DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to communications filed 27 December 2023.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 14-15 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, "the results of the comparison" is written with insufficient antecedent basis; regarding claim 14, "the system according to claim 1" is written with insufficient antecedent basis, the Examiner believes this to be written as "the system according to claim 9". Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting a list of TACs from each element in a plurality of predetermined elements of the communication network; storing the collected list of TACs for each predetermined element in a storage device; for each region and availability zone of the communication network, comparing the lists of TACs for elements for which the lists of TACs should match; identifying errors based on the comparison of the lists of TACs; storing the results of the comparison including any identified errors in the storage device; and generating a report comprising at least the results of the comparison and the list of TACs collected for each predetermined element.
The limitations of collecting a list of TACs from each element in a plurality of predetermined elements of the communication network; storing the collected list of TACs for each predetermined element in a storage device; for each region and availability zone of the communication network, comparing the lists of TACs for elements for which the lists of TACs should match; identifying errors based on the comparison of the lists of TACs; storing the results of the comparison including any identified errors in the storage device; and generating a report comprising at least the results of the comparison and the list of TACs collected for each predetermined element, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” or “by a TAC … module” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the process above where “collecting” is to observe a list, “storing” is to write down with a pen and paper or observe and retain information, “comparing” is to evaluate a difference in observations, “identifying” is to determine any differences from the evaluated observations, “storing” is to write down with a pen and paper or observe the determined information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because in particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of using generic computer components, such as a processor or modules in performing the steps or applied to a cloud-based network. The processor or modules are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and in a generic computing environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of using a processor, modules, and generating a report amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components for performing a mental process. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components for performing a mental process cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the claims recite generating a report from the process; however, the generating a report merely presents extra-solution activity and the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving at least one TAC associated with a user equipment (UE) device in the communication network; accessing the lists of TACs collected for each predetermined element; and identifying a location of the at least one TAC in the communication network based on the collected lists of TACs; comparing a list of TACs for a first element and a list of TACs for a second element configured to be a backup for the first element; comparing a list of TACs for a first element in the availability zone to a combined list of TACs of a second element and third element in the availability zone; performing a set comparison of the lists of TACs.
The limitations of receiving at least one TAC associated with a user equipment (UE) device in the communication network; accessing the lists of TACs collected for each predetermined element; and identifying a location of the at least one TAC in the communication network based on the collected lists of TACs; comparing a list of TACs for a first element and a list of TACs for a second element configured to be a backup for the first element; comparing a list of TACs for a first element in the availability zone to a combined list of TACs of a second element and third element in the availability zone; performing a set comparison of the lists of TACs, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” or “by a TAC … module” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the process above where “receiving” is to observe a TAC, “accessing” is to observe a list, “identifying” is to determine a location based on observation, and “comparing/performing a set comparison” evaluate the observations to determine differences such as between nodes, backup nodes, combined elements, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because in particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of using generic computer components, such as a processor or modules in performing the steps or applied to a cloud-based network. The processor or modules are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and in a generic computing environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of using a processor, modules, such as in a generic computing network comprising network functions such as an AMF and SMF amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components for performing a mental process. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components for performing a mental process cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-10, 13, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatnagar et al. (US-20240056830-A1) hereinafter Bhatnagar in view of Ramachandra et al. (US-20240215072-A1) hereinafter Ramachandra.
Regarding claim 1, Bhatnagar discloses:
A method for performing an audit of tracking area codes (TAC) in a communication network ([0063] TAC Audit and Report, see [0009] method for identifying discrepancies such as TAC ID … etc.), where the communication network has a plurality of regions and a plurality of availability zones within each region ([0060] prepare dynamic network polygons based on actual configuration, allocation of TAC to new cell sites (i.e. regions) [0076] indoor TA available for macro site TAC polygon (i.e. availability zone)), the method comprising:
collecting, using a TAC audit module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC audit module)), a list of TACs from each element in a plurality of predetermined elements of the communication network ([0017] parse, from the CM file, a TAC ID for each of the one or more network nodes);
storing, using the TAC audit module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC audit module)), the collected list of TACs for each predetermined element in a storage device ([0017] and store the TAC ID in a master database);
for each region and availability zone of the communication network ([0060] prepare dynamic network polygons based on actual configuration, allocation of TAC to new cell sites (i.e. regions) [0076] indoor TA available for macro site TAC polygon (i.e. availability zone)), comparing, using the TAC audit module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC audit module)), the lists of TACs for elements for which the lists of TACs should match ([0078] fetching TAC ID for each eNodeB … compared with TAC Polygon ID in which sites falls … in case eNodeB TAC ID is not matched … TAC ID Discrepancy);
identifying, using the TAC audit module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC audit module)), errors based on the comparison of the lists of TACs ([0078] in case eNodeB TAC ID is not matched … TAC ID Discrepancy (i.e. error by comparing for matching ID));
storing, using the TAC audit module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC audit module)), the results of the comparison including any identified errors in the storage device ([0066] database … may comprise data that may either stored or generated as a result of functionalities implemented by any components of the processor … or the processing engines, see [0079] TAC ID wise, number of sites with various discrepancy … etc. … are available as report and can be explored through TAC Audit sections [0072] perform all above steps for each site and generate report with TAC ID (i.e. functions of the method and system wherein database comprises data that is stored or generated as a result thereof, e.g. discrepancies determined)); and
generating, using the TAC audit module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC audit module)), a report comprising at least the results of the comparison and the list of TACs collected for each predetermined element ([0079] TAC ID wise, number of sites with various discrepancy … etc. … are available as report and can be explored through TAC Audit sections, see [0072] perform all above steps for each site and generate report with TAC ID).
Bhatnagar does not explicitly disclose:
a cloud-based communication network,
However, Ramachandra discloses:
a cloud-based communication network ([0116] any of the first network node … may be a distributed node, such as a virtual node in the cloud, and may perform its functions entirely on the cloud … (i.e. cloud-based communication network)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bhatnagar in view of Ramachandra to have implemented the method in a cloud-based communication network. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to distribute nodes and functions on a cloud (Ramachandra, [0116]).
Regarding claim 2, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The method according to claim 1, set forth above, further comprising:
Bhatnagar discloses:
receiving, using a TAC search module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC search module)), at least one TAC associated with a user equipment (UE) device in the communication network ([0063] UE (102) … allocating TAC ID to the one or more computing devices (102) and identifying discrepancies between one or more TAC ID allocated computing devices (i.e. TAC ID allocated to computing devices, e.g. UE), see [0022] parsing … a TAC ID for each of the one or more network nodes);
accessing, using the TAC search module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC search module)), the lists of TACs collected for each predetermined element ([0017] parse, from the CM file, a TAC ID for each of the one or more network nodes); and
identifying, using the TAC search module ([0017] system comprising: a processor … memory … causes the processor to (i.e. performing as a TAC search module)), a location of the at least one TAC in the communication network based on the collected lists of TACs ([0022] TAC polygon based on the configuration data extracted from the CM file … district boundary and a circle boundary (i.e. location), see [FIG. 4]).
Regarding claim 6, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein comparing, using the TAC audit module, the lists of TACs for elements for which the lists of TACs should match, set forth above, further comprises,
Bhatnagar discloses:
for each availability zone, comparing a list of TACs for a first element in the availability zone to a combined list of TACs of a second element and third element in the availability zone ([0078] discrepancy identification … identifying sites within TAC polygon … fetching TAC ID for each eNodeB … passed on to the macro discrepancy identification … compared with TAC Polygon ID in which sites falls … site should belong to single district, see [0077] macro TAC ID in which site falls … listing all existing small cell IDs (i.e. compared to determine discrepancy between an eNodeB and a district, e.g. combination of smaller cells within the macro site)).
Regarding claims 9-10, and 13; (15/17), and 19, they do not further define nor teach over the limitations of claims 1-2, and 6, therefore, claims 9-10, and 13; (15/17), and 19 are rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above as in claims 1-2, and 6.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatnagar et al. (US-20240056830-A1) hereinafter Bhatnagar in view of Ramachandra et al. (US-20240215072-A1) hereinafter Ramachandra further in view of Hyun et al. (US-20250203405-A1) hereinafter Hyun.
Regarding claim 3, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The method according to claim 1, set forth above,
Bhatnagar-Ramachandra do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of predetermined elements are a plurality of network functions.
However, Hyun discloses:
wherein the plurality of predetermined elements are a plurality of network functions ([0095] NFs 534-1, 536-1, and 538-1 for TAC 1, TAC 2, and TAC 3, see [FIG. 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bhatnagar-Ramachandra in view of Hyun to have the plurality of predetermined elements be a plurality of network functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have TACs associated with NFs (Hyun, [0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The method according to claim 1, set forth above,
Bhatnagar-Ramachandra do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the elements for which the lists of TACs should match are two or more network functions.
However, Hyun discloses:
wherein the elements for which the lists of TACs should match are two or more network functions ([0095] NFs 534-1, 536-1, and 538-1 for TAC 1, TAC 2, and TAC 3, see [FIG. 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bhatnagar-Ramachandra in view of Hyun to have the elements for which the lists of TACs should match are two or more network functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have TACs associated with NFs (Hyun, [0095]).
Regarding claim 11, it does not further define nor teach over the limitations of claim 3, therefore, claim 11 is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it does not further define nor teach over the limitations of claims 3 and 7, therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above as in claims 3 and 7.
Regarding claim 20, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 19, set forth above,
Bhatnagar-Ramachandra do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first element in the availability zone is an access and mobility management function (AMF), the second element in the availability zone is a primary session management function (SMF) for the availability zone and the third element in the availability zone is a secondary SMF for the availability zone.
However, Hyun discloses:
wherein the first element in the availability zone is an access and mobility management function (AMF) ([0061] CN 200 may include multiple entities that have different NFs and are functionally separated from each other … AMF, see [FIG. 5] e.g. NFs 1-6 with TACs 1-6), the second element in the availability zone is a primary session management function (SMF) for the availability zone ([0061] CN 200 may include multiple entities that have different NFs and are functionally separated from each other … SMF, see [FIG. 5] e.g. NFs 1-6 with TACs 1-6) and the third element in the availability zone is a secondary SMF for the availability zone ([0061] CN 200 may include multiple entities that have different NFs and are functionally separated from each other … SMF, see [FIG. 5] e.g. NFs 1-6 with TACs 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bhatnagar-Ramachandra in view of Hyun to have the first element as a AMF, a second element as a SMF, and a third element as a secondary SMF. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have TACs associated with NFs and include in a computer network multiple entities that have different NFs and are functionally separated from each other (Hyun, [0061] [0095]).
Claim(s) 4-5, 8, 12, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatnagar et al. (US-20240056830-A1) hereinafter Bhatnagar in view of Ramachandra et al. (US-20240215072-A1) hereinafter Ramachandra further in view of Wirola et al. (US-10564252-B2) hereinafter Wirola.
Regarding claim 4, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein comparing, using the TAC audit module, the lists of TACs for elements for which the lists of TACs should match, set forth above, further comprises
Bhatnagar-Ramachandra do not explicitly disclose:
comparing a list of TACs for a first element and a list of TACs for a second element configured to be a backup for the first element.
However, Wirola discloses:
comparing a list of TACs for a first element and a list of TACs for a second element configured to be a backup for the first element ([33:50-57] identification information of radio nodes or cells … is only collected and/or provided … if at least one set member is replaced by another one (i.e. configured to be a backup) [33:64-34:3] checked if respective identification information of a radio node or cell stays the same in at least two sets of fingerprint information, see [31:4-21] identification for identifying an area that comprises the radio node or cell may for instance be … tracking area code (TAC) (i.e. comparing identification information of replacement node or cell by checking for difference between the fingerprint information)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bhatnagar-Ramachandra in view of Wirola to have compared a list of TACs for a first element and a second element configured to be a backup for the first element. One of ordinary sill in the art would have been motivated to do so to collect and provide fingerprint information (e.g. LAC or TAC) is not at least one of collected and provided for at least one of a radio node and a cell and where at least one set member is replaced by another one (Wirola, [31:4-21] [33:50-57]).
Regarding claim 5, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra-Wirola disclose:
The method according to claim 4, set forth above,
Bhatnagar discloses:
wherein the first element and the second element are the same type of element ([0061] user equipment (UE 102), see [FIG. 1]).
Regarding claim 8, Bhatnagar-Ramachandra disclose:
The method according to claim 2, wherein comparing, using the TAC audit module, the lists of TACs for elements for which the lists of TACs should match, set forth above, comprises
Bhatnagar does not explicitly disclose:
performing a set comparison of the lists of TACs.
However, Wirola discloses:
performing a set comparison of the lists of TACs ([30:58-31:3] identifying an area … is different in at least two sets of fingerprint information of the at least one set of fingerprint information, see [31:4-21] identification for identifying an area that comprises the radio node or cell may for instance be … tracking area code (TAC) (i.e. comparing identification information of replacement node or cell by checking for difference between the fingerprint information)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bhatnagar in view of Wirola to have performed a set comparison of the lists of TACs. One of ordinary sill in the art would have been motivated to do so to collect and provide fingerprint information (e.g. LAC or TAC) is not at least one of collected and provided for at least one of a radio node and a cell (Wirola, [31:4-21]).
Regarding claims 12, 14; and 18, they do not further define nor teach over the limitations of claims 4, 8; and 4, therefore, claims 12, 14; and 18 are rejected for at least the same reasons set forth above as in claims 4, 8; and 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Won et al. (US-10039078-B2) APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANAGING TRACKING AREA LIST IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM;
Madasamy (US-9642065-B2) METHOD FOR MANAGING TRACKING AREA IDENTITY LIST AND USER EQUIPMENT USING THE SAME AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM USING THE SAME.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-8173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM ET.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Alex Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453