DETAILED ACTION
The applicant amended claim 68 in the amendment filed on
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
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the applicant’s remarks filed on 09/03/2025, with respect to claims 50, 64, and 68 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 50, 64, and 68 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s): “clustering a number of network cells into a number of cell clusters…”. The limitation covers mathematical relationships and falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. For example, “clustering” encompasses a process of organizing information though mathematical correlations.
The claim recites: “determining one network cell of respective cell cluster to be a representor cell…” and “determining at least one action to be performed for configuring at least one operation parameter…”. The limitations covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) and falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea. For example, “determining” encompasses an evaluation on selection of a cell and an action to be performed.
The claim recites: “obtaining at least one cell feature…”. The limitation is considered insignificant extra solution activity as it is mere data gathering.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites a method performing the recited steps apparently by a computer that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because. As mentioned above, using a computer to perform the steps is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception or merely using the computer as a tool or aid to perform mathematical concepts or evaluation corresponding to an abstract idea.
Claims 51-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are rejected with the same reasoning as claim 50 because they incorporate the same abstract idea as claim 50 and similarly do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) for the same reasoning as claim 50.
Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims further recites “provide information enabling the at least one action…”. The claims recite an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) for the same reasoning as claim 50.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 68, the limitation, “whereby respective network node may cause the at least one action to be performed” in lines 23-24 is not clear whether the node performs the action or not.
Claim 69 is likewise rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50-69 would be allowable if the 101 and 112(b) rejections are resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOON H HWANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447