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.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-17, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for selecting a location service entity, comprising: acquiring service capability information of a candidate location service entity from a preset storage space according to location requirement information of a user equipment (UE); and determining a target location service entity according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity.” The claimed limitations under a broadest reasonable interpretation comprise acquiring data [acquiring service capability information] based on a given metric [according to location requirement information], and then analyzing said data [determine a target location service entity] each of which represents a process that can be performed by the mind as a mental process or by the mind as a mental process with the assistance of a generic computer given the environment. The only additional recitation is that the capability information is acquired from ‘a preset storage’ and that the limiting metric [location requirement information] is ‘of a user equipment (UE). Therefore, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation covers process capable of being performed by the mind along with the recitation of generic components, the claim falls with the ‘mental process’ grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the ‘preset storage’ and ‘UE’ are recited with a high level of generality and do not impose a practical application or meaningful limitation of the claimed abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as noted above the ‘preset storage’ and ‘UE’ only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and to generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of use.
Therefore, the claim is rejected as a ‘mental process’ abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to recite additional elements that amount to ‘significantly more’ as claim recites additional generic limitations regarding the storage space, and claim 3-7 contain contingent limitations that are in turn not required to complete the method process and thus fail to provide reprieve from the abstract nature of the parent claims [see clarity of the record section below for full explanation regarding claims 3-7].
Dependent claims 8-9, when given a BRI correlate to providing additional labels and sorting parameters to make the determination from and only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 10-11, correlate to additional mental steps and only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by determining a policy, which can be performed as a mental step, and then associating this policy with a generically detailed storage type.
Dependent claim 13 correlates to additional mental steps and only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by determining a grading or labelling association of the data before performing the determination.
Claim 28 in reciting a generic processor and memory only serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for selecting a location service entity, comprising: sending service capability information of a candidate location service entity in a preset storage space to a target functional entity, so as to allow the target functional entity to determine a target location service entity according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity; wherein the service capability information of the candidate location service entity is information acquired from the preset storage space according to location requirement information of a user equipment (UE)” The claimed limitations under a broadest reasonable interpretation comprise acquiring data [sending service capability information] based on a given metric [according to location requirement information], and then analyzing said data [determine a target location service entity] each of which represents a process that can be performed by the mind as a mental process or by the mind as a mental process with the assistance of a generic computer given the environment. The only additional recitation is that the capability information is acquired by being sent from ‘a preset storage’ to a ‘target functional entity’ and that the limiting metric [location requirement information] is ‘of a user equipment (UE). Therefore, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation covers process capable of being performed by the mind along with the recitation of generic components, the claim falls with the ‘mental process’ grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the ‘preset storage’, ‘target functional entity’ and ‘UE’ are recited with a high level of generality and do not impose a practical application or meaningful limitation of the claimed abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as noted above the ‘preset storage’, ‘target functional entity’ and ‘UE’ only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and to generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of use.
Therefore, the claim is rejected as a ‘mental process’ abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 16 correlates to additional mental steps and only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by providing an operational order to the data retrieval from the generic storage.
Dependent claim 17, when given a BRI correlate to providing additional labels and sorting parameters to make the determination from and only serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 30 in reciting a generic processor and memory only serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claims 18-21 and 22-25 are considered to add ‘significantly more’ to the claimed abstract idea and therefore are not rejected as ‘mental step’ abstract idea claims.
Claim 18, in receiving a subscription request, analyzing and transmitting a subscription feedback response to back to the UE is interpreted to be ‘Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present’ and therefore adds ‘significantly more to the claimed abstract idea.
Claim 22, in receiving a registration request, analyzing and transmitting a registration response back to the UE is interpreted to be ‘Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present’ and therefore adds ‘significantly more to the claimed abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation-Clarity of the record
Claim 2 recites a limitation in the alternative, specifically, “wherein the preset storage space comprises a local storage space set in a current functional entity or a remote storage space set in a functional entity except for the current functional entity”. Per MPEP 2111.04(II), claim 2 as a method claim and when given a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) provides alternative and conditional limitations wherein considering each condition is not required to complete the method (i.e. A or B requires only that A or B is taught by the prior art). Specifically, the preset storage space as claimed may be either local storage (A) or remote storage (B). As such, any dependent claim that further limits only the local storage (A) or only the remote storage (B) can be interpreted through BRI as not actually required to complete the method process in light of the ability to choose the other storage design, and are thus rejected in light of the parent claim [for example, if local storage is selected, limitations further limiting remote storage would not be required to complete the method process]. For clarity and compact prosecution, each claim has been fully reviewed for prior art and other concerns. As such only claims dependent on claim 2 that do not have prior art to anticipate them or render them obvious will be indicated as rejected in light of the parent claim [This issue specifically effects the limitations of claims 3-6]. However, the applicant may want to consider amendments to the limitations to remove the contingent limitations in the future to assist in determining potentially allowable subject matter related to the specifics of the remote storage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘GPP’ (NPL “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; 5G System (5GS) Location Services (LCS); Stage 2 (release 17)”, see IDS; herein after referred to as GPP).
Re claim 1, GPP discloses a method for selecting a location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “LMF selection functionality is used by the AMF to determine an LMF for location estimation”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Step 6), comprising:
acquiring service capability information (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles…or by querying NRF”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8) of a candidate location service entity from a preset storage space (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “based on locally available information…or by querying NRF”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8; Page 21 section 4.3.6 ‘UDM’) according to location requirement information of a user equipment (UE) (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles…or by querying NRF” – “The following factors may be considered during LMF selection”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8; page 20 section 4.3.5 ‘UE’); and
determining a target location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “LMF selection functionality is used by the AMF to determine an LMF for location estimation”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 6-10; Page 21 section 4.3.7 ‘AMF’) according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “LMF selection functionality is used by the AMF to determine an LMF for location estimation” – “The following factors may be considered during LMF selection”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 6-10; Page 21 section 4.3.7 ‘AMF’).
Re claim 15, GPP discloses a method for selecting a location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “LMF selection functionality is used by the AMF to determine an LMF for location estimation”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Step 6), comprising:
sending service capability information (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles…or by querying NRF”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8) of a candidate location service entity in a preset storage space (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “based on locally available information…or by querying NRF”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8; Page 21 section 4.3.6 ‘UDM’) to a target functional entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “LMF selection functionality is used by the AMF to determine an LMF for location estimation”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 6-10; Page 21 section 4.3.7 ‘AMF’), so as to allow the target functional entity to determine a target location service entity according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “LMF selection functionality is used by the AMF to determine an LMF for location estimation” – “The following factors may be considered during LMF selection”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 6-10; Page 21 section 4.3.7 ‘AMF’);
wherein the service capability information of the candidate location service entity is information acquired from the preset storage space (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “based on locally available information…or by querying NRF”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8; Page 21 section 4.3.6 ‘UDM’) according to location requirement information of a user equipment (UE) (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles…or by querying NRF” – “The following factors may be considered during LMF selection”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8; page 20 section 4.3.5 ‘UE’).
Re claim 2, GPP discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the preset storage space comprises a local storage space set in a current functional entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1 – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8) or a remote storage space set in a functional entity except for the current functional entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “…or by querying NRF”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8; Page 21 section 4.3.6 ‘The UDM is accessible from an AMF’; Fig 4.2.2-1/2 showing AMF/UDM).
Re claim 3, GPP discloses the method of claim 2, and further wherein the remote storage space comprises a storage space set in a Unified Data Management entity (UDM); acquiring the service capability information of the candidate location service entity from the preset storage space according to the location requirement information of the UE comprises: sending a location-service-entity subscription data acquisition request to the UDM; wherein the location-service-entity subscription data acquisition request comprises the location requirement information of the UE; and receiving a location-service-entity subscription data feedback message returned by the UDM; wherein the location-service-entity subscription data feedback message comprises the service capability information of the candidate location service entity, the service capability information of the candidate location service entity is information determined by the UDM according to the location requirement information of the UE and service capability information of a first location service entity, and the service capability information of the first location service entity is pre-stored in the storage space in the UDM (the limitations of claim 3 are rejected in light of parent claim 2, as claim 3 further limits a contingent limitation, in this case further specifying the details of a remote storage, however, as local storage is an electable option to complete the method, given the BRI, limitations towards further refining the remote storage are not required to complete the process, please see additional explanation provided above and MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Re claim 4, GPP discloses the method of claim 3, and further wherein the service capability information of the first location service entity is information acquired by the UDM according to a location-service-entity subscription request sent by the UE; wherein the location-service-entity subscription request comprises service capability information of a location service entity subscribing to the UE (the limitations of claim 4 are rejected in light of parent claims 2 and 3, as claim 4 further limits a contingent limitation, in this case further specifying the details of a remote storage, however, as local storage is an electable option to complete the method, given the BRI, limitations towards further refining the remote storage are not required to complete the process, please see additional explanation provided above and MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Re claim 5, GPP discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the remote storage space comprises a storage space set in a Network Function Repository Function entity (NRF); acquiring the service capability information of the candidate location service entity from the preset storage space according to the location requirement information of the UE comprises: sending a location-service-entity discovery request to the NRF; wherein the location-service-entity discovery request comprises the location requirement information of the UE; and receiving a location-service-entity discovery feedback message returned by the NRF; wherein the location-service-entity discovery feedback message comprises the service capability information of the candidate location service entity, the service capability information of the candidate location service entity is information determined by the NRF according to the location requirement information of the UE and service capability information of a second location service entity, and the service capability information of the second location service entity is pre-stored in the storage space in the NRF (the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in light of parent claim 2, as claim 5 further limits a contingent limitation, in this case further specifying the details of a remote storage, however, as local storage is an electable option to complete the method, given the BRI, limitations towards further refining the remote storage are not required to complete the process, please see additional explanation provided above and MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Re claim 6, GPP discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the service capability information of the second location service entity is information acquired by the NRF according to a location-service-entity registration request sent by a location service entity and/or a location-service-entity registration update request sent by a location service entity; wherein the location-service-entity registration request and/or the location-service-entity registration update request comprise/comprises service capability information of the location service entity to be registered and/or service capability information of the location service entity to be subjected to registration updating (the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in light of parent claims 2 and 5, as claim 6 further limits a contingent limitation, in this case further specifying the details of a remote storage, however, as local storage is an electable option to complete the method, given the BRI, limitations towards further refining the remote storage are not required to complete the process, please see additional explanation provided above and MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Re claim 7, GPP discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the preset storage space is the local storage space set in the current functional entity;
acquiring the service capability information of the candidate location service entity from the preset storage space according to the location requirement information of the UE (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles…”– “The following factors may be considered during the LMF selection”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8) comprises:
determining the candidate location service entity according to the location requirement information of the UE and service capability information (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1 – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles” – “The following factors may be considered during the LMF selection”) of a third location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1 – “The AMF selects a new LMF if: -…the LMF IDS cannot be used” – shows consideration of different LMF unique from the active or selected LMF, thereby showing the ‘third’, being other than the original);
wherein the service capability information of the third location service entity is pre-stored in the storage space in the current functional entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1 – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles”); and
acquiring the service capability information of the candidate location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1-5.1a – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles…”; Page 35-36, Fig 6.1.1-1, Steps 4-8).
Re claim 8, GPP discloses the method of any one of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the location service entity comprises a Location Management Function entity (LMF) (Page 21 section 4.3.7; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1-5.1a) and/or a Gateway Mobile Location Center entity (GMLC) (Page 19 section 4.3.3; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1-5.1a); and
the service capability information of the candidate location service entity comprises service area information of the candidate location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “LMF Service Area”) and/or service network information of the candidate location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “Network slicing information”), and
the location requirement information of the UE comprises access location information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “UE location context”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5) and/or access network information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “RAT type …of the target UE”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5).
Re claim 17, GPP discloses the method of claim 15, and further wherein
the location service entity comprises a Location Management Function entity (LMF) (Page 21 section 4.3.7; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1-5.1a) and/or a Gateway Mobile Location Center entity (GMLC) (Page 19 section 4.3.3; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1-5.1a); and
the service capability information of the candidate location service entity comprises service area information of the candidate location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “LMF Service Area”) and/or service network information of the candidate location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “Network slicing information”), and
the location requirement information of the UE comprises access location information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “UE location context”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5) and/or access network information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “RAT type …of the target UE”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5).
Re claim 9, GPP discloses the method of claim 8, and further wherein determining the candidate location service entity according to the location requirement information of the UE and service capability information (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1 – “locally available information i.e., LMF profiles” – “The following factors may be considered during the LMF selection”) of a third location service entity (Pages 24-25, Section 5.1 – “The AMF selects a new LMF if: -…the LMF IDS cannot be used” – shows consideration of different LMF unique from the active or selected LMF, thereby showing the ‘third’, being other than the original) comprises:
determining the candidate location service entity according to the access location information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “UE location context”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5) and service area information of the third location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “LMF Service Area”); or
determining the candidate location service entity according to the access network information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “RAT type …of the target UE”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5) and service network information of the third location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “Network slicing information”); or
determining the candidate location service entity according to the access location information (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “UE location context”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5) and the access network information of the UE (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “RAT type …of the target UE”; Page 20 section 4.3.4, 4.3.5) and the service area information (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “LMF Service Area”) and the service network information of the third location service entity (Page 24-25 section 5.1 – “Network slicing information”).
Re claim 13, GPP discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein determining the target location service entity according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity comprises:
determining a service capability grade of the candidate location service entity (Pages 12-13 section 4.1b – “QoS classes”; Page 21 Section 4.3.8 – “Determine…QoS”; Page 22 Section 4.3.9 – “Support determination of GLMC or AMF based on e.g. the QoS”; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1) according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity (Pages 12-13 section 4.1b – “QoS classes”; Page 21 Section 4.3.8 – “Determine…QoS”; Page 22 Section 4.3.9 – “Support determination of GLMC or AMF based on e.g. the QoS”; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1); and determining the target location service entity according to the service capability grade of the candidate location service entity (Pages 12-13 section 4.1b – “QoS classes”; Page 21 Section 4.3.8 – “Determine…QoS”; Page 22 Section 4.3.9 – “Support determination of GLMC or AMF based on e.g. the QoS”; Pages 24-25 Section 5.1);
or,
wherein the service capability information of the candidate location service entity further comprises service slice information of the candidate location service entity; and determining the target location service entity according to the service capability information of the candidate location service entity comprises: determining the target location service entity according to the service slice information of the candidate location service entity; wherein the target location service entity is a candidate location service entity matched with an access slice of the UE.
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.
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GPP (NPL “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; 5G System (5GS) Location Services (LCS); Stage 2 (release 17)”, see IDS) in view of Edge (US Pub 20190053010).
Re claim 28, GPP discloses an electronic device (Page 8 section 1; Page 10-11 section 4.1), to implement the method for selecting the location service entity of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above); however, GPP fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device comprises one or more processors; and a memory having stored thereon one or more programs which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method.
This design is however disclosed by Edge. Edge discloses wherein the device comprises one or more processors (Fig 19 el 1904, Par 286-288, 298-302, 304-307); and a memory having stored thereon one or more programs (Fig 19 el 1910, Par 286-288, 298-302, 304-307) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method (Fig 19 el 1904/1906/1910, Par 286-288, 298-302, 304-307).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of GPP in order to incorporate the computing device embodiment of Edge based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it is commonplace a well-known to those of skill in the art the use of processor/memory combinations to execute instructions located on the various devices in a given communication environment, applying the embodiment here allows for a physical construction of the design with expected functional results while allowing for the design to be widely applied in communication environments where the application of the design would benefit the user with more efficient and higher quality communication experiences.
Re claim 30, GPP discloses an electronic device (Page 8 section 1; Page 10-11 section 4.1), to implement the method for selecting the location service entity of claim 15 (see the rejection of claim 15 above); however, GPP fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device comprises one or more processors; and a memory having stored thereon one or more programs which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method.
This design is however disclosed by Edge. Edge discloses wherein the device comprises one or more processors (Fig 19 el 1904, Par 286-288, 298-302, 304-307); and a memory having stored thereon one or more programs (Fig 19 el 1910, Par 286-288, 298-302, 304-307) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method (Fig 19 el 1904/1906/1910, Par 286-288, 298-302, 304-307).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of GPP in order to incorporate the computing device embodiment of Edge based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it is commonplace a well-known to those of skill in the art the use of processor/memory combinations to execute instructions located on the various devices in a given communication environment, applying the embodiment here allows for a physical construction of the design with expected functional results while allowing for the design to be widely applied in communication environments where the application of the design would benefit the user with more efficient and higher quality communication experiences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claim 18 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the UDM based processing prior to acquiring capability information receiving and transmitting a response to a subscription request wherein the request comprises a specified ability information for the requesting UE. Re claim 22 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the NRF based processing prior to acquiring capability information receiving and transmitting a response to a registration/registration update request wherein the request comprises a specified ability information for the requesting UE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631