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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-02-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-9, and 11-20 and 31 are pending in the current application.
Claims 10 and 21-30 are canceled from consideration.
Claims 1-9, and 11-20 and 31 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-9, 10-20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial exception namely an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claims recite abstract concepts including: collecting information, analyzing information, predicting information, comparing information and determining information based on a response. Specifically, the claims recite: receiving a message indicating that a node has data to transfer, predicting content of the data, transmitting the prediction, determining a response, comparing the data with the prediction, and determining the content based on the response. These limitations describe the abstract process of guessing information and confirming whether the guess is correct using feedback. Such concepts can be performed mentally or using pen and paper and therefore constitute mental processes and methods of organizing and analyzing information which are abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, the claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional terms/elements merely recite generic computer and networking components such a: first node, second node, communication network, messages and generic transmission/reception operations. The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “determining a prediction of a content of the data” and subsequently “transmitting a second message…indicating the prediction of the content of the data”. However, the specification does not sufficiently describe how the prediction is determined, what parameters or data inputs are used to generate such prediction, or based on what criteria or models the prediction operates, how is the prediction confidence determined, how does the system operate for previously unseen devices without any history, and how acceptable prediction accuracy thresholds are objectively determined. Moreover, in the case of new or previously unseen devices joining the network, where no communication history or prior data exchange exists, it is unclear how the system would be capable of determining a meaningful prediction of the content of the data. The specification does not provide sufficient implementation enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Furthermore, the specification admits in paragraph [0062]: For example, with a packet size of N bits, the probability of correctly guessing a packet is 2^(−N), demonstrating that prediction of arbitrary packet contents becomes computationally infeasible as packet size increases. Although the specification references machine learning generally, the specification further fails to teach how the invention operates for new devices entering the network where no historical transmission data exists, despite the claims encompassing such embodiment. Therefore, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention. The disclosure lacks details on any fallback mechanism, default model or initialization process for generating predictions in such cases/situations.
Similar issue occurs in claims 13 and 31.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims and do not solved indicated issues.
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 1-20 and 31 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim language “determining a prediction of a content of the data”, “transmitting a second message”, “determining a response by the second node” and “determining the content of the data based on the response” is unclear:
What constitutes a prediction.
What is meant by determining a response by the second node.
How the content of the data is determined based on the response.
Whether partial match is sufficient or not.
Whether the prediction must exactly match the data.
These ambiguities leave the scope of the claim open to multiple reasonable interpretations and omit necessary information for clearly understanding what is being claimed. Therefore, the claim fails to distinctly point out and particularly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Moreover, the claims language is unclear as to how the “content of the data” is “determined” from a response such an ACK/NACK, the claim does not specify. Furthermore, the scope of the “response” is not understood as it is broadly recited without specifying: the structure of the response or what response semantics are necessary to determine the data. The specification itself discloses inconsistent embodiments including: ACK, NACK, timeout based implicit acknowledgements and probabilistic acceptance thresholds. Moreover, the claims recite results oriented functional language without reciting sufficient structure or acts for achieving the claimed results such as: “predicting the content”, “determining the response” and “determining the content”.
Additionally, the claim language is confusing for instance, it is not clearly indicated that the “transmitting a second message …the content of the data” is an independent event or in response to “receiving a first message…”
Similar issue occurs in claim 13 and 31.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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)(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, 4, 11-13, 17, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callard et al (US 2013/0176846). Hereinafter referred to as Callard.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 31. Callard discloses a method of operating a first node of a communications network for transferring data from a second node to the first node, the method comprising receiving a first message from the second node, the first message indicating that the second node has data to transfer to the first node (see at least paragraph [0043]: Network send a message to a UE indicating it has data to be transferred); transmitting a second message to the second node, the second message indicating a prediction of the content of the data (see at least abstract and paragraph [0043]); determining a response by the second node to being transmitted the second message; and determining the content of the data based on the response by the second node (see at least abstract and [0043]: network receives a response after to the wake up message and determines which predicted data is to be sent).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Callard discloses a method further comprising determining a plurality of predictions of the content of the data including the prediction of the content of the data, and wherein transmitting the second message comprises transmitting an indication of the plurality of predictions to the second node (see at least abstract and [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Callard discloses a method further comprising determining the prediction of the content of the data using a machine learning model (see at least paragraph [0024] ad [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Callard discloses a method further comprising training the machine learning model using training data including previous data transferred to the communications network by the second node; and/or previous data transferred to the communications network by other nodes of the same type as the second node (see at least paragraph [0024] ad [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2-3, 5-6, 14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callard in view of Ocher et al (US 2021/0097395). Hereinafter referred to as Ocher.
Regarding claims 2 and 14. Callard discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining the response by the second node comprises receiving an indication from the second node that the prediction is correct, and wherein determining the content of the data comprises determining the content of the data to be the prediction of the content of the data based on receiving the indication from the second node that the prediction is correct. However, Ocher, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the response by the second node comprises receiving an indication from the second node that the prediction is correct, and wherein determining the content of the data comprises determining the content of the data to be the prediction of the content of the data based on receiving the indication from the second node that the prediction is correct (see at least paragraphs [0028] and [0054] and figures 2-4). Thus, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ocher, as indicated, into the communication method of Callard for the purpose of managing data prediction and transmission.
Regarding claim 3. Callard in view of Ocher discloses a method wherein receiving the indication from the second node that the prediction is correct comprises receiving an acknowledgement message from the second node; or not receiving a non-acknowledgement message from the second node within a predefined time period after transmitting the second message (see at least paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18. Callard discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of receiving an indication from the second node that a particular one of the plurality of predictions is correct, and wherein determining the content of the data comprises determining the content to be the particular one of the plurality of predictions. However, Ocher, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving an indication from the second node that a particular one of the plurality of predictions is correct, and wherein determining the content of the data comprises determining the content to be the particular one of the plurality of predictions (see at least paragraphs [0028] and [0054] and figures 2-4). Thus, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ocher, as indicated, into the communication method of Callard for the purpose of managing data prediction and transmission.
Regarding claims 6 and 19. Callard discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining the response comprises receiving an indication from the second node that a particular one of the plurality of predictions is closest to the content of the data, and wherein determining the content of the data comprises determining the content to be the particular one of the plurality of predictions. However, Ocher, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the response comprises receiving an indication from the second node that a particular one of the plurality of predictions is closest to the content of the data, and wherein determining the content of the data comprises determining the content to be the particular one of the plurality of predictions (see at least paragraphs [0028] and [0054] and figures 2-4). Thus, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Ocher, as indicated, into the communication method of Callard for the purpose of managing data prediction and transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights