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 .
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 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because specification paragraph [0064] states “A network interface 1250 permits communication over external network 1260 with a remote node 1270, which may represent another implementation of computing device 1200.”, which implies sharing programming information over carrier waves which is non-statutory.
Regarding claim 9 – Line 3, “a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:” needs to be amended to -- a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to: -- to overcome the 101 rejection.
Regarding claim 15 – Line 1, “One or more computer storage devices” needs to be amended to -- One or more non-transitory computer storage devices -- to overcome the 101 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicants have claimed uniquely distinct features in the application, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in combination. The independent claims identify the following uniquely distinct features:
I. The primary reason for the allowance of the claims are the inclusion of the limitation in the claims which are not found in the prior art references. The following claim elements “wherein the second score factor indicates an inferior wireless network experience for the wireless subscriber upon any KPI of the subscriber KPI set indicating network performance worse than a corresponding KPI-specific threshold, combining the first score factor and the second score factor into a composite score for at least each wireless subscriber not having an anomalous subscriber KPI set, and generating, for a first wireless subscriber of a set of wireless subscribers, a first report comprising the composite score for the first wireless subscriber.” together with the other elements are the reasons for allowance.
1. Regarding claim 1 - A method comprising: determining, for each wireless subscriber of a set of wireless subscribers using a wireless network, a subscriber KPI set, wherein each subscriber KPI set comprises at least three different relevant KPIs, performing, on each subscriber KPI set, dimensionality reduction to reduce each subscriber KPI set to a two-dimensional (2D) scoring point; determining, for each subscriber KPI set, a first score factor using a distance of the 2D scoring point from a best score scoring point, wherein the first score factor indicates a superior wireless network experience for the wireless subscriber as inversely related to the distance of the 2D scoring point from the best score scoring point, determining, for each subscriber KPI set, a second score factor using values of the subscriber KPI set, wherein the second score factor indicates an inferior wireless network experience for the wireless subscriber upon any KPI of the subscriber KPI set indicating network performance worse than a corresponding KPI-specific threshold, combining the first score factor and the second score factor into a composite score for at least each wireless subscriber not having an anomalous subscriber KPI set, and generating, for a first wireless subscriber of a set of wireless subscribers, a first report comprising the composite score for the first wireless subscriber.
The closest prior art, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Ahmed (US 12,556,463 B2) discloses normalizing a trend deviation-based quantitative key performance indicator (KPI).
2. Amornkul (US 2018/0046568 A1) discloses systems and methods for continuity of dataflow operations.
3. Kwan (US 2016/0381580 A1) discloses association rule analysis and data visualization for mobile networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-3090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form .
John Pezzlo
9 September 2026
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
Prosecution Insights