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 § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalank (US Publication 2020/0021953 A1) in view of Fard et al. (US Publication 2021/0274575 A1).
In regards to claims 1 and 9-10, Mahalank (US Publication 2020/0021953 A1) teaches, a method for processing a message, comprising: receiving a short message (see paragraph 57 and figure 8; FIG. 8 is a flow chart illustrating exemplary steps for SMS-based IoT device triggering using an MTC-IWF to generate and send SMS-based IoT device trigger messages; see paragraph 58; If the IoT device is stationary, control proceeds to step 402, where the MTC-IWF generates and sends an SMS-based IoT trigger message to the serving node for the stationary IoT device); acquiring a signaling simplification flow corresponding to the short message, wherein the signaling simplification flow is generated after simplifying a signaling standard flow (see paragraph 58; For stationary IoT devices, such as utility meters, MTC-IWF 120 may be configured with the IoT device identity and, the address of the serving MME, MSC, SSP, or other serving node); and performing a signaling operation on the short message according to the signaling simplification flow (see figure 8, the determination of the successful deliver in step 406; if the delivery is successful the operation moves to step 408 and if not, the operation moves to step 410; both paths read on the signaling operation).
In regards to claims 2 and 15, Mahalank teaches, wherein the step of obtaining a signaling simplification flow corresponding to the short message comprises: sending a signaling request for obtaining the signaling simplification flow to a signaling optimization module (see figure 2, line 2, paragraph 32; MTC-IWF 120 sends a subscriber information request); receiving a signaling response fed back by the signaling optimization module (see figure 2, line 3, paragraph 33; In line 3 of the message flow diagram, HSS/HLR 124 sends a subscriber information response to MTC-IWF 120); when the signaling simplification flow carried in the signaling response is available, executing a subsequent signaling operation on the short message according to the signaling simplification flow (see figure 2 lines/step 4a and the subsequent steps after step 4a); and when the signaling simplification flow carried in the signaling response is unavailable, or the signaling simplification flow is not carried, or the signaling response is not received within a pre-set time, executing a signaling operation on the short message according to the signaling standard flow corresponding to the short message (see figure 5 and paragraph 50; In line 5, MME 114 attempts to deliver the trigger message to IoT device 104 and determines that IoT device 104 is not reachable. In line 6, MME 114 responds to MTC-IWF 120 indicating that IoT device 104 is not reachable. In response, MTC-IWF 120 buffers the SMS message including the trigger message for a redelivery attempt).
In regards to claims 1 and 9-10, Mahalank fails to specifically teach, that the step of simplifying a signaling standard flow comprises: deleting a signaling part for generating the history signaling cache data from the signaling standard flow to obtain the simplified signaling flow.
Fard et al. (US Publication 2021/0274575 A1) teaches, the step of simplifying a signaling standard flow comprises: deleting a signaling part for generating the history signaling cache data from the signaling standard flow to obtain the simplified signaling flow (see figure 29, paragraphs 321-322; in IoT applications that use SMS being based on triggers, signaling is reduced to implement simplified network operations and architecture; the reduction reads on the deletion).
Mahalank and Fard both related to SMS based triggering in IoT applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the present application to incorporate the use of the signaling reduction as taught by Fard into the teachings of Mahalank. The motivation to do so would be to increase resource utilization efficiency by reducing unnecessary signaling procedure.
In regards to claims 3 and 16, Mahalank teaches wherein a process of generating the signaling simplification flow by the signaling optimization module comprises: inquiring whether history signaling cache data of a same type of history short messages sent by the short message sending end is locally cached; and when the history signaling cache data is found, simplifying the signaling standard flow based on the history signaling cache data to obtain the signaling simplification flow (see paragraph 32; In line 2 of the message flow diagram, MTC-IWF 120 sends a subscriber information request through the S6m interface to HSS/HLR 124 to resolve the external identifier or MSISDN to an international mobile station identifier (IMSI) and retrieve the related HSS stored routing information including the identities of the IoT device's serving core network (CN) node(s)).
In regards to claim 8, Mahalank teaches, wherein the short message comprises any one of the following: a registration message, a deregistration message, a mobile originate message and a mobile terminated message (see paragraph 30; IoT devices are triggered using SMS message generated by SMS-SC 108).
In regards to claim 11, Mahalank teaches the step of inquiring whether history signaling cache data of a same type of history short messages sent by the short message sending end is locally cached comprises: identifying the short message sending end according to an International Mobile Subscriber Identification Number (IMSI) carried in the signaling request; the IMSI is used as a key to inquiry whether history signaling cache data of the same type of history short messages sent by the short message sending end is locally cached (see paragraph 32; MTC-IWF 120 sends a subscriber information request through the S6m interface to HSS/HLR 124 to resolve the external identifier or MSISDN to an international mobile station identifier (IMSI) and retrieve the related HSS stored routing information including the identities of the IoT device's serving core network (CN) node(s)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 12-14 and 17-20 have previously been 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims and the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-8786. 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.
/JAY P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights