DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/769,351 filed on February 19, 2026, has been entered. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are currently amended. New Claims 21-37 are added. Claims 1, 8, 15 and 21-37 are pending and are examined.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered by the Examiner and are persuasive.
Specifically, on page 8 of the response filed February 19, 2026, Applicant argues, “Modern wireless networks must be constantly upgraded to meet the performance
expectations of the customer base. These equipment upgrades are typically directed toward ‘increasing bandwidth, increasing UE handling capacity, changing frequencies, restoring performance from a degraded condition, increasing transmit power, and increasing receiver sensitivity’ (Specification, ¶ 25) and are scheduled across the locations (e.g., cells) of the wireless network based on static criteria (e.g., population density, etc.) with the goal of upgrading network performance in a strategic fashion. However, from a practical standpoint, the user's perceived network performance at a given location is often impacted by various dynamic factors and is therefore difficult to optimize based on static factors alone.
The claimed approach addresses this problem by dynamically re-prioritizing a scheduled equipment upgrade based on a customer inquiry pertaining to network performance at a given location. This allows operators to more effectively prioritize equipment upgrades across different network locations to have the greatest impact on customer experience. See Specification, ¶ 13.
These benefits reflect a technical improvement in the field of telecommunications and therefore serves to integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. For these reasons, proposed claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite features similar to the above-discussed features of independent claim 1 and are likewise patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more is hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to Claims1, 8 and 15 has overcome the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 5, 2025. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 21-24, 30-33, 35 and 36 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “verifying a validity of the performance issue indicated by the inquiry based on crowdsourced measurements from other UEs connected to the same base station as the UE” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the same base station” in the claims.
Dependent Claims 22-24 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 21 in view of their dependence thereon.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to replace the term “the same base station” with “a same base station” to overcome the rejection.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 30 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 21.
Dependent Claims 31 and 32 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 30 in view of their dependence thereon.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 35 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 21.
Dependent Claim 362 is rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 35 in view of its dependence thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 26, 27, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mermoud et al., Pub. No. US 2024/0406081 A1, hereby “Mermoud”, in view of Austin et al., Pub. No. US 2011/0275364 A1, hereby “Austin”, and in further view of Cote et al., Pub. No. US 2020/0106714 A1, hereby “Cote”.
Regarding Claim 1, Mermoud discloses “A method (Mermoud fig. 6 and paragraphs 10, 60 and 100: a method for conversational network assurance using large language models) comprising:
receiving a first inquiry from a first user equipment (UE) (Mermoud figs. 2, 4, 5 and 6 and paragraphs 55, 61, 69, 93-95 and 100: conversational agent 402 receives a natural language textual input regarding a networking issue, e.g., degraded performance, from a user device);
based on at least the inquiry, identifying a location of the UE within the wireless network (Mermoud Tables 2 and 4, paragraphs 74-76 and 101: the location in the network of the user device is determined);” and
responding, using a third AI model, to the first inquiry... (Mermoud figs. 5 and 6, Tables 2 and 4, and paragraphs 95 and 104: conversational agent 402 provides a textual response comprising information from the answers received from the network question and answer agent 404 to the user device).”
However, while Mermoud discloses that the conversational agent submits questions to a network question and answer agent, i.e., a second AI model, and receives answers pertaining to the networking issue from the network question and answer agent that are based on the location of the endpoint (Mermoud Tables 2 and 4 and paragraphs 95 and 101-102), Mermoud does not explicitly disclose “identifying, using a second AI model, a scheduled equipment upgrade, within a preexisting plan of scheduled equipment upgrades, that will improve performance of the wireless network at the location of the UE (emphasis added);
increasing a priority of the scheduled equipment upgrade based at least on the inquiry such that the scheduled equipment upgrade is scheduled earlier in the preexisting plan of scheduled equipment upgrades, wherein the priority of the scheduled equipment upgrade is increased in accordance with a gradient boosting prioritization algorithm; and
responding, using a third AI model, to the inquiry with information about the scheduled equipment upgrade that identifies a date on which the selected equipment upgrade has been scheduled (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Austin discloses “identifying, using a second AI model, a scheduled equipment upgrade, within a preexisting plan of scheduled equipment upgrades, that will improve performance of the wireless network at the location of the UE (Austin fig. 1 and paragraphs 35-38, 40 and 42-43: feedback system 140 identifies existing network development plans for adding capacity or improving coverage or performance based on the location associated with a network performance incident);” and
“responding... to the inquiry with information about the scheduled equipment upgrade that identifies a date on which the selected equipment upgrade has been scheduled Austin figs. 1A and 16 and paragraphs 32, 35-38, 42 and 108: network platform 120 provides feedback 150 including specific information related to the existing network development plans to user device 104 that reported the network performance incident, wherein the specific information may indicate when capacity additions will be deployed).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Mermoud, to respond to the user with specific information related to existing network development plans that are expected to address the networking issue as taught by Austin because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (providing feedback including specific information related to existing network development plans in response to reporting of a network performance issue) to known devices and/or methods (a method for conversational network assurance) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (informing the user network development plans that will address the reported network issue). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
However, while Austin discloses identifying existing network development plans for adding capacity or improving coverage or performance based on the location associated with a network performance incident (Austin paragraphs 35-38, 40 and 42-43), the combination of Mermoud and Austin does not explicitly disclose “increasing a priority of the scheduled equipment upgrade based at least on the inquiry such that the scheduled equipment upgrade is scheduled earlier in the preexisting plan of scheduled equipment upgrades, wherein the priority of the scheduled equipment upgrade is increased in accordance with a gradient boosting prioritization algorithm”.
In the same field of endeavor, Cote discloses adaptively scheduling and planning maintenance actions based on internal and external data, e.g., aggregated contextual customer complaints in a geographic area using a machine learning model that may comprise a gradient boosting algorithm (Cote figs. 2 and 4 and paragraphs 53-54, 58 and 69-70: using machine-learning module 226, network maintenance module 224 may adaptively impact field operation maintenance activities automatically based on internal data and or external data, e.g., aggregated contextual customer complaints in a geographic area, wherein the machine learning module 226 may comprise a gradient boosting machine-learning algorithm – while not explicitly stated, reprioritizing, e.g., increasing priority, is inferred by “adaptively” scheduling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Mermoud, as modified by Austin, to adaptively schedule the planned capacity additions or performance or coverage improvements at the user location based on the reported performance incident as taught by Cote. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine adaptively scheduling the planned capacity additions or performance or coverage improvements at the user location based on the reported performance incident to improve network customer satisfaction (Cote paragraph 53).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Mermoud discloses “A system (Mermoud fig. 2 and paragraphs 28 and 60-62: device 200) comprising:
a processor (Mermoud fig. 2 and paragraph 28: one or more processors 220); and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor... (Mermoud fig. 2 and paragraphs 28, 30 and 100: memory 240 including computer executable instructions implementing conversational assurance process 249)”.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Mermoud discloses “One or more computer storage devices having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which, upon execution by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations... (Mermoud fig. 6 and paragraphs 10, 60, 100 and 108: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions implementing conversational network assurance using large language models)”.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
Additionally, Austin discloses “wherein the scheduled equipment upgrade increases UE handling capacity at the location of the UE (Austin paragraphs 42 and 86: existing network development plans may comprise plans for new cell site builds, i.e., increase UE handling capacity).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, to respond to the user with specific information related to existing network development plans that are expected to address the networking issue as taught by Austin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
Additionally, Austin discloses “wherein the scheduled equipment upgrade introduces new frequencies at the location of the UE (Austin paragraphs 42 and 86: existing network development plans may comprise plans for acquisition of additional licenses to portions of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, i.e., new frequencies).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, to respond to the user with specific information related to existing network development plans that are expected to address the networking issue as taught by Austin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Austin discloses “wherein the scheduled equipment upgrade increases bandwidth, increases UE handling capacity, introduces new frequencies, increases transmit power, or increases receiver sensitivity at the location of the UE (Austin paragraphs 42 and 86: existing network development plans may comprise plans for new cell site builds, i.e., increase UE handling capacity).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Mermoud, to respond to the user with specific information related to existing network development plans that are expected to address the networking issue as taught by Austin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 37 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 34.
Claims 21-24, 30-33, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote in view of Blake et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0409980 A1, hereby “Blake”.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
However, while Austin discloses causing the user device to perform diagnostic cycles including latency and data rate measurements in response to reporting of a network performance incident (Austin paragraphs 33, 57 and 68), the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote does not explicitly disclose “verifying a validity of the performance issue indicated by the inquiry based on crowdsourced measurements from other UEs connected to the same base station as the UE.”
In the same field of endeavor, Blake discloses “verifying a validity of the performance issue indicated by the inquiry based on crowdsourced measurements from other UEs connected to the same base station as the UE (Blake paragraphs 33, 54 and 64: “A network operator may verify that subjective user dissatisfaction, as evidenced by the number of status checks, is matched by a corresponding reduction in one or more objective measurements experienced by that same set of users and checked against any other nearby users (for example, connected to, or via, the same resource--BTS, RNC, transmission link, etc.).”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to verify existence of the networking issue using measurement data obtained from other user devices connected to the same resource as taught by Blake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine verifying existence of a networking issue using measurement data obtained from other user devices to confirm that some form of network disruption actually exists (Blake paragraph 33).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Mermoud, Austin, Cote and Blake discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Additionally, Blake discloses “wherein the crowdsourced measurements indicate data rate measurements (Blake paragraphs 54 and 64: the measurements may comprise received and transmitted data rates).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to verify existence of the networking issue using measurement data obtained from other user devices connected to the same resource as taught by Blake for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Mermoud, Austin, Cote and Blake discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Additionally, Blake discloses “wherein the crowdsourced measurements indicate data rate measurements (Blake paragraphs 54 and 64: the measurements may comprise voice quality, bit error rate, signal-to-interference and noise and distortion (SINAD), i.e., signal quality measurements).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to verify existence of the networking issue using measurement data obtained from other user devices connected to the same resource as taught by Blake for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Mermoud, Austin, Cote and Blake discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Additionally, Blake discloses “wherein the crowdsourced measurements indicate radio frequency power strengths (Blake paragraphs 54 and 64: the measurements may comprise received signal strength and transmitter output power).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to verify existence of the networking issue using measurement data obtained from other user devices connected to the same resource as taught by Blake for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 21.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 30 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 21.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 31 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 22.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 32 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 23.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 33 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 24.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 35 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 21.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 36 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 22.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote in view of Wakim, Pub. No. US 2023/0239725 A1.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
However, while Austin discloses wherein the network development plans may comprise plans for new cell site builds (Austin paragraphs 42 and 86), the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote does not explicitly disclose “wherein the scheduled equipment upgrade increases bandwidth at the location of the UE.”
In the same field of endeavor, Wakim discloses wherein a network upgrade to a geographical region may increase bandwidth (Wakim fig. 1 and paragraphs 21-23: an upgrade to a cell site may increase bandwidth).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to increase bandwidth at the location associated with the network performance incident as taught by Wakim because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (increase bandwidth) for another (new cell site builds) to obtain predictable and desirable results (improving performance at the network location). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote in view of Li et al., Pub. No. US 2020/0336923 A1, hereby “Li”.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
However, while Austin discloses wherein the network development plans may comprise plans for new cell site builds (Austin paragraphs 42 and 86), the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote does not explicitly disclose “wherein the scheduled equipment upgrade increases transmit power at the location of the UE.”
In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein a cell upgrade may increase transmit power (Li paragraphs 25 and 35: cell enhancement may comprise increasing transmit power).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to increase bandwidth at the location associated with the network performance incident as taught by Li because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (increase transmit power) for another (new cell site builds) to obtain predictable and desirable results (improving performance at the network location). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote in view of Ross et al., Pat. No. US 11,109,241 B1, hereby “Ross”.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15.
However, while Austin discloses wherein the network development plans may comprise plans for new cell site builds (Austin paragraphs 42 and 86), the combination of Mermoud, Austin and Cote does not explicitly disclose “wherein the scheduled equipment upgrade increases receiver sensitivity at the location of the UE.”
In the same field of endeavor, Ross discloses wherein a small cell upgrade may increase receiver sensitivity (Ross fig. 4 and column 11, line 61 through column 12, line 17: a low noise amplifier is added in the receiver RF chain of the small cell to increase receiver sensitivity).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the program instructions stored on the computer-readable medium of Mermoud, as modified by Austin and Cote, to increase receiver sensitivity at the location associated with the network performance incident as taught by Ross because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (increase receiver sensitivity) for another (new cell site builds) to obtain predictable and desirable results (improving performance at the network location). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights