DETAILED ACTION
This office action in response to an application filing received January 10, 2024. The preliminary amendment received January 10, 2024 has been entered. The Application Data Sheet received on January 10, 2024 has been considered.
Claims 1-14, 16-24, and 36 are amended.
Claims 25-35 and 37-70 are cancelled.
Claims 1-24 and 36 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement received January 10, 2024 has considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Dependent claim 9, recites a method. Specifically, claim 9 recites (with emphasis added), “wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node”.
As the limitation includes a “wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node” therefore, the Office considers the BRI of the claim 9 to include a scenario where “the second node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node”. The claim is directed towards a process performed by a first network node and these limitations further describe the functions of second and third node but fails to indicate how those functions further limit the process that the first network node performs.
As result, In the event that the first node is not part of the at least two of the nodes, the functionality of the second and third network nodes are not within the scope of the claim and would not get patentable weight.
Dependent claim 18, recites a method. Specifically, claim 18 recites (with emphasis added), “wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node”.
As the limitation includes a “wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node” therefore, the Office considers the BRI of claim 18 to include a scenario where “the first node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node”. The claim is directed towards a process performed by a second network node and these limitations further describe the functions of the first and third node but fails to indicate how those functions further limit the process that the second network node performs.
As result, In the event that the second network node is not part of the at least two of the nodes, the functionality of the first and third network nodes are not within the scope of the claim and would not get patentable weight.
Dependent claim 24, recites a method. Specifically, claim 24 recites (with emphasis added), “wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node”.
As the limitation includes a “wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node” therefore, the Office considers the BRI of claim 24 to include a scenario where “the first node and the second node are one of: co-localized and the same node”. The claim is directed towards a process performed by a third network node and these limitations further describe the functions of the first and second node but fails to indicate how those functions further limit the process that the third network node performs.
As result, In the event that the third network node is not part of the at least two of the nodes, the functionality of the first and second network nodes are not within the scope of the claim and would not get patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the second node managing, via a first application programming interface, a third node operating in the communications system, the third node managing a captivity portal accessible by the device to perform the action”.
These limitations further describe the functions of the second and third network nodes, but fail to indicate how those functions further limit the process that the first network node performs, as result, they are the intended result and outside the scope of the method performed by the first network node.
Additionally, the claim limitation “the indication indicating the state of the device has been set to captive state of the action” would get patentable weight since it further limits the scope of the indication being provided by the first core network node.
Claim 10, recites the limitation, “the third node managing a captivity portal accessible by the device to perform the action”.
These limitations further describe the functions of the third network node, but fail to indicate how those functions further limit the process that the second network node performs, as result, they are the intended result and outside the scope of the method performed by the second network node.
Additionally, the claim limitation “the indication indicating the state of the device has been set to captive state for the action” would get patentable weight since it further limits the scope of the indication being provided by the first core network node.
Claim 16, recites the limitation, “wherein the first core network node manages the data session”. Claim 10 is directed towards the second node, so the functionality of the first node is not within the scope of the claim.
Claim 23, recites the limitation, “wherein the first core network node manages the data session”. claim 19 is directed towards the third node, so the functionality of the first node is not within the scope of the claim.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 dependent from claim 1 and 10 are indefinite for the same rationale.
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 36, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 36, recites the following limitations: “A first core network node, for handling performance of an action by a device, the first core network node being configured to operate in a communications system … set, based on a determination …, the captive state being configured …, and provide an indication to a second node …, the indication being configured …”, which are only function/process steps performed by the nodes and device. The scope of the claim does not have any explicit hardware elements in the nodes or device. Claim 36 may be broadly interpreted as being implemented as software only. Claim 36 is a system claim and as such it must include at least one hardware element in the first, second, and third nodes and the device. Examiner suggests amending claim 36 to cover only statutory subject matter.
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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 16, 18 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Chan et al., US 20200145822 A1 (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 1, and 36, Chan teaches a computer-implemented method, performed by a first core network node, for handling performance of an action by a device, the first core network node operating in a communications system, and the device operating in the communications system via a connection through a data session (see Fig, 8-18, e.g., Server; Fig, 8-18, e.g., Mobile computing device; ¶ [0035], FIG. 1 illustrates network system 100 according to one of the embodiments of the present invention. Network system 100 includes network 110, a plurality of wireless network nodes 120, 121 and 122, a plurality of mobile computing devices 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 and 137 and server 150.),
the method comprising:
setting, based on a determination that the device is to perform an action with the communications system, a captivity state of the device to a captive state, the captive state indicating that the device has not yet performed the action (see Fig. 5, e.g., element 501-504; ¶ [0059], e.g., FIG. 5 illustrates actions performed by server 150 upon receipt of a request for determining status of mobile computing device 130 from wireless network node 120. At Step 501, server 150 receives a request for determining status of mobile computing device 130 in the server database based on the identification, such as, MAC address of mobile computing device 130 from wireless network node 120. At Step 502, server 150 determines whether the status of mobile computing device 130 is “Logged-in” state or not.), and
providing an indication to a second node operating in the communications system (see Fig. 5, e.g., element 501-504; ¶ [0059], e.g., At Step 503, if the status of mobile computing device 130 is not “Logged-in” state, status of mobile computing device as “Not Logged-in” state 905 is sent to wireless network node 120. At Step 504, if the status of mobile computing device 130 is “Logged-in” state, status of mobile computing device as “Logged-in” state 804 is sent to wireless network node 120.),
the second node managing, via a first application programming interface, a third node operating in the communications system, the third node managing a captivity portal accessible by the device to perform the action (Note that, These limitations further describe the functions of the second and third network nodes, but fail to indicate how those functions further limit the process that the first network node performs, as result, they are the intended result and outside the scope of the method performed by the first network node and as result would not get patentable weight.),
the indication indicating the state of the device has been set to captive state for the action (see ¶ [0049] At Step 407, if the status of mobile computing device 130 received from server 150 is “Logged-in” state, processing unit 300 updates the wireless network node database with status of mobile computing device 130 as “Logged-in” state based on the MAC address at Step 413. Step 415 will then be performed.).
Regarding claim 3, Chan teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Chan further teaches, wherein the method further comprises:
determining that the device has performed the action via at least one of the captivity portal and another interface with the communications system (see Fig. 6 e.g., element 601-606;
¶ [0060], e.g., [0060] FIG. 6 illustrates actions performed by server 150 upon receipt of a request for redirecting a mobile computing device 130 to a captive portal webpage from a wireless network node 120. At Step 601, server 150 receives a request for redirecting a mobile computing device 130 to a captive portal webpage from wireless network node 120. At Step 602, server 150 allows the user of mobile computing device 130 to do an authentication.), and
providing, after determining that the device has performed the action, another indication to the second node, the another indication indicating to the second node to clear the captive state (see Fig. 4 element 410-412; ¶ [0053] At Step 410, processing unit 300 determines whether the authentication of mobile computing device 130 is successful or not based on a response received. If the authentication is successful, Step 413 will be performed. If the authentication is not successful, processing unit 300 will update the wireless network node database with status of mobile computing device 130 as “Not Logged-in” state based on the MAC address at Step 411 and mobile computing device 130 is not allowed to communicate with network 110 at Step 412.).
Regarding claim 4, Chan teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Chan further teaches, wherein the indication is a fourth indication, and wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining a first indication that the second node provides a first service enabling to notify the device to perform the action via the captivity portal managed by the third node,
obtaining a second indication that the third node provides a second service enabling to notify the device to perform the action via the captivity portal managed by the third node, and
selecting at least one of the second node and the third node for the providing of the fourth indication, based on at least one of the obtained first indication, and the second indication (see ¶ [0060], e.g., FIG. 6 illustrates actions performed by server 150 upon receipt of a request for redirecting a mobile computing device 130 to a captive portal webpage from a wireless network node 120. At Step 601, server 150 receives a request for redirecting a mobile computing device 130 to a captive portal webpage from wireless network node 120. At Step 602, server 150 allows the user of mobile computing device 130 to do an authentication.).
Regarding claim 5, Chan teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
Chan further teaches, wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining one or more third indications identifying at least one of: the second node, and the captivity portal via which the device is to perform the action, and wherein the fourth indication comprises at least one of the obtained one or more third indications (see ¶ [0060], e.g., FIG. 6 illustrates actions performed by server 150 upon receipt of a request for redirecting a mobile computing device 130 to a captive portal webpage from a wireless network node 120. At Step 601, server 150 receives a request for redirecting a mobile computing device 130 to a captive portal webpage from wireless network node 120. At Step 602, server 150 allows the user of mobile computing device 130 to do an authentication).
Regarding claim 9, Chan teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Chan further teaches, wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node (Note that, BRI of the claim 9 to include a scenario where the first node is not part of the at least two of the nodes, then the functionality of the second and third network nodes are not within the scope of the claim and would not get patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 16, Chan teaches the limitations of Claim 10.
Chan further teaches, wherein the first core network node manages the data session (Note that, claim 10 is directed towards the second node, so the functionality of the first node is not within the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 18, Chan teaches the limitations of Claim 10.
Chan further teaches, wherein at least two of the first core network node, the second node and the third node are one of: co-localized and the same node (Note that, BRI of the claim 18 to include a scenario where the second node is not part of the at least two of the nodes, then the functionality of the first and third network nodes are not within the scope of the claim and would not get patentable weight).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19-22 and 24 are allowed.
Claim 10 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Dependent claim 2, 6-8, 11-15, 17 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner believes that a phone interview might be helpful in clearing up the issues of this application and help accelerate the prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RFC 8952, Captive Portal Architecture issued to K. LAROSE et al.
RFC_8908__Captive_Portal_API issued to T. Pauly et al.
US 20210360403 issued to Kamkar et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POONAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 8:30-5:30 pm, ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/POONAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights