, the additional limitations:
The additional limitation “a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising” is reciting a generic computer tool used to implement the abstract idea, while the additional limitation “providing a listing of the plurality of user equipment and the TAC of the tracking area associated with the one or more base stations in the set to a provisioning subsystem” only transmit the result of the mental process. Thus, the additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As result, the claim is not patent eligible because the limitations comprise mental steps, and the additional limitations fail to integrate the mental steps into a practical application.
Under step 2B, inventive concept of the claim:
The additional limitation “providing a listing of the plurality of user equipment and the TAC of the tracking area associated with the one or more base stations in the set to a provisioning subsystem” capture the concept of data transmission, but MPEP §2106.05(d) notes that the courts have recognized the transmission of data over a network as a function that has commonly found to be well understood conventional and routine. As result, the additional limitation fails to transform the abstract idea into something significantly more than the idea itself.
Claim 2 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein the set of radio base stations are configured to provide access to a user plane providing 5G SA service to the plurality of user equipment”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 2, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 3 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein the user equipment is identified by a Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN)”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 3, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 4 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein the user equipment is identified by a Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI)”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 4, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 5 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein using a base station more than another base station comprises accessing the base station for a longer duration than the another base station”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 6 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein using a base station more than another base station comprises accessing the base station more frequently than the another base station”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 6, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 7 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein the provisioning subsystem upgrades the plurality of user equipment for 5G SA service”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 7, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 8 recites the “device of claim 1, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 8, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
“a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising”:
“determining a set of base stations in a tracking area having a tracking area code (TAC), wherein user equipment of a subscriber will be upgraded for fifth generation (5G) stand-alone (SA) service in the tracking area”;
“identifying a plurality of user equipment that each most frequently use a radio base station in the tracking area”; and
“wherein: the identifying comprises automatically computing, for each respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment, a primary radio base station based on an objective usage metric derived from network usage data”; and
“selecting the primary radio base station as a radio base station accessed more than other radio base stations according to the objective usage metric”;
“wherein the objective usage metric comprises at least one of a duration of access to the primary radio base station during a time period, a frequency of access to the primary radio base station during the time period, or a combination thereof”; and
“wherein the network usage data comprises at least one of historical call detail records (CDRs), geo-location call data, user equipment registration data, or a combination thereof”;
“providing a listing of the plurality of user equipment and the TAC of the tracking area associated with the one or more base stations in the set to a provisioning subsystem”.
Under step 2A prong one, the limitations:
The limitations “determining a set of base stations in a tracking area having a tracking area code (TAC), wherein user equipment of a subscriber will be upgraded for fifth generation (5G) stand-alone (SA) service in the tracking area” and “identifying a plurality of user equipment that each most frequently use a radio base station in the tracking area” only work on a set of data, which would be practical to be performed in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). As result, the claim is not patent eligible because recites limitations that comprise mental steps.
In addition, the limitations “wherein: the identifying comprises automatically computing, for each respective user equipment of the plurality of user equipment, a primary radio base station based on an objective usage metric derived from network usage data”,
“selecting the primary radio base station as a radio base station accessed more than other radio base stations according to the objective usage metric”,
“wherein the objective usage metric comprises at least one of a duration of access to the primary radio base station during a time period, a frequency of access to the primary radio base station during the time period, or a combination thereof”, and
“wherein the network usage data comprises at least one of historical call detail records (CDRs), geo-location call data, user equipment registration data, or a combination thereof” only work on a set of data, which would be practical to be performed in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). As result, the claim is not patent eligible because recites limitations that comprise mental steps.
Under step 2A prong two, the additional limitations:
The additional limitation “a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising” is reciting a generic computer tool used to implement the abstract idea, while the additional limitation “providing a listing of the plurality of user equipment and the TAC of the tracking area associated with the one or more base stations in the set to a provisioning subsystem” only transmit the result of the mental process. Thus, the additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As result, the claim is not patent eligible because the limitations comprise mental steps, and the additional limitations fail to integrate the mental steps into a practical application.
Under step 2B, inventive concept of the claim:
The additional limitation “providing a listing of the plurality of user equipment and the TAC of the tracking area associated with the one or more base stations in the set to a provisioning subsystem” capture the concept of data transmission, but MPEP §2106.05(d) notes that the courts have recognized the transmission of data over a network as a function that has commonly found to be well understood conventional and routine. As result, the additional limitation fails to transform the abstract idea into something significantly more than the idea itself.
Claims 10-16 are directed towards a NT-CRM rather than the apparatus of claim 1. However, the same rationale applies to claims 10-16 as provided in the rejection to claims 2-8. As result, claims 10-16 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472 /KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights