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
Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1, 2 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 17 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 13, and 14 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-14 are directed to reinforcement learning. Specifically, the claims recite splitting downlink data associated with a plurality of user devices between a first path through the first base station and at least one second path through the at least one second base station, the splitting comprising a plurality of reinforcement learning agents associated with the plurality of user devices, wherein the reinforcement learning agents are caused to perform at least:receiving, as input, observed performance metrics of the first and second paths;generating respective probabilities for the first and second paths by applying a current common neural network policy to the observed performance metrics;selecting a path with a highest probability amongst the first and the second paths based on observed performance metrics of the first and second paths generating a reward associated with the selected path;sending, to a central entity in the radio access network, tuples comprising the selected path, the performance metric associated with the selected paths and the reward associated with the selected path; receiving, from the central entity, an updated common neural policy which is updated based on the tuples;updating the current common neural network policy with the updated common neural network policy|receiving tuples from reinforcement learning agents in the first base station, the reinforcement learning agents being associated with the plurality of user devices, the reinforcement learning agents applying the current common neural network to select a path amongst the first and the second paths based on respective probabilities of the first and second paths obtained by applying the current neural network policy to the observed performance metrics of the first and second paths2 and to generate a reward associated with the selected path, wherein a given tuple comprises a given selected path, a given performance metric associated with the given selected pathz and a given reward associated with the given selected path;generating an updated common neural network policy by maximizing an expected cumulative reward for the received tuples;, which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as at least one processor; and at least one memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the at least one processor; and at least one memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of splitting downlink data associated with a plurality of user devices between a first path through the first base station and at least one second path through the at least one second base station. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are 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, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a at least one processor; and at least one memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of reinforcement learning. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the at least one processor; and at least one memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of splitting downlink data associated with a plurality of user devices between a first path through the first base station and at least one second path through the at least one second base station. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of reinforcement learning. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8-13 further describe the abstract idea of reinforcement learning. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of reinforcement learning which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to reinforcement learning does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to at least one processor; and at least one memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of transmitting the downlink data on the selected path to one of the plurality of user devices| sending the updated common neural network policy to the reinforcement learning agents of the first base station for a next iteration of the splitting of the downlink data based on the updated common neural network policy. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to reinforcement learning does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to at least one processor; and at least one memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of reinforcement learning. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Liu, U.S. Patent App 20190297527, teaches provided are a congestion control method and device, and a base station. The congestion control method includes: determining whether a traffic data flow transmitted by a base station is congested; setting an Internet protocol (IP) data packet in the traffic data flow when the traffic data flow transmitted by the base station is congested, where the set IP data packet is used for indicating that the traffic data flow transmitted by the base station is congested. The present disclosure solves the problem in the existing art that user throughput is affected because a base station only determines whether the base station is congested.
2. Singh, U.S. Patent App 20180206282, teaches a network device (e.g., an evolved Node B (eNB), user equipment (UE) or the like) can split a 3GPP bearer in a multi-radio heterogeneous network of a radio access network (RAN) between a plurality of communication links. The plurality of communication links can comprise a 3GPP link and one or more other multi-radio links of the multi-radio heterogeneous network. The bearer can be split dynamically or statically based on a plurality of heterogeneous network metrics. The network device can further determine the proportions, or ratios of traffic data to be transmitted between the plurality of communication links based on the proportions of the 3GPP bearer split and heterogeneous metrics.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444