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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 2/6/26. Claims 1-2, 6-15, and 21-34 are currently pending, of which claims 32-34 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6-15, 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (US 2013/0273855) in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0155954), and further in view of Jain et al. (US 2013/0272252).
Regarding claim 1, Cherian teaches a method for use in a network node (M2M-IWF) comprising an application delivery service (M2M-IWF determines a communication mechanism for delivering a device triggering request received from M2M Server which is an “application delivery service” since data from M2M application 328 hosted by M2M server is being delivered) [par 103, 109, 86], the method comprising:
receiving, from a first application (M2M application 328) that is hosted on a server (M2M Server) [par 82] via a first interface (interface between M2M-IWF and M2M Server) [Fig 3] exposed by the network node, a first request (triggering request) to send a packet to a second application(M2M UE application 304) hosted on a user equipment (UE) (M2M UE device) [par 103], wherein the first request comprises an indication of whether the first application desires the packet to be acknowledged (indication as to whether a delivery acknowledgement is required) (triggering request may include indication as to whether a delivery acknowledgment is required) [par 105], an identifier of the first application (M2M server/application identity) (see “The device trigger request message further includes the identity of the originator of the message (i.e., the M2M server 316)” [par 103]);
sending a second request (subscriber information request) to authorize the connection to the UE, wherein the second request comprises the identifier (external identifier/MSISDN) associated with the UE (M2M-IWF sends a subscriber information request to HLR/HSS/AAA that includes external identifier/MSISDN) [par 107];
receiving a first response to the second request (reply from HLR/HSS/AAA), wherein the first response indicates whether or not the connection to the UE is authorized (M2M-IWF receives reply from HLR/HSS/AAA which would indicate authorization since these network nodes perform authorization) [par 108];
sending, based on the first response, a second response (device trigger confirm message) indicating that the application data delivery service between the first and second applications is supported (trigger request message was accepted) (M2M-IWF may optionally send a device trigger confirm message to M2M server as an initial acknowledgement of the device trigger request message which may include a cause value indicating whether the trigger message was accepted) [par 110-111];
generating, based on the first request, a header comprising the indication of whether the packet should be acknowledged, the identifier of the first application (identifier), and a field that is used to support sequencing of packets (message sequence number) (see “For example, the header 406 may include a message type of "trigger" and identifier…The header 406 may further include other information such as: a message sequence number, a segment number, a total number of segments, whether an acknowledgment is required or not…” [par 96, 105]); and
sending, via a second interface, a third request (device trigger message) requesting that the header and the packet be sent to the UE in a non-access stratum (NAS) message, wherein the third request comprises the packet, the header, and an identifier associated with the UE (internal identity (e.g. IMSI)) (M2M-IWF sends device trigger message which may be a NAS message including header, packet, and internal identity) [par 93, 113].
Cherian teaches a plurality of applications hosted on the UE (see “An M2M UE device 302 may include more than one machine to machine application 304” [par 78]) and that the first request comprises a payload (see “The device trigger request message further includes a trigger reference number, the external identity of the trigger target (one or more M2M UE devices such as the M2M UE device 302) or the MSISDN, an optional validity period ( e.g., end time), an optional priority indicator of the trigger message (default =normal), and an optional payload (transparent data)” [par 103], but does not explicitly teach that the first request comprises an identifier of the second application that indicates the packet is at least part of a payload destined for the second application, and wherein the identifier of the second application identifies the second application from among the plurality of applications hosted on the UE; and generating, based on the first request, a header comprising the identifier of the second application that indicates the packet is at least part of a payload destined for the second application. In an analogous prior art reference, Wang teaches a first request (NAS MTC device trigger message) comprises an identifier of the second application (MTC application ID) that indicates the packet is at least part of a payload (MTC application specific contents) destined for the second application (see “The NAS MTC device trigger message may contain one or more of the following parameters…an MTC device message container, and a type of MTC application or application ID” [par 119] and “The MTC device message container may include MTC application specific contents to the possible MTC layer or to the MTC application” [par 123]), and wherein the identifier of the second application identifies the second application from among the plurality of applications hosted on the UE (see “The type of MTC application or application ID may be used to indicate which one MTC application needs to transmit the response if there are multiple MTC applications running on the device” [par 123]); and generating, based on the first request, a header comprising the identifier of the second application that indicates the packet is at least part of a payload destined for the second application (see “The triggering message 1040 may include an MTC application ID or an MTC application group ID to identify at least one MTC application 1005 that has been triggered” [par 170]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherian to allow the first request to comprise an identifier of the second application that indicates the packet is at least part of a payload destined for the second application, and wherein the identifier of the second application identifies the second application from among the plurality of applications hosted on the UE; and generating, based on the first request, a header comprising the identifier of the second application that indicates the packet is at least part of a payload destined for the second application, as taught by Wang, in order to trigger and activate an appropriate application of the plurality of machine to machine applications hosted on the M2M UE device of Cherian.
The combination of Cherian and Wang does not explicitly teach that the first request is received on a first interface that comprises an application programing interface exposed by the application data delivery service to the first application. In an analogous prior art reference, Jain teaches a first interface (MTCp interface) comprises an application programming interface (API) that may provide a transport layer between MTC devices [paragraph 39]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed to modify the combination of Cherian and Wang to allow the first request to be received on a first interface that comprises an application programing interface exposed by the application data delivery service to the second application, as taught by Jain, in order to implement the interface as an API.
Regarding clam 6, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first request comprises at least one of: an indication of whether or not the packet can be buffered by the application data delivery service, how long the packet is valid (validity period), and a priority of the packet (priority indicator) [paragraph 103].
Regarding claim 7, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: responding to the server to indicate that the first request has been accepted (M2M-IWF may send a device trigger confirm message to M2M server) [par 110-111].
Regarding claim 8, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein if the first request includes an indication that the first request is delay tolerant, the application data delivery service buffers the first request until the second application becomes reachable (SMS-SC may buffer message based on a priority for a SMS) [paragraph 113].
Regarding claim 9, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an acknowledgement from the UE (M2M-IWF may receive acknowledgment from M2M UE device) [par 118].
Regarding claim 10, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the application data delivery service, after receiving the acknowledgement from the UE, sends an indication (device trigger report) to the server that sending of the packet is complete (successful) (see “If the selected communication mechanism provides delivery confirmation, and the M2M server 316 requested delivery confirmation, at call 524, the M2M-IWF 318 may send a device trigger report to the M2M server 316 when the delivery confirmation is received….The device trigger report message may further include a cause value indicating the result of the attempt to deliver the device trigger request. The cause value may indicate whether the delivery was successful…” [par 116]).
Regarding claim 11, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second request further comprises a second field that is used to support segmentation and re-assembly of packets (segmentation/reassembly information) [par 96].
Regarding claim 12, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first request comprises an indication of whether the first application desires a report (device trigger report) of when the NAS message has been successfully delivered to the first application (M2M server may receive device trigger report) [par 111].
Regarding claim 13, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first request includes a validity period and the application data delivery service buffers the first request until the first second application becomes reachable or until the validity period expires (device trigger message may include validity period) [par 103].
Regarding claim 14, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifier associated with the UE is an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) [par 113].
Regarding claim 15, Cherian teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the message includes application characteristics (other information) that are used by the application data delivery service for scheduling and routing purposes [par 96].
Regarding claim 21, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
configuring the application data delivery service for communication with the second application based on receiving a message (device trigger request) comprising the identifier associated with the UE (external ID) and comprising a request that a connection be established between the first application and the UE (device triggering request comprises external ID and a request for a connection to be established with M2M UE device) [par 130].
Regarding claim 22, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second request is sent to a device associated with a user data repository (HLR/HSS/AAA) of a communications network [par 88, 108].
Regarding claim 23, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network node implements an interworking function of a communications network (M2M-IWF performs internetworking function) [par 84].
Regarding claim 24, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first request further comprises a Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network-Number (MSISDN) associated with the UE (device trigger request may include MSISDN) [par 103].
Regarding claim 25, Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first request further comprises a publicly available identifier associated with the UE (external ID) [par 91].
Claim 26 recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 27 recites similar subject matter as claim 23 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 28 recites similar subject matter as claim 24 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 29, Cherian, Wang, and Jain in combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an identifier of a third application identifies the third application from among the plurality of applications hosted on the UE (a third application identifier may be included in the triggering request in the combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain if a third application is desired to be triggered in the M2M UE device of Cherian because in the relied upon combination, the triggering request of Cherian is modified to include an Application ID of the application to be triggered, as taught by Wang, of the one or more applications hosted on the M2M UE device of Cherian).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (US 2013/0273855) in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0155954), and in view of Jain et al. (US 2013/0272252), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2012/0220326).
The combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain does not explicitly teach receiving a message from the user data repository indicating that a subscription associated with the UE has changed. In an analogous prior art reference, Li teaches receiving a message from a user data repository (HSS) indicating that a subscription associated with the UE has changed (HSS transmits new subscription data directly to a MTC server when it changes subscription data of a MTC UE) [par 140]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain to allow receiving a message from the user data repository indicating that a subscription associated with the UE has changed, as taught by Li, in order for other nodes to perform appropriate action(s) when a subscription associated with the UE has changed.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (US 2013/0273855) in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0155954), and in view of Jain et al. (US 2013/0272252) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0089442).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain does not explicitly teach wherein the header comprises a port number associated with the second application. In an analogous prior art reference, Kim teaches a triggering message comprises a port number associated with the second application (see “As described above, a message including an identifier indicating an MTC device triggering message in a predetermined field (e.g., a TP-PID field or application port addressing of a data header region of a TP-UD field) of an SMS header may be created by the MTC server, the proxy server (e.g., MTC-IWF) or the SMS-SC” [par 119]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain to allow the header to comprise a port number associated with the second application, as taught by Kim, in order to route the triggering message to one of server applications [par 117].
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (US 2013/0273855) in view of Wang et al. (US 2013/0155954), and in view of Jain et al. (US 2013/0272252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain et al. (US 2013/0279372 hereinafter “Jain2”).
The combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain does not explicitly teach prior to sending the second request: determining that the identifier of the second application is associated with the identifier associated with the UE in a mapping table; and including the identifier in the second request based on the determination determining that the identifier of the second application is associated with the identifier associated with the UE in the mapping table. In an analogous prior art reference, Jain2 teaches determining that an identifier of a second application (MTC application identifier) is associated with the identifier with the UE (network identifier) in a mapping table (HLR/HSS) (see “The S6m reference point may be used to derive routing information for a downlink small data payload by obtaining a network identifier ( e.g., 3GPP internal device identifier such as IMSI or Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN)) from an MTC device identifier or MTC application identifier” [par 39] and “S6m” interface in Fig 2 between the MTC-IWF and the HLR/HSS which suggests that the MTC-IWF may receive a MTC application identifier and determine a network identifier for the UE from using the S6m interface with the HLR/HSS). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cherian, Wang, and Jain to allow determining that the identifier of the second application is associated with the identifier associated with the UE in a mapping table, as taught by Jain2, prior to sending the second request and including the determined identifier in the second request based on the determination, in order to alternatively retrieve the identifier before performing authorization which is an obvious alternative in the authorization performed by the M2M-IWF in paragraphs 107-108.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-15, and 21-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647