DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. To start with MPEP 2111.04 states that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”. The amendment to claim 1 merely is a further description of what the data is, but it does not add additional steps to the method. Even if it did MPEP 2106.05(g) is clear that data gathering that is only a nominal addition to the claim does not provide a practical application or significantly more. It is unclear to the examiner how a well-understood activity such as making signal strength measurements would accomplish that.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
294
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Claims at best provide a estimate of coverage. There is no recitation of how that information is used to improve network performance. Applicant has referred below to example 25. The mathematical calculations in that case are actually used to aid the rubber curing process. The instant claims don’t go beyond the level of coming up with an answer to a homework problem.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a) an improved abstract idea is not an improvement in technology (“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. “).
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
334
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. To start with MPEP 2111.04 states that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”. The amendment to claim 1 merely is a further description of what the data is, but it does not add additional steps to the method. Even if it did MPEP 2106.05(g) is clear that data gathering that is only a nominal addition to the claim does not provide a practical application or significantly more. It is unclear to the examiner how a well-understood activity such as making signal strength measurements would accomplish that.
Instant claims are similar to example 47 claim 2 where a dataset is input into a model and an output is obtained. The instant claims just like that example, merely provide an output and don’t use the output to adjust/control system operation. Thus the examiner disagrees that there is a defined technological process. Putting inputs into a model and getting an output is not a technical process.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
166
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Instant claims are similar to example 47 claim 2 where a dataset is input into a model and an output is obtained. The instant claims just like that example, merely provide an output and don’t use the output to adjust/control system operation. Thus the examiner disagrees that there is a defined technological process. Putting inputs into a model and getting an output is not a technical process. Example 25 actually uses the calculations to improve rubber curing. The instant claims don’t recite how the output is used to improve network operation.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
236
641
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. To start with MPEP 2111.04 states that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”. The amendment to claim 1 merely is a further description of what the data is, but it does not add additional steps to the method. Even if it did MPEP 2106.05(g) is clear that data gathering that is only a nominal addition to the claim does not provide a practical application or significantly more. It is unclear to the examiner how a well-understood activity such as making signal strength measurements would accomplish that.
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
174
644
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Example 47 claim 2 is clear that providing an output based on mathematical or other modeling is not a technical problem, but could at best represent an improved abstract idea. An improved abstract idea is not a technical solution. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Argument:
PNG
media_image7.png
160
638
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. To start with MPEP 2111.04 states that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”. The amendment to claim 1 merely is a further description of what the data is, but it does not add additional steps to the method. Even if it did MPEP 2106.05(g) is clear that data gathering that is only a nominal addition to the claim does not provide a practical application or significantly more. It is unclear to the examiner how a well-understood activity such as making signal strength measurements would accomplish that.
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 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention (step 1).
Exemplary claims 1-10 recite:
1. (Original) A computer implemented method of determining above ground coverage of a mobile telecommunications network, the method comprising:receiving data representative of coverage of the mobile telecommunications network at a plurality of ground based locations, wherein the data representative of coverage of the mobile telecommunications network at the plurality of ground based locations is based on measurements of a signal received at the plurality of ground based locations, wherein the signal is transmitted over the mobile telecommunications network; identifying a location above ground for which coverage of the mobile telecommunications network is to be determined; selecting a subset of the data representative of coverage at the plurality of ground based locations, wherein the subset comprises data representative of coverage of the mobile telecommunications network at a subset of the ground based locations and wherein selecting the subset comprises selecting the subset of the ground based locations in dependence on their location relative to the identified location above ground; providing a property of the identified location above ground and the selected subset of data representative of coverage at ground based locations as inputs to a prediction model, configured through training, to determine coverage of a mobile telecommunications network at locations above ground in dependence on data representative of coverage of the mobile telecommunications network at one or more ground based locations; and implementing the prediction model to generate an output in dependence on the provided inputs, wherein the output of the model is representative of the coverage of the mobile telecommunications network at the identified location above ground.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the subset of the ground based locations in dependence on their location relative to the identified location above ground comprises: selecting a subset of N ground based locations which are the N closest of the plurality of ground based locations to the identified location above ground, wherein N is an integer equal to or greater than 1.
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the subset of the ground based locations in dependence on their location relative to the identified location above ground comprises: selecting all of the ground based locations which are positioned within a distance threshold of the identified location above ground.
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the data representative of coverage of the mobile telecommunications network at a plurality of ground based locations is based on measurements indicative of coverage of the mobile telecommunications made at a plurality of ground based locations.
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the prediction model is configured through supervised training using a plurality of training data records, the plurality of training data records being derived from measurements indicative of the coverage of a mobile telecommunications made at both ground based and above ground locations.
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the selected subset of data representative of coverage at the subset of ground based locations comprises at least one of a received signal power, a received signal quality and a timing advance at each of the subset of the ground based locations.
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the selected subset of data representative of coverage at the plurality of ground based locations comprises data representative of network coverage provided by a serving cell at each of the subset of the ground based locations.
8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the selected subset of data representative of coverage at the subset of ground based locations comprises data representative of network coverage provided by a plurality of cells at each of the subset of the ground based locations.
9. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1,further comprising providing at least one further input to the prediction model, wherein the at least one further input is based on the geographical position of the identified location above ground and/or the geographical positions of the selected subset of the ground based locations.
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1,further comprising performing feature engineering based on the selected subset of data representative of coverage at ground based locations to determine at least one further input to the prediction model.
But for the recitation of the underlined and bolded elements, claims 1-10 recites a judicial exception. The identifying and selecting steps of claim 1 (further refined by dependent claims) under the broadest reasonable interpretation encompass mental observations and/or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. The providing step and subsequent dependent claims illustrate subject matter that under the broadest reasonable interpretation encompass mathematical calculations. Training a machine learning model is known to be done by making mathematical calculations (see spec paragraph 168). Based on the above, claims 1-10 recite an abstract idea (step 2A_1).
The additional elements comprise
1) computer implementation
2) data gathering/output (bolded)
3) model application
The computer implementation and model application provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, which per MPEP 2106.05(f) means they do not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding the data gathering/output, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting and per MPEP 2106.05(g) are insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Data gathering/output is also regarded as conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 regarding data output and Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) regarding receiving data)and therefore additional not significantly more per step 2B.
Thus claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more (Step 2A_2 and Step 2B) and are ineligible.
Claims 11-22 contain similar limitations to claims 1-10 and are considered ineligible for substantially the same reasons.
Also the examiner brings attention to subject matter eligibility materials at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
Instant claims are considered to be similar to claim Example 47 claim 2.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Swift (US 20040110518 A1) discloses a 3D interference model being generated based on ground and above ground measurements. Murphy (US 20180293897 A1) discloses generating a coverage model based on base station and environmental data. Neubauer (US 11763683 B2) discloses generating a 3D model based on measurements. Ma (US 12356209 B2) discloses coverage prediction using machine learning. None of the cited art discloses claims 1-22.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights