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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Figure 1B does not include “104-1” mentioned in line 4 in [0017]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because following reference signs are used inconsistently. For example, see network 104-A in Figure 1B and network 104-1 in Figure 7, As 216-A in Figure 1B and As 216-1 in Figure 7, network 104-B in Figure 1B and network 104-2 in Figure 7, As 216-B in Figure 1B and As 216-2 in Figure 7. Either the set of reference signs {104-A, 104-B, 216-A, 216-B} or the set of reference signs {104-1, 104-2, 216-1, 216-2} should be used. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because “ATA RELAY LIST 508-A” in Figure 5 should be replaced with “ATA RELAY LIST 510-A”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Several reference signs are used inconsistently. For example, see network 104-A and network 104-1, As 216-A and As 216-1, network 104-B and network 104-2 and As 216-B and As 216-2. Either the set of reference signs {104-A, 104-B, 216-A, 216-B} or the set of reference signs {104-1, 104-2, 216-1, 216-2} should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “EXID system 216” in [0034] should be replaced with “EXID system 214”, see Figure 4 and Figure 7.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Operating system 306” in [0035] should be replaced with “Operating system 304”, see Figure 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “FIG. 3B” in [0037] should be replaced with “FIG 3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “EXIIDs” in [0043] should be replaced with “EXIDs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “secondary XID field 408” in [0046] should be replaced with “secondary EXID field 508”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “EXID system 100” in [0047] should be replaced with “EXID system 214”, see Figure 4 and Figure 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “registered networks 214” in [0048] should be replaced with “registered networks 104”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “registered networks 404” in [0048] should be replaced with “registered networks 104”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “block 802” in [0053] should be replaced with “block 804”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livanos et al. (US Pub. 2020/0177678) in view of Slovetskiy et al. (US Pub. 2020/0296141) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2018/0054765).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Livanos teaches a device comprising: a processor to: receive, via a wireless connection, from an application server, a routing request that includes data and an identifier for a destination UE (“receive from the AS a message which indicates a request to communicate data to the IoT device (step 1004 of FIG. 10). The message may include an external ID assigned to the IoT device” in [0061]); identify, a target external identifier for the destination UE (“retrieve a subscriber ID and/or mobile network ID of the IoT device based on a stored mapping between the external ID and the subscriber ID and/or mobile network ID” in [0061]); and route the data to the destination UE (“facilitate data communication between the AS and the IoT device using the retrieved subscriber ID and/or mobile network ID (step 1008 of FIG. 10)” in [0061]). Livanos, however, does not teach route the data to a target application server. Slovetskiy teaches route the data to a target application server (see “sending the datagram to the target server” in step 808 in Figure 8 and “The external-ID or MSISDN may be used to map the communication to a target server (e.g., LwM2M, bootstrap, or CoAP server)” in [0056]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livanos to have route the data to a target application server as taught by Slovetskiy in order to create a security context for the datagram [0056]. Livanos in view of Slovetskiy, however, does not teach an application server that provided a source external identifier to a source User Equipment device (UE) and a target application server that issued the target external identifier. Kim teaches an application server that provided a source external identifier to a source User Equipment device (UE) and a target application server that issued the target external identifier (“a terminal identifier (ID) (e.g., external ID—not defined in the 3GPP standard but allocated by an application server” in [0073]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livanos in view of Slovetskiy to have an application server that provided a source external identifier to a source User Equipment device (UE) and a target application server that issued the target external identifier as taught by Kim in order to configure external ID to be used temporarily [0084].
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Kim teaches the processor is further configured to: receive a request, from the application server, to register the source external identifier (“a terminal identifier (ID) (e.g., external ID … allocated by an application server” in [0073]); and register the source external identifier (“a terminal identifier (ID) (e.g., external ID … allocated by an application server” in [0073]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Slovetskiy teaches the destination UE includes: one or more external identifiers associated with applications that are hosted by the destination UE, wherein the one or more external identifiers include the target external identifier (see “the device endpoint-ID for sending, for example, as.system.com/device-id, wherein the device-id could be any identifier that the intermediate application server may recognize (e.g., NB-IoT external-ID, MSISDN, CoAP/LwM2M endpoint-ID” in [0055] and “The external-ID or MSISDN may be used to map the communication to a target server (e.g., LwM2M, bootstrap, or CoAP server)” in [0056]).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livanos et al. in view of Slovetskiy et al. and Kim et al. and further in view of Banister et al. (US Pub. 2016/0048569).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim teaches the limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 as shown above. Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim, however, does not teach the processor is further configured to: register information identifying a first network that includes the application server; and register information identifying a second network that includes the target application server. Banister teaches the processor is further configured to: register information identifying a first network that includes the application server (“an application server network address APP.ADDR of the application server 110 as a sender address” in [0081]); and register information identifying a second network that includes the target application server (“the application server network address APP.ADDR of the application server 110 as a destination address” in [0083]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim to have the processor is further configured to: register information identifying a first network that includes the application server; and register information identifying a second network that includes the target application server as taught by Banister in order to provide updates to database records [0004].
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livanos et al. in view of Slovetskiy et al. and Kim et al. and further in view of Bezalel (US Pub. 2022/0131815).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim teaches the limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 as shown above. Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim, however, does not teach the target application server is configured to: provide the data to the destination UE when the destination UE connects to the target application server. Bezalel teaches the target application server is configured to: provide the data to the destination UE when the destination UE connects to the target application server (see “Forward S&F data” in step 340 in Figure 3 and “receiving storage-and-forward data from an application server, wherein the storage-and-forward data is directed to a device connected within a cellular network, wherein the device operates in at least a sleep state and a wakeup state; caching the received storage-and-forward data in a memory; checking if the device is currently in the wakeup state; and forwarding the cached storage-and-forward data to the device when the device is in the wakeup state” in [0009]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim to have the target application server is configured to: provide the data to the destination UE when the destination UE connects to the target application server as taught by Bezalel in order to provide for the transmission of data to sleeping devices by holding the data intended for a target device at a sending or intermediary server, until such a time as the target device is awake and available to receive the held data [0005].
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livanos et al. in view of Slovetskiy et al. and Kim et al. and further in view of Sohail et al. (US Pub. 2020/0344299).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim teaches the limitations in claims 1, 8 and 15 as shown above. Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim, however, does not teach the application server is configured to: receive a request, from the source UE, to communicate with the destination UE; and send a request, to the device, to route the data to the destination UE. Sohail teaches the application server is configured to: receive a request, from the source UE, to communicate with the destination UE (“the source device 620 sends a request to the IoT application server 600 to send the data file 630 to the destination device 622” in [0066]); and send a request, to the device, to route the data to the destination UE (“the source device 620 sends a request to the IoT application server 600 to send the data file 630 to the destination device 622” in [0066]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Livanos in view of Slovetskiy and Kim to have the application server is configured to: receive a request, from the source UE, to communicate with the destination UE; and send a request, to the device, to route the data to the destination UE. as taught by Sohail in order to send a data file 630 (or more generally, data block) from a source device 620 to a destination device 622 [0066].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights