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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments submitted on 4/13/2026 in their entirety.
Applicant’s arguments regarding optimization are unpersuasive. The claim does not recite an actual improvement to the function of a computer, network, or other technology within the metes and bounds of the claim as required under MPEP 2106.05(a) (see example below. Rather, the claim recites receiving information, normalizing information, generating adjusted values, generating an estimate, and determining whether a threshold is met. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the rejection.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s reliance on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and subsequent updates thereto. However, the cited guidance does not alter the requirement that a claim recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, network, or other technology in order to integrate the judicial exception, into a practical application. As discussed above, the claim merely recites receiving, normalizing, an analyzing KPI information, generating an estimate, and determining whether a threshold is met, without reciting an actual technological improvement within the metes and bounds of the claim.
The Examiner notes that the independent claims (e.g. claim 1) presently stops at generating an estimate and determining whether a threshold is met. By way of non-limiting example only, claims that utilize such information to control or modify operation of a technological component (e.g. adjusting transmission parameters, antenna parameters, resource allocation, scheduling, or other network operations) may present a different Step 2A Prong Two analysis. However, no such conclusion is reached herein, and the Examiner makes no finding regarding subject matter not presently claimed. Applicant remains responsible for defining the invention, acting as its own lexicographer, and providing adequate written description support for any future amendments.
Examples:
“... in response to the adjusted Normalized Quantitative KPIs falling below a threshold, automatically modifying a transmit power parameter of a base station antenna ...”
“... reallocating radio resources among user devices based on the adjusted Normalized Quantitative KPIs”
The foregoing examples are hypothetical examples provided solely to illustrate the distinction between data analysis and a potential technological improvement. No find is made that such subject matter is supported by the present specification or would otherwise be patentable. Applicant remains responsible for defining the invention and providing adequate written description support for any amendment.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner has conducted the following analysis as detailed below:
Step 2A, Prong One- Directed to an Abstract Idea
The claimed invention (e.g. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15) recites a series of operations including:
Obtaining network data
Receiving user -level qualitative and quantitative KPIs
Normalizing quantitative KPIs based on trend deviations
Updating adjusted normalized KPI values
These limitations collectively describe collecting information, analyzing the information using mathematical techniques (normalization, threshold, comparison, trend deviation analysis), and generating adjusted values based on the analysis.
Such operations constitute mathematical concepts and data analysis, which are recognized categories of abstract ideas. The recited “normalizers”, “thresholds”, and “trend updates” amount to rules and calculations applied to data, rather thana technical process that alters the operation of a machine or network.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – No Integration in to a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claims reference a core network, a RAN, and KPIs associated with a wireless network, these elements merely provide a field of use or technological environment in which the abstract ideal is applied. The claims do not recite:
Any modification to network signaling
Any change in radio resource management
Any control of network behavior based on the normalized KPIs.
Any improvement to throughput, latency, reliability, or handover performance, or
Any technical mechanism by which the calculations effect network operation
The claims terminate the generation of normalized and adjusted KPI values, without requiring those values to be applied to control, configure, or improve the operation of the network itself. As such, the claims merely use the abstract idea in a technological context, which is insufficient to constitute integration into a practical application
Step 2B – No inventive Concept
The claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract ideal into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements recited – such as receiving data at a multi-scale normalizer or a “trend deviation based KPI normalizer” – are described only in functional terms and do not impose any non-conventional or non-generic processing. The claims do not specify any particular architecture, algorithmic improvement, or technical implementation that goes beyond, applying known analytical techniques to received data.
The use of generic network components to obtain data, followed by normalization and adjustment calculations, constitutes routine and conventional activity in data analytics systems. Merely performing the abstract idea on network-related data does not amount to significantly more.
The Examiner has also reviewed and analyzed the dependent claims. The dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As an example, claim 18 elaborates the trend deviation-based normalization by adding:
Counting events (trend shift count, incrementing)
Comparing counts to thresholds
Checking elapsed observation periods
Conditional branching (“if period passed/not passed’ “if ratio is greater than/not greater than”)
Declaring a trend shift after repeated satisfaction of conditions.
Feeding that declared trend shift back into normalization.
Every added step is still:
Count [Wingdings font/0xE0]compare [Wingdings font/0xE0] decide [Wingdings font/0xE0]output numbers
Even though the claims is longer and procedural, it remains directed to:
Mathematical relationships
Statistical Trend detection
Rule-based decision logic
The dependent claim includes abstract parameters, not physical or technical mechanisms. No part of the claim modifies network operation, alters RAN behavior, Controls scheduling, handover or resources, improves a computing system itself.
Conclusion
Because the claims are directed to an abstract ideal and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, claim 1-20 are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights