Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The prePhillipst application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
In response to the 112(a) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendment. However the newly amended limitation raises a new 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20 (see the rejections below for further detail).
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 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1,9,17 cite “…the response payload is associated with a session identifier…” Applicant cited paragraph 0012 as the support for the newly amended limitations. However paragraph 0012 of the specification simply states “…QoD session maybe based on a session identifier…” this cited portion does not specifically discloses “…the response payload is associated with a session identifier…”. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should point out to specific portions of the specification that provide the written description for the feature).
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 (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 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 1-7,9-15,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzawa et al (us 2023/0027788) (hereinafter Anzawa) in view of Erman et al (us 2023/0396516) (hereinafter Erman), further in view of Beisiegel (us 2004/0243693) and Phillips et al (us 2023/0405454) (hereinafter Phillips).
As regarding claim 1, Anzawa discloses receiving, on the network, a request from a user device, a QoD metric to be used in the NaaS operations (see Anzawa 0038,0062 terminal transmits request to network for network quality requirement, also see 0092,0104-0105 QoS is for requesting NaaS services); wherein processing determines if the network supports the QoD metric (see Anzawa 0071, determine if quality requirement requested is satisfy, in the NaaS operations (see Anzawa 0092, quality requirement request is for Naas); wherein the response comprises a response the QoD metric in the response (see Anzawa 0041, transmitting response with result to the user).
Anzawa is silent in regard to the concept of utilizing an API module.
Erman teaches the concept of utilizing an API module (see Erman 0005, 0064, NaaS APIs by service provider).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Erman to Anzawa because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Anzawa with Erman’s teaching for the purpose of providing automated request processing and enhanced agility.
The combination of Anzawa-Erman is silent in regard to the concept of the request comprises a request payload that comprises a QoD metric, processing the request payload and the response comprises a response payload responsive to the QoD metric in the request payload.
Beisiegel teaches the concept of the request comprises a request payload that comprises a QoD metric (see Beisiegel 0050,0052, receiving a request with payload, where payload with QoS, processing the request payload (see Beisiegel 0050,0052,0065, processing the request payload) and the response comprises a response payload responsive to the QoD metric in the request payload (see Beisiegel 0050,0052, response payload with QoS).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Beisiegel to Anzawa-Erman because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Anzawa-Erman with Beisiegel’s teaching for the purpose of simplifying the interactions between clients and servers.
The combination of Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel is silent in regard to the concept of a QoD session is established in response to the request, and wherein the response payload is associated with a session identifier that uniquely identifies the QoD session for subsequent QoD operations, wherein the session identifier is usable to terminate the QoD session.
Phillips teaches the concept of a QoD session is established in response to the request (see Phillips 0091,0096, the session is established), and wherein the response payload is associated with a session identifier that uniquely identifies the QoD session for subsequent QoD operations, wherein the session identifier is usable to terminate the QoD session (see Phillips 0066, session response with session ID…using session ID to setup the session and later terminate the session (also see Phillips 0079)).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Phillips to Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel with Phillips’ teaching for the purpose of differentiate sessions in the multisession connections and maintain states across independent requests.
As regarding claim 2, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the QoD metric is a latency metric (see Anzawa 0060, 0113, latency).
As regarding claim 3, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the QoD metric is a bandwidth metric (see Anzawa, 0060, 0113, data rate (i.e. bandwidth)).
As regarding claim 4, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the request payload comprises at least one network service for which the QoD metric is requested (see Beisiegel 0049-0050, QoS elements). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 4.
As regarding claim 5, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the at least one network service comprises video services (see Erman 0068, video). For the purpose of providing various different type of services to the users.
As regarding claim 6, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the at least one network service comprises video services supporting a third-party gaming application (see Erman 0219, xr gaming). For the purpose of providing various different type of services to the users.
As regarding claim 7, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the at least one network service comprises video services supporting a third-party augmented reality (AR) application (see Erman 0068, AR). The same motivation was utilized in claim 6 applied equally to claim 7.
As regarding claims 9-15, 17-20 the limitations of claims 9-15,17-20 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1-7 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale. Claim 9 is similar to 1, in but in the aspect of the client transmitting the request instead of the aspect of the server which is also discloses by the combination of Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips.
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of Tran et al (us 10,8129920) (hereinafter Tran).
As regarding claim 8, Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, however Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips is silent in regard to the concept of real-time data services supporting third-party autonomous device operations.
Tran teaches the concept of real-time data services supporting third-party autonomous device operations (see Tran col.58, lines 18-30, autonomous driving as NaaS service).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tran to Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Anzawa-Erman-Beisiegel-Phillips with Tran’s teaching for the purpose of providing various different type of services to the users.
As regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 8, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection prePhillipsted in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226. 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 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 ReprePhillipstative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights