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 .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 10/1/2025 where claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
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.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights