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 .
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 9 and 17 recites limitation, “receiving, by a subscription storage device of a first radio access technology (RAT) type from a first network device, a first request for a current RAT type of an end device; determining, by the subscription storage device in response to the first request, whether the end device is connected to a network via the first RAT type; and transmitting, by the subscription storage device to the first network device, a first response indicating the first RAT type when the subscription storage device determines that the current RAT type is the first RAT type”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites receiving, by a subscription storage device of a first radio access technology (RAT) type from a first network device; determining, by the subscription storage device in response to the first request, whether the end device is connected to a network via the first RAT type; and transmitting, by the subscription storage device to the first network device, a first response indicating the first RAT type when the subscription storage device determines that the current RAT type is the first RAT type. The receiving step and then determining whether the end device is connected to the network via the first RAT type and transmitting response recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, applying and transmitting i.e., "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaifuddin Pub. No. US 20210160666 A1 in view of Hu et al. Pub. No. US 20120269117 A1
Regarding Claim 1, Zaifuddin teaches a method comprising (Para 36 and Fig. 2, a sequence of messages that can be exchanged between an S-CSCF 120, one or more application servers 130, and an HSS 118):
receiving (Fig. 2 and Para 38, the application server 130 can send one or more User Data Request (UDR) messages 202 to the HSS 118 i.e., receiving to request data from a user profile associated with the UE 102, by a subscription storage device (Fig. 2 Unit 18, HSS) of a first radio access technology (RAT) type from a first network device, a first request for a current RAT type of an end device (Para 38-39 and 71, the application server 130 can send the HSS 118 a first UDR message 202A that includes a data reference element 204 indicating that the application server 130 is requesting T-ADS information 210 about RANs that the terminating UE 102 has attached to i.e., a first request for a current RAT type of an end device, and/or the RAT types associated with such RANs i.e., of a first radio access technology (RAT) type from a first network device);
and
transmitting, by the subscription storage device to the first network device, a first response indicating the first RAT type when the subscription storage device determines that the current RAT type is the first RAT type (Para 38 and 71 in reply to a UDR message 202 requesting T-ADS information 210 i.e., Para 72, indicate that the terminating UE 102 supports IMS Voice Over PS services, does not support IMS Voice Over PS services, or that it is unknown to the HSS 118 whether the terminating UE 102 supports IMS Voice Over PS services, the HSS 118 can return a UDA message 206 that includes T-ADS information 210 about one or more RAT-types and/or RAT-types that the terminating UE 102 has been connected to).
Zaifuddin teach from Fig. 2 202 and 206 and Fig. 4 Step 402 and 404 that the application server 130 can obtain T-ADS information 210, CS-domain location information 124, a CS-domain age value 128, PS-domain location information 122, and/or a PS-domain age value 126 associated with the terminating UE 102 from an HSS 118. The HSS 118 can reply with UDA messages 206 that provides the information requested by each of the UDR messages 202, based on user profile data stored at the HSS 118. For example, in reply to a UDR message 202 requesting T-ADS information 210, the HSS 118 can return a UDA message 206 that includes T-ADS information 210 about one or more RAN-types and/or RAT-types that the terminating UE 102 has been connected to (Para 70-71).
Zaifuddin does not specifically teach that determining, by the subscription storage device in response to the first request, whether the end device is connected to a network via the first RAT type.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hu teaches from Fig. 5 Step 502 that an application server (AS) sends a query request message to a home subscriber server (HSS) and then at step S504 the HSS queries a packet switching (PS) domain mobility management network element to obtain information of a called terminal and/or a network accessed by the called terminal in a call request message i.e., determining, by the subscription storage device in response to the first request, whether the end device is connected to a network via the first RAT type (Para 74-75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Zaifuddin with the method of Hu so as to reduce the number of signaling between the PS domain mobility management element and the HSS, avoid various limitations of the signaling loads generated by the HSS on network deployment, is convenient for the network deployment, and ensures the implementation of services (See Hu Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Zaifuddin teaches further comprising: applying first RAT type data indicative of the current RAT type of the end device to a network operation or procedure (Para 38 and 39).
Regarding Claim 3, Zaifuddin teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the subscription storage device to a subscription storage device of a second RAT type, a second request for the current RAT type of the end device, when the subscription storage device determines that the current RAT type is not the first RAT type (Para 73).
Regarding Claim 4, Zaifuddin teaches further comprising: receiving, by the subscription storage device of the first RAT type from the subscription storage device of the second RAT type, a second response indicating that the current RAT type is the second RAT type or the end device is not connected; and transmitting, by the subscription storage device of the first RAT type to the first network device, the second response (Para 74-75).
Regarding Claim 5, Zaifuddin teaches further comprising: applying second RAT type data or data that the end device is not connected, which is indicative of the current RAT type of the end device, to a network operation or procedure (Para 75-76).
Regarding Claim 6, Zaifuddin teaches wherein the network operation pertains to an establishment of a first application session between the first network device and the end device, or a modification of an active second application session between the first network device and the end device (Para 75).
Regarding Claim 7, Zaifuddin teaches wherein the first network device includes an application function (AF) that hosts an application service external from a core network of the subscription storage device of the first RAT type (Fig. 2 Unit 130, Application Server).
Regarding Claim 8, Zaifuddin teaches wherein the subscription storage device of the first RAT type includes a home subscriber server (HSS), an HSS front end (HSS-FE), or a unified data management (UDM) (Fig. 2 Unit 118, HSS).
Regarding Claim 9, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches a system comprising (fig. 1 and Para 16, network environment): a subscription storage device of a first radio access technology (RAT) type (fig. 1 Unit 118), wherein the subscription storage device comprises a first processor (Fig. 1 Unit 118 and Para 23 inherently should have processor).
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor of a subscription storage device of a first radio access technology (RAT) type (Para 23).
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olvera-Hernandez et al. Pub. No. Pub. No. 20250106658 A1 - Wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) for determining network analytics, has processor that determines artificial intelligence (AI) operation types and receives analytics message from second network node, in which analytics message indicates one or more network analytics
Shen Pub. No. 20250113240 A1 - Method for reporting subscription of slice event based on access type in communication system, involves sending first subscription request t network open function NEF to request event report of network slice associated with access type
Qiao et al. Patent No. US 10708318 B2 - Supporting termination access domain selection for a dual registered wireless device
Mohamed et al. Pub. No. US 20190327577 A1 - LOCATION-BASED CONTEXT DELIVERY
Pawar et al. Pub. No. US 20180146375 A1 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA OFFLOADING IN A HETNET
Osterlund et al. Pub. No. US 20180110089 A1 - ENHANCEMENTS TO TERMINATING ACCESS DOMAIN SELECTION
Meylan et al. Pub. No. US 20140213256 A1 - APPARATUS AND METHOD OF NETWORK SELECTION BASED ON AVAILABLE BANDWIDTH
Suzuki et al. Pub. No. US 20120157100 A1 - MOBILE COMMUNICATION METHOD, MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SERVER DEVICE, AND MOBILE SWITCHING CENTER
WO 2016165757 A1 - Determining method for radio access type (RAT), involves sending terminating access domain selection (T-ADS) response indicating that RAT is circuit switched RAT in case Packet Data Network gateway (PDN-GW) is not registered
Support of a Multi-access Session in 5G Mobile Network - 2019
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights