DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to communication filed August 30, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 12-13 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.
The term “substantially independent” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 12.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites obtaining a first observation ot-1 of an environment at an end of a first time step t-1; generating a prediction o't of a second observation or of the environment at the end of a second time step t based on at least the first observation; obtaining a predicted state s't of the environment at the second time step t from the predicted second observation o't; and selecting an action at to execute on the environment during the second time step based on the predicted state s't and a policy π. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally obtain an observation, generate a prediction of a second observation, obtain a predicted state, and select an action to execute.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a computer-implemented method” for performing the claimed mental steps above and for “executing the action at on the environment” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a computer-implemented method” for performing the claimed mental steps above and for “executing the action at on the environment” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 recites: obtaining the second observation or of the environment following execution of the action at; determining a reward rt based on the second observation ot; and updating the policy π based on the reward rt. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally obtain a second observation, determine a reward, and update the policy. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claim 2.
Claim 3 recites: wherein generating the prediction o't of the second observation ot is performed by applying a sequence prediction model to a plurality of previous observations of the environment to obtain the prediction o't of the second observation ot. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally apply a sequence prediction model to previous observations to obtain the prediction. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claim 3.
Claims 4 and 5 recite: determining an accuracy of the prediction; and adjusting a number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model in response to the determined accuracy, wherein adjusting the number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model in response to the determined accuracy comprises increasing the number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model in response to determining that the accuracy of the prediction is less than a threshold level of accuracy. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally determine an accuracy and adjust a number of the previous observations by increasing the number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 4 and 5.
Claims 6 and 7 recite: wherein the sequence prediction model comprises a multivariate time series forecasting model; wherein the multivariate time series forecasting model comprises a long short term memory, LSTM, model. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally, or manually with pen and paper, apply a multivariate time series forecasting model, including LSTM. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 6 and 7.
Claims 8 and 9 recite: wherein generating the prediction o't of the second observation or is performed based on observations from previous time steps, and is performed based on an assumption that a predetermined action a0 is taken at the second time step, wherein the predetermined action comprises no action. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally generate a predicted second observation based on observations from a previous time and the assumption that a predetermined action, such as no action, is taken. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 8 and 9.
Claim 10 recites: wherein generating the prediction o't of the second observation or is performed based on side channel information about the environment in addition to the observations from previous time steps. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally generate a prediction of second observation based on side channel information about the environment in addition to previous observations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claim 10.
Claim 11 recites: determining that an action taken in the first time step was the predetermined action a0. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this steps is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally determine that an action was the predetermined action.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “training a prediction model, that is used to generate the prediction o't of the second observation ot, based on an actual observation ot-1 at time step t-1” recites high level training and thus amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 12 and 13 recite: wherein the first observation ot-1 comprises a static state component, an action dependent state component and a confounder state component, wherein the action dependent state component is a variable component that is dependent on actions taken on the environment and the confounder state is a variable component that is substantially independent of actions taken on the environment, wherein the confounder state has a predictable time-series pattern. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this steps is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally obtain observations comprising a static state component, an action dependent state component and a confounder state component. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements in claims 12 and 13.
Claim 14 recites the additional element: wherein the environment comprises a computer-controlled system, and wherein the first and second observations comprise observations of a performance indicator of the system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 15 recites the additional element “wherein the action comprises a modification of a configurable parameter of the system, the parameter impacting the performance indicator”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 16 and 17 recite the additional elements “wherein the environment comprises a wireless communication network, and wherein the observation comprises one or more key performance indicators, KPIs, of the wireless communication network, wherein the KPIs comprise a reference signal received power, an interference level, an average downlink signal to interference plus noise ratio, SINR, an average uplink SINR, a nominal uplink power, average data rate, throughput and/or an average uplink neighbor SINR.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (wireless communication network) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 18 recites the additional element: wherein the action comprises a modification of a configurable network parameter of the wireless communication network. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 19 recites the additional element: wherein the configurable network parameter comprises a downlink transmit power, an uplink transmit power, and/or an antenna tilt. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 20 recites obtaining a first observation ot-1 of an environment at an end of a first time step t-1; generating a prediction o't of a second observation or of the environment at the end of a second time step t based on at least the first observation; obtaining a predicted state s't of the environment at the second time step t from the predicted second observation o't; and selecting an action at to execute on the environment during the second time step based on the predicted state s't and a policy π. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a user can mentally obtain an observation, generate a prediction of a second observation, obtain a predicted state, and select an action to execute.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a processor; a communication interface coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the processor” for performing the claimed mental steps above and for “executing the action at on the environment” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a processor; a communication interface coupled to the processor; and a memory coupled to the processor” for performing the claimed mental steps above and for “executing the action at on the environment” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guez et al. (US 2022/0366245 A1) (‘Guez’).
With respect to claim 1, Guez teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining a first observation ot-1 of an environment at an end of a first time step t-1 (i.e. current observation) (paragraphs 35, 54, 78 and 84);
generating a prediction o't of a second observation ot of the environment at the end of a second time step t based on at least the first observation (paragraphs 35, 43, 75-76, 79 and 87);
obtaining a predicted state s't of the environment at the second time step t from the predicted second observation o't (paragraphs 35, 43, 76, 79 and 87); and
selecting an action at to execute on the environment during the second time step based on the predicted state s't and a policy π (paragraphs 35, 79 and 81); and
executing the action at on the environment (paragraphs 35, 54, 80, 83 and 101).
With respect to claim 2, Guez teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining the second observation or of the environment following execution of the action at (paragraphs 35, 54, 75-76, 101);
determining a reward rt based on the second observation ot (paragraphs 55, 75, 88, and 101); and
updating the policy π based on the reward rt (paragraphs 73, 80, and 86-88).
With respect to claim 3, Guez teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the prediction o't of the second observation ot is performed by applying a sequence prediction model to a plurality of previous observations of the environment to obtain the prediction o't of the second observation ot (paragraphs 39 and 76).
With respect to claim 4, Guez teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: determining an accuracy of the prediction (paragraphs 29, 77, and 84); and
adjusting a number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model in response to the determined accuracy (paragraphs 39, 77, and 87).
With respect to claim 5, Guez teaches the method of claim 4, wherein adjusting the number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model in response to the determined accuracy comprises increasing the number of the previous observations used by the sequence prediction model in response to determining that the accuracy of the prediction is less than a threshold level of accuracy (paragraphs 39, 77-78, 87, and 113).
With respect to claim 6, Guez teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the sequence prediction model comprises a multivariate time series forecasting model (paragraph 92).
With respect to claim 7, Guez teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the multivariate time series forecasting model comprises a long short term memory, LSTM, model (paragraph 92).
With respect to claim 8, Guez teaches the method of claim 5, wherein generating the prediction o't of the second observation ot is performed based on observations from previous time steps, and is performed based on an assumption that a predetermined action a0 is taken at the second time step (paragraph 39, 54 and 75-76).
With respect to claim 9, Guez teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined action comprises no action (paragraphs 39, 54 and 75-76).
With respect to claim 10, Guez teaches the method of claim 8, wherein generating the prediction o't of the second observation or is performed based on side channel information about the environment in addition to the observations from previous time steps (paragraphs 54, 59, 81, and 98).
With respect to claim 11, Guez teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining that an action taken in the first time step was the predetermined action a0 (paragraphs 35 and 39); and
training a prediction model, that is used to generate the prediction o't of the second observation ot, based on an actual observation ot-1 at time step t-1 (paragraphs 77, 87-88 and 113).
With respect to claim 14, Guez teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the environment comprises a computer-controlled system, and wherein the first and second observations comprise observations of a performance indicator of the system (paragraphs 57, 60, 64, and 69-72).
With respect to claim 15, Guez teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the action comprises a modification of a configurable parameter of the system, the parameter impacting the performance indicator (paragraphs 64).
With respect to claim 16, Guez teaches method of Claim 14, wherein the environment comprises a wireless communication network, and wherein the observation comprises one or more key performance indicators, KPIs, of the wireless communication network (paragraphs 70-72).
With respect to claim 17, Guez teaches method of Claim 16, wherein the KPIs comprise a reference signal received power, an interference level, an average downlink signal to interference plus noise ratio, SINR, an average uplink SINR, a nominal uplink power, average data rate, throughput and/or an average uplink neighbor SINR (paragraphs 59, 66 and 70).
With respect to claim 18, Guez teaches method of Claim 16, wherein the action comprises a modification of a configurable network parameter of the wireless communication network (paragraph 64).
With respect to claim 20, Guez teaches control system comprising:
a processor (paragraph 119);
a communication interface coupled to the processor (paragraph 126); and
a memory coupled to the processor (paragraph 123), wherein the memory comprises computer readable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to perform operations according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guez et al. (US 2022/0366245 A1) (‘Guez’) in view of Badia et al. (US 2023/0059004 A1) (‘Badia’).
With respect to claim 12, Guez teaches wherein the first observation ot-1 comprises a static state component, and an action dependent state component and wherein the action dependent state component is a variable component that is dependent on actions taken on the environment (paragraphs 59, 61, 64, and 69).
Guez does not explicitly teach a confounder state component, wherein the confounder state is a variable component that is substantially independent of actions taken on the environment.
Badia teaches an action dependent state component and a confounder state component, wherein the confounder state is a variable component that is substantially independent of actions taken on the environment (paragraphs 27 and 89).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Guez to include a confounder state component because Guez teaches a plethora of types of observation data and environments, and thus it would be obvious to incorporate confounder state data as needed by each environment to achieve the training and modeling as taught by Guez.
With respect to claim 13, Guez in view of Badia teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the confounder state has a predictable time-series pattern (Badia,, paragraphs 27 and 89).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guez et al. (US 2022/0366245 A1) (‘Guez’) in view of Kattepur et al. (US 2024/0275691 A1) (‘Kattepur’).
With respect to claim 19, Guez teaches a configurable network parameter.
Guez does not explicitly teach wherein the configurable network parameter comprises a downlink transmit power, an uplink transmit power, and/or an antenna tilt.
Kattepur teaches wherein the configurable network parameter comprises a downlink transmit power, an uplink transmit power, and/or an antenna tilt (paragraphs 50, 62, and 303).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the actions of Guez to include a downlink transmit power, an uplink transmit power, and/or an antenna tilt as taught by Kattepur because Guez teaches multiple types of observations, actions, parameters and environments (including a wireless communication network) and further teaches changing settings. Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate known parameters including a downlink transmit power, an uplink transmit power, and/or an antenna tilt as needed by each environment, such as the wireless communication network, to achieve proper training and modeling of each environment as taught by Guez.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights