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 .
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/030,411 last filed on June 26th, 2025.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 14, 17-20, and 22 are amended.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 16-23 are pending and have been examined, directed to METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING SERVICE ENABLER ARCHITECTURE LAYER (SEAL) SERVICES.
Upon further review of the last interview discussion and then the latest claim amendments along with the applicant’s representative’s response, the Examiner reviewed the applied references and respectfully disagrees and remains unpersuaded at this time.
The last set of amendments were filed before the last applicant initiated interview took place and the Examiner thought some good options were presented, but there was no further supplemental amendment(s) that followed.
With respect to the latest amendments, rejected under a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, using Lei, those were viewed as minor amendments to labels and acronyms that did not change the overall claimed scope.
The applicant’s representative argued about two specific limitation features, directed to “obtaining external group identifiers…which is different from…a VAL group identifier of the VAL group…” and “…storing the obtained external group identifier…” The representative summarized some of the cited sections and argued that Lei’s teachings of the system utilizing other forms of identifiers besides the VAL group identifier was insufficient.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited sections from Lei illustrated that the system can target and send messages using a different set of identifiers, we can refer to any other identifiers besides the VAL group identifier as “external” or separate from the VAL group point of view. Lei ¶ 39 explains it was solving a problem by using a different set of L2 identifiers to target UEs and this could be done without increasing computation costs. Since we can recognize that a UE can be targeted using a different set of identifiers (e.g., L2 identifiers or some other third party identifiers), then we can say that those identifiers are separate or “external” from the VAL group identifier. The current claim language required a device or system to be able to identify and obtain it and then of course save/store that identifier information, since it needs it for sending communications afterwards or for future purposes.
This leads into the next storing step, where the representative further argued that while one of ordinary skill can interpret the entirety of how the system performs these configuration steps as code, that there’s no specific step of storing these external group identifiers.
In response, the Examiner again respectfully disagrees, because the claim language was amended to focus away from a VAL document to where this “configuration information” is now stored. The Examiner would argue that since the system is programed or is following programming code to execute in a specific way, such as to identify and locate UEs using a certain identifier (out of a plurality of identifier options - L2, third party, VAL group ID, etc.), then Lei’s system must inherently have that information in storage/memory, in other to be functional.
The other independent claims 14, 20, and 22 were similarly amended and argued following claim 1 and thus were similarly rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims 7, 11, 18 and 19, the representative further argued about the obviousness of these limitation features.
In response, the Examiner would argue that under a 35 USC § 103 analysis using Lei, the Examiner had demonstrated with evidence and citations based upon what Lei already taught, and then taking it one step further based on evidentiary logic, which would at the very least teach and/or suggest of these claimed features. For example, in claim 7 (and/or 11 for deleting), Lei disclosed about an example of how a new user UE can join up into a group using a known group ID, and once joined and is a part of the group, the system has obtained and identified the newly joined user as now a part of that group. This is all supported within one of Lei’s example embodiment ¶¶ 45-50. From there, the rest would be considered obvious and is rooted in simple logic and basic computing (i.e., saving and deleting new data within any computing system), because every time a member UE joins or leaves, the system would update by adding/removing their identifiers. The other cited sections going into the security aspects, and so it is obviously clear that the system is kept updated on its members within its different VAL groups.
Overall, in response to the last interview discussions and in view of these latest amendments, the Examiner respectfully remains unpersuaded as more features and characteristics would be needed to help identify the inventive scopes here.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
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 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, 2, 5, 14, 16-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0264304 A1 to Lei et al. (referred to hereafter as “Lei”).
As to claim 1, Lei discloses a method for managing service enabler architecture layer (SEAL) services by a group management server, the method comprising:
receiving a group creation request from a group management client (Lei discloses of an overall system that can provide SEAL services and the system can receive various requests from clients or UEs, including for example, asking to create a group, involving at least two parties/nodes with a source and a destination node (e.g., Lei: ¶ 44).
The system (or system components) can facilitate the group’s creation process, where within one implementation, utilizes at least three layers to create or form a new group and provide the related user clients with a new group identifier or group ID to categorize the associated client users, as users can be a part of multiple groups, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 44-45, 48-50, 119, and 150);
creating a vertical application layer (VAL) group based on the group creation request (The system (or system components) can create the group along with any associated identifiers like the VAL group ID, e.g., Lei: ¶ 45);
obtaining external group identifier information which identifies member user equipments (UEs) of the created VAL group at a 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) core network, wherein the external group identifier information is different from and mapped to a VAL group identifier (ID) of the VAL group (The system obtains various the use of additional different labels or identifiers, such as third party group IDs or other destination L2 IDs or some unique group ID key information, which gets used to expose or connect the VAL group with other parties, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 35, 39-40, 50-52, 70-75, 216);
storing the obtained external group identifier information in configuration information of the created VAL group (Besides the VAL ID and the other L2 IDs or third party group IDs, Lei also further discloses of devices/systems with components like a determining module (e.g., processor) that can be configured to act upon the knowledge of a public (or external) group identifier, which would allow the particular device/system to connect with a determined target. The entirety of the “configuration information” itself could also be interpreted as programming code, that would cause the device/system to act accordingly like detect and connect with a target system, given the public or external group ID information, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 224-227, 232-235, 245, 247, and 256-257); and
sending a group creation response related to the created VAL group to the group management client (Following the above steps and interpretations, after the creation of the VAL group, the related information such as regarding the identifiers and the security keys and/or subsequent messaging would all be sent to the corresponding party members, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 35, 52, 65, and 111).
As to claim 2, Lei further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the group management client is an administrator or an authorized UE (authorized UEs, e.g., Lei: ¶ 85).
As to claim 5, Lei further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in case that the group creation request is a location-based group creation request, the method further comprises obtaining a list of UEs for a location from a location management server, and creating the VAL group comprises creating a location-based VAL group based on the list of UEs (GPS or location based information is used for groups, which was suggested in an example when covering security issues/concerns, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 3 and 40).
As to claim 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 16, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 17, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 21, Lei further discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the server is a Factory of Future (FF) application server or a VAL server (VAL service provider, e.g., Lei: ¶ 45).
As to claim 22, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 23, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 21.
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 7, 11, 18 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0264304 A1 to Lei et al. (referred to hereafter as “Lei”) in view of obviousness.
As to claim 7, Lei further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
updating the VAL group, on updating the group of member UEs in the VAL group (Following claim 1, Lei discloses of how members can join into a group, such as by getting the group ID information from a prior member, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 45-50),
wherein updating the VAL group comprises:
obtaining updated external group identifier information identifying the updated group of member UEs of the VAL group from the core network (Following claim 1, once again, even though Lei does not explicitly describe of a specific updating scenario, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that the VAL group identifier can be shared with new members, and that the group VAL identifier would reflect the changes for all of its members, which means the group can grow or move around using different destination IDs, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 46-50, and 70-75); and
updating the configuration information of the VAL group based on the updated external group identifier information corresponding to the updated group of member UEs (Following claim 1 and the previous steps, the configuration information can be incorporated within the steps taken by the system already, especially as the system and/or client devices can determine and process (and/or configure) any necessary security and/or handshaking procedures with respect to updating its members within the group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that similar to disseminating out information to all of the users within the group ID, all new members information would also be updated as they would need any group security keys or latest information being shared, e.g., Lei: ¶¶ 35, 52-53, 65, 111, and 256-257).
As to claim 11, Lei further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deleting the VAL group, when the group management client wants to leave the VAL group (see below); and
deleting the external group identifier information associated with the deleted VAL group, based on an assistance received from the core network (For both limitations, following claim 1’s interpretations, while Lei does not explicitly disclose about any deletions of group identifiers by the system completely, it would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that each individual client UE can remove/delete the VAL group ID to dissociate from the group. And, when it gets down to the last UE member, the ID can be removed or deleted entirely from the system if necessary).
As to claim 18, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 19, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,172,019 B1 to Zhao et al.
US 2023/0319528 A1 to Pateromichelakis et al.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455