DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 23 October 2025.
Claims 17 – 20, 23 – 28, and 31 – 37 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 23 October 2025. Claims 17 – 20, 23 – 28, and 31 – 37 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 23 October 2025, Applicant amended claims 17, 25, and 33. Applicant previously cancelled claims 1 – 16, 21, 22, 29, and 30.
Amendments to claims 17, 25, and 33 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 17 – 20, 23 – 28, and 31 – 37 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims do not recite an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that the system uses data that is particular to a technology, but a claim to an implementation of particular technology for the claimed function is still not present. The analysis of technical data can be performed without any technology at all. Accessing data from a telecommunications network does not describe how it is accessed, and the technical data is then analyzed through manual means. While the addition to the independent clams that the accessing is of “voice or data transmissions transmitted by the telecommunications network via technology infrastructure of a vendor,” that does not clarify the function of accessing. In this context, accessing could be receiving or obtaining files, which is still abstract and does not require technology. The claims do not describe the functions being performed automatically or that any particular technology necessary to carry them out. Claims remain properly rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 17 – 20, 23 – 28, and 31 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite receiving a request to identify a product or service for a target market segment within a designated market region, accessing voice or data transmissions, based on voice or data transmissions, determining service data that includes network latency data, jitter data, echo data, packet loss data, downlink throughput data, excessive tilt indications data, and uplink throughput data, based on the service data that includes the network latency data, the jitter data, the echo data, the packet loss data, the downlink throughput data, the excessive tilt indications data, or the uplink throughput data, determining a quality of service index of the telecommunications network, wherein the quality of service index comprises normalized numerical values that reflect incremental grades of the quality of service index, retrieving, from the one or more vendor platforms, market segment data associated with the designated market region, the market segment data including data relating to product or service offerings within individual market segments of the designated market region and data indicating that the vendor is operating a wireless network that includes the telecommunications network, generating performance metrics associated with the individual market segments, based at least in part on the market segment data and the quality of service index, the performance metrics indicating a viability of the vendor product or service offering within the individual market segments, parsing the market segment data, the quality of service index, and the performance metrics to identify data patterns between the individual market segments, determining that a similarity between the target market segment and an additional market segment of the individual market segments is greater than a predetermined similarity threshold, based at least in part on the data patterns of the individual market segments; and identifying the vendor product or service offering based at least in part on the market segment data and the quality of service index that are associated with the additional market segment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the computer readable media, the system, and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of targeted marketing business techniques, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as claim functionality can be performed through analysis and determinations in the human mind. Particularly, "receiving... a request..."; “accessing…data transmission;” “determining service data…;” “determining a quality of service index…;” "retrieving... market segment data...;" generating performance metrics...;" "parsing the market segment data and the performance metrics...;" "determining... a similarity...," and; "identifying the vendor product or service..." are all mental processes. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving a request to identify a product or service for a target market segment within a designated market region, accessing voice or data transmissions, based on voice or data transmissions, determining service data that includes network latency data, jitter data, echo data, packet loss data, downlink throughput data, excessive tilt indications data, and uplink throughput data, based on the service data that includes the network latency data, the jitter data, the echo data, the packet loss data, the downlink throughput data, the excessive tilt indications data, or the uplink throughput data, determining a quality of service index of the telecommunications network, wherein the quality of service index comprises normalized numerical values that reflect incremental grades of the quality of service index, retrieving, from the one or more vendor platforms, market segment data associated with the designated market region, the market segment data including data relating to product or service offerings within individual market segments of the designated market region and data indicating that the vendor is operating a wireless network that includes the telecommunications network, generating performance metrics associated with the individual market segments, based at least in part on the market segment data and the quality of service index, the performance metrics indicating a viability of the vendor product or service offering within the individual market segments, parsing the market segment data, the quality of service index, and the performance metrics to identify data patterns between the individual market segments, determining that a similarity between the target market segment and an additional market segment of the individual market segments is greater than a predetermined similarity threshold, based at least in part on the data patterns of the individual market segments; and identifying the vendor product or service offering based at least in part on the market segment data and the quality of service index that are associated with the additional market segment.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions, telecommunications network, processors, various platforms, and memory, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: non-transitory computer readable media storing computer-executable instructions, telecommunications network, processors, various platforms, and memory. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. The data is technical in nature, but claims do not recite steps that perform technical features. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computers cannot provide an inventive concept. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of associated data types for data patterns and defining performance metrics, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625