DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 2/28/2024 and 04/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 22215928.7, filed on 12/22/2022.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because there are no labels for blocks in figures 1-3 and 5-12. These blocks need to have descriptive labels under 37 CFR 1.84(n) and 1.84(o). For example, “Display” may be used for the label of block 308 in figure 3.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2-9 and 11are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claims 2-9 and 11, line 1, change “A method” to --The method-- in the beginning of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Claim 1 recites the phrase "at least one of" that describes two clauses “determinations” in conjunction with term “and” in line 8. However, it is unclear it the claim, how both clauses can be performed simultaneously. Thus, the examiner suggests correcting this issue by replacing the term “and” with “or” in line 8. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “and” to be “or”.
Same issue exists in claims 3-4, 7, 10 and 12-13. Accordingly, the examiner suggests the same correction as in claim 1 to claims 3-4, 7, 10 and 12-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to mental process (abstract idea). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 1 recites series of acts for receiving, determinations and signaling. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed “determinations” steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts (e.g. mental process) to be abstract ideas in that related to “observations or evaluations” that can be performed mentally abstract. Also, the claimed receiving step is directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. data gathering) to be abstract ideas in that related to collect a necessary input that is insignificant extra-solution activity. (Prong One). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, the claimed “signaling” step is merely a post-solution step of transmitting data output a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Prong Two). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are “first network apparatus, data registry and second network apparatus”. The claimed electronic first network apparatus, data registry and second network apparatus are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 1 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the first network apparatus, data registry and second network apparatus) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 11:
Claims 2-9 and 11, respectively, depend on claim 1 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus, claims 2-9 and 11 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed to mental process (abstract idea). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 10 recites series of acts for receiving, determinations and blacklisting. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed “determinations and blacklisting” steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts (e.g. mental process) to be abstract ideas in that related to “observations or evaluations” that can be performed mentally abstract. Also, the claimed receiving step is directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. data gathering) to be abstract ideas in that related to collect a necessary input that is insignificant extra-solution activity. (Prong One). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Prong Two). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are “first network apparatus and second network apparatus”. The claimed electronic first network apparatus, data registry and second network apparatus are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 10 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the first network apparatus and second network apparatus) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed to mental process (abstract idea). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 12 recites a first network apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory. Thus, the claim is directed to machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed “determinations” steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts (e.g. mental process) to be abstract ideas in that related to “observations or evaluations” that can be performed mentally abstract. Also, the claimed receiving step is directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. data gathering) to be abstract ideas in that related to collect a necessary input that is insignificant extra-solution activity. (Prong One). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, the claimed “signaling” step is merely a post-solution step of transmitting data output a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Prong Two). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are “first network apparatus, data registry, second network apparatus, at least one processor and at least one memory”. The claimed first network apparatus, data registry, second network apparatus, at least one processor and at least one memory are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 12 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements first network apparatus, data registry, second network apparatus, at least one processor and at least one memory) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 12 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed to mental process (abstract idea). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 13 recites a second network apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory and first network apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed “determinations and blacklisting” steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts (e.g. mental process) to be abstract ideas in that related to “observations or evaluations” that can be performed mentally abstract. Also, the claimed receiving step is directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. data gathering) to be abstract ideas in that related to collect a necessary input that is insignificant extra-solution activity. (Prong One). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Prong Two). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are “a second network apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory and first network apparatus”. The claimed a second network apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory and first network apparatus are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 13 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the second network apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory and first network apparatus) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 13 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
10. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lo et al. (US 20210337420) (hereinafter Lo).
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
As shown in figures 1-21, Lo discloses a first network apparatus (401 in figure 4A) comprising at least one processor (205 in figure 2) and at least one memory (206 in figure 2) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (205 in figure 2), cause the apparatus at least to perform (par 0052-0061):
receiving, from a data registry, information about a form of a data type (enrichment information (EI) interpreted to be a data type. Par 0008-0010) registered as being output by a non-real time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller application, rApp (402 in figure 4A);
receiving, from the rApp, a data output (see the data output to 412 in figure 4A) (par 0008-0010);
using said information and the data output (see the data output to 412 in figure 4A) to perform at least one of:
a first determination that determines that the registered data type is inconsistent in form with the data output (does not satisfy the defined bounds interpreted to be inconsistent in form with the data output. Figures 15-16, par 0008-0010); and
a second determination that determines that the data output comprises invalid values (error interpreted to be invalid value. See 1603-1604 in figure 16, par 0008-0009, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248); and
signaling an indication of the result of said first and/or second determination to a second network apparatus (412 in figure 4A) (See 1603-1604 in figure 16, par 0008-0009, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248).
Regarding claim 2:
Lo further discloses wherein said using comprises determining both the first and second determinations (figures 15-16, par 0008-0010, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248).
Regarding claim 3:
Lo further discloses wherein said using comprises determining only one of the first and second determinations (figures 15-16, par 0008-0010, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248).
Regarding claim 4:
Lo further discloses wherein the information about the form of the data type registered as being output by the rApp comprises metadata (abstract) comprising at least one of: a schema; a semantic description; an availability of the data output (par 0292-0293); a frequency of the data output; pre-processing capabilities of the rApp; and filtering capabilities of the rApp.
Regarding claim 7:
Lo further discloses wherein the analyzing comprises at least one of:
determining whether the at least one value is random;
determining whether the at least one value is inconsistent with a definition of data produced according to the received form of the data type (EI does not satisfy the defined bounds interpreted to be at least one value is inconsistent with a definition of data. See figures 15-16, par 0008-0010, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248); and
comparing the at least one value to at least one of:
all zeroes;
at least one constant value; and
empty data.
Regarding claim 8:
Lo further discloses wherein the first and second determinations are performed in parallel (steps 1602 -1604 in figure 16 show that first and second determinations are performed in parallel, par 0008-0010, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248).
Regarding claim 9:
Lo further discloses wherein the first and second determinations are performed in series (steps 1602 -1604 in figure 16 show that first and second determinations are performed in series, par 0008-0010, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248).
Regarding claims 10 and 13:
As shown in figures 1-21, Lo discloses a second network apparatus (400 in figure 4A), comprising at least one processor (205 in figure 2) and at least one memory (206 in figure 2) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (205 in figure 2), cause the apparatus at least to perform (par 0052-0061):
receiving, from a first network apparatus (401 in figure 4A), an indication of at least one of the following:
a first determination that a data type being output (see the data output to 412 in figure 4A) by a non-real time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller application, rApp, (enrichment information (EI) interpreted to be a data type. Par 0008-0010) is inconsistent in form with a form of data type registered as being output by the rApp (does not satisfy the defined bounds interpreted to be inconsistent in form with the data output. Figures 15-16, par 0008-0010); and
a second determination data output by the rApp comprises invalid values (error interpreted to be invalid value. See 1603-1604 in figure 16, par 0008-0009, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248), and
in response to said indication, blacklisting the rApp to prevent other rApps from using said output as an input (See “no” condition in steps 1603-1604 in figure 16, par 0008-0009, 0015-0016, 0036-0038, 0245-0248).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 5-6 and 11 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 and overcome the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b).
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Lo does not teach or suggest comparing the information about the form of the data type to the form of the received data output; and determining that the registered data type is inconsistent in form with a form of the data output by the rApp.
The prior art of record, Lo also does not teach or suggest analyzing at least one value comprised in the data output to determine whether the at least one value is usable as an input to another rApp; and determining that the data output comprises invalid values when the at least one value is not usable as an input to another rApp.
The prior art of record, Lo also does not teach or suggest receiving at least one output from at least one rApp, wherein the at least one rApp has not been indicated as having a data type that is inconsistent in form with a form of data type registered as being output by the rApp, and/or has not been indicated as having a data output that comprises invalid values; using the at least one output to determine a change to be made to the operation of a radio access network for optimising resources within the radio access network; and causing said change to be made to the radio access network.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akhtar et al. (US 12041469) disclose a method performed by a non-real time radio access network intelligent controller (NonRT-RIC) network node comprises obtaining data for improving radio resource management (RRM) of a radio access network (RAN) and building an AI interface message comprising one or more enrichment information (EI) elements based on the obtained data. Each of the one or more EI elements comprises an identifier of one or more wireless devices, a type indicator indicating a type of enrichment data included in the EI element, and the enrichment data. The method further comprises transmitting the AI interface message to a near real time radio access network intelligent controller (NearRT-RIC).
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631