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 .
The Non-Final mailed on 16 June, 2026 is withdrawn and this instant Office Action is a Non-Final in response to Application 18/992,354 filed on 8 January, 2025.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites receiving inputs and utilizing the received data to construct a performance model representing the relationship between said received inputs/data. Other than reciting “base station” and “a performance model construction apparatus configured to construct a performance model”, the claim is directed to mathematical concepts. For example, but for the placeholder (units) language and reciting the information pertains to a base station of a cellular network, “constructing” in the context of this claim encompasses identifying patterns and correlations in the received data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. The same is applicable to independent claims 7 and 8. Respective dependent claims recite further mathematical concepts and equations and do not cure the deficiency of the parent claim(s), therefore, inheriting the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khalid et al (US 2021/0037441).
Regarding claim 1, Khalid teaches a performance model construction apparatus configured to construct a performance model of each base station constituting a cellular network (Khalid [0008] provides “The first performance model is generated based on prior history of pathlosses and/or link performance determined between the first wireless base station and user equipment at each of the different geographical locations supported by the first wireless base station. The second performance model is generated based on prior history of pathlosses and/or link performance determined between the second wireless base station and user equipment at each of the different geographical locations supported by the second wireless base station”), the performance model construction apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to receive (i) a first value representing an observed number of accommodated users by each base station (Khalid [0004] provides “A surge or spike of a number of users in a particular location can tend to overwhelm a conventional base station and result in a degraded user experience for the users competing for wireless resources”)and (ii) second value representing a performance related to the base station when the first value is observed (Khalid [0004] provides “A surge or spike of a number of users in a particular location can tend to overwhelm a conventional base station and result in a degraded user experience for the users competing for wireless resources”);
and construct the performance model that represents a relationship between the number of accommodated users and the performance, based on the first value, the second value and the number of observations for the first value and the second value (Khalid [0043] provides “For a give base station, as the number of users (axis 210) increases, interference 220 also increases as the base station 112 tries to separate transmissions to individual subscriber devices 120. Concurrently, performance 230 also decreases as the base station 112 allocates bandwidth among additional subscriber devices 120. A handoff threshold 240 identifies a tradeoff between performance and interference where it is beneficial to offload users to other base stations 112”; [0132] provides “…for each location in a corresponding region of wireless coverage, the small cell wireless base stations 1312 and 1313 measures location and respective performance parameters (such as pathloss, bit error rate, bandwidth, wireless communication signal strength from the mobile communication devices, etc.) for each different location in the region of wireless coverage 1332 and 1333 in order to generate the respective performance models…”).
Regarding claim 7, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 8, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Eng et al (US 2022/0167183).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM 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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights