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 .
Response to Arguments
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/07/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
3. The rejection under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20 is not corrected/clarified by the amendment. Therefore, the rejection is not withdrawn.
4. Applicant arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TIWARI et al. (US 20110216698) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments but firmly believes that the cited reference reasonably and properly meets the claimed limitation as rejected.
Applicant’s argument with regards to 35 USC 101 rejection (1): First, Applicant disagrees that the claim is directed to a mental process. A mental process is one that can be performed by a human mind. Claim 1 cannot be performed by a human mind. The operations of claim 1 are performed by an edge computing device and include details that cannot be performed by a human mind. A human mind cannot, for example, determine "a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network."
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument above. Applicants are reminded that MPEP (2106.04(a)(2), section III) teaches:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not "mental processes", is provided below with respect to point A.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This concept is explained further below with respect to point D.
Also, applicants are reminded that MPEP (2106.04(a)(2), section III, subsection C) teaches:
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
As recited in the last office action “The claimed limitations “determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the first message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network of the telecommunications system; determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the unauthorized status associated with the UE, at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).”
Furthermore, as disclosed in the last office action, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) in the claim is “edge computing device and user equipment” 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 edge computing device and user equipment) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).” Also, The claimed limitations “determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the first message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network of the telecommunications system; determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the unauthorized status associated with the UE, at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Applicant’s argument with regards to 35 USC 101 rejection (2): Lastly, the Office characterizes the receiving and transmitting operations as mere data gathering (pre-solution activity) and post-solution activity. Office Action, pages 3-4. However, these operations are integral to the claimed technical solution, not ancillary to it. The "receiving" in the first operation of claim 1 involves receiving a communication session request at an edge computing device associated with an access network-this is a trigger for the claimed operations and defines the specific telecommunications context in which the claimed implementation operates. The transmitting operation provides the UE with actual channel information that enables communication, which is the practical result of the claimed operations. Together with the determining operations, these elements form an integrated technical solution for enabling emergency service access through telecommunications networks.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument above. Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) teaches:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility.
Accordingly, the claimed limitations “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session … transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel” are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, when considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims as a whole, are not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and are ineligible.
Applicant’s argument with regards to 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection: As amended however, the second communication channel "provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities." The mere camping on an access point and being denied access to a core network does not "provide[] information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities", as is claimed in amended claim 1.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument above. In the specification of instant application, page 2, paragraph 0009, the applicant discloses “The second communication channel can provide a variety of information or functionality to enable the unauthorized UE access to additional entities (e.g., the core network, a service, or other entity downstream from the access network).” Figure 3 of instant application below, also shows the same teaching as paragraph 0009 of the specification of instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in figure 3 of instant application above, the UE 302 is in communication with access network 306, core network 110, Mobility Management Function (AMF) 318, Session Management Function (SMF), and IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) 310.
Keeping the above teaching of applicant’s specification and figure 3 of instant application, figure 1 of the cited prior art TIWARI, shown below, teaches the same operation as in paragraph 0009 of the specification and figure 3 of instant application.
As shown below, TIWARI shows mobile communication device 110 is in communication with service network 120, cellular station 121, control node 122, and core network 123.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, TIWARI does teach “wherein the second communication channel provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities” as recited in the amended claims 1, 7 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1, Claim 1 recites series of acts for receiving, determining and transmitting. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed limitations “determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the first message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network of the telecommunications system; determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the unauthorized status associated with the UE, at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session” (data gathering) (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel” (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session … transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Also, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) “wherein the second communication channel provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities”, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Furthermore, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) in the claim is “edge computing device and user equipment” 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 edge computing device and user equipment) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-6:
Claims 2-6, respectively, depend on claim 1 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus, claims 2-6 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 1: Claim 7 recites a system. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed limitations “determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the first message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network of the telecommunications system; determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the unauthorized status associated with the UE, at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “storing computer-executable instructions” (storing and retrieving information in memory) (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iv))
The additional elements, “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session” (data gathering) (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel” (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session … transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Also, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) “wherein the second communication channel provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities”, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Furthermore, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) in the claim is “one or more processors, memory, edge computing device and user equipment” are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 7 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the one or more processors, memory, edge computing device and user equipment) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 7 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 8-15:
Claims 8-15, respectively, depend on claim 7 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 7. Thus, claims 8-15 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 7.
Regarding claim 16:
Step 1: Claim 16 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed limitations “the UE being associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network of the telecommunications system and determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the unauthorized status associated with the UE, at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “storing instructions” (storing and retrieving information in memory) (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iv))
The additional elements, “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session” (data gathering) (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel” (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receiving, by an edge computing device associated with an access network of a telecommunications system, a first message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session … transmitting, by the edge computing device, a second message to the UE indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Also, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) “wherein the second communication channel provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities”, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Furthermore, the additional element(s)/limitation(s) in the claim is “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, one or more processors, memory, edge computing device and user equipment” are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 16 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the one or more processors, memory, edge computing device and user equipment) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 16 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 17-20:
Claims 17-20, respectively, depend on claim 16 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 16. Thus, claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 24.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TIWARI et al. (US 20110216698) (hereinafter TIWARI).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 16:
As shown in figures 1-9, TIWARI discloses a system (see figure 1) comprising:
one or more processors (see controller module 112 in figure 1, par 0025); and
memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see controller module 112 in figure 1), cause the system to perform operations (par 0025) comprising:
receiving (S410 in figure 4), by an edge computing device (120 in figure 4) associated with an access network (120 in figure 1) of a telecommunications system (see figure 1 and 4), a first message from a user equipment (UE) (110 in figure 4) requesting a communication session (service request shown in S410 interpreted to be requesting a communication session) (abstract, par 0005, 0028) (on page 8, paragraph 0025 of the specification of instant application, the applicant discloses “The edge device 102 may represent any device that can wirelessly connect to the telecommunication network, and in some examples may include a mobile phone such as a smart phone or other cellular phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a personal computer (PC) such as a laptop, desktop, or workstation, a media player, a tablet, a gaming device, a smart watch, a hotspot, a Machine to Machine device (M2M), a vehicle (e.g., an autonomous vehicle, an unmanned aerial vehicle, airplane, boat, etc.), an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or any other type of computing or communication device”. Thus, the examiner makes his broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant specification that service network 120 shown in figure 4 of TIWARI to be an edge computing device. Applicants are reminded that MPEP teaches “During patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2111- § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis”);
determining (S420 in figure 4), by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the first message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network (123 in figure 1) of the telecommunications system (see figure 1) (S420 of figure 4 shows service network 120 determine unauthorized membership of the mobile communication device (UE)) (abstract, par 0028);
determining, by the edge computing device (120 in figure 4) and based at least in part on the unauthorized status associated with the UE (abstract, par 0028), at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network (120 in figure 1) and independent of the core network (see 123 in figure 1) (figure 1 shows communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network) (par 0025-0026), wherein the second communication channel provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities (in figure 1, TIWARI shows mobile communication device 110 using the second communication channel (see the communication channel in figure 1) provides information or functionality to enable UE access to one or more additional entities, for example, service network 120, cellular station 121, control node 122, and core network 123. Also see examiner’s response above with regards to 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection); and
transmitting (S430 in figure 4), by the edge computing device (120 in figure 4), a second message to the UE (110 in figure 4) indicating one of: the first communication channel or the second communication channel (see the communication channel in figure 1. Also, S430 in figure 4 shows indicating service reject and rejection cause or the communication channel) (abstract, par 0028).
Regarding claims 2 and 8:
TIWARI further discloses
determining metadata associated with the UE (110 in figure 4) based at least in part on one of: message data associated with the first message (service request message in S410 in figure 4 interpreted to be data associated with the first message) or historical data, the metadata describing one of:
previous activity associated with the UE or predicted activity associated with the UE (par 0033);
determining presentation data for output by the UE to enable the UE to exchange data over the core network (see presentation data for output by the UE to enable the UE to exchange data over the core network in figures 1-7); and
including the presentation data in the second message transmitted to the UE (service reject message in S430 in figure 4 transmitted from service network 120 to mobile communication device 110).
Regarding claims 3 and 9:
TIWARI further discloses wherein: the edge computing device represents a base station (see base station 121 in figure 1) or hardware coupled to the UE, and determining that the UE is associated with the unauthorized status is based at least in part on determining that the UE (see mobile communication device 110 in figures 1 and 4) is not associated with a Mobile Network Operator (120 in figure 1) (in par 0028 TIWARI teaches “the SERVICE REJECT message includes a rejection cause for indicating unauthorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121”).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 18:
TIWARI further discloses determining, by the edge computing device (120 in figure 4), that the first message is associated with an emergency event (see emergency call in par 0027), and transmitting, based at least in part on determining that the first message is associated with the emergency event (par 0027), the second message to include the first communication channel over the core network to the PSAP and the second communication channel (The method of claim 4 depends on the apparatus of claim 1. The method of claim 1, clearly recites “at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network”. Due to the “OR” clause in claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the examiner has considered one of the claimed “or” clauses of claim 1, which is “a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network”. Thus, the remaining limitations (a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP)) of claim 1 is not considered by the examiner. The claimed limitation of claim 4 “the second message to include the first communication channel over the core network to the PSAP and the second communication channel” is unrelated to the “a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” of claim 1; therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed limitations of “the second message to include the first communication channel over the core network to the PSAP and the second communication channel” of claim 4 is not considered by examiner. Same examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation is applied to claims 10 and 18).
Regarding claims 5 and 11:
TIWARI further discloses transmitting the second message over the access network independent of the edge computing device (120 in figure 4) sending a request for data to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (122 in figure 4) (in par 0026 TIWARI teaches “the controller module 112 controls the wireless module 111 for performing connection management procedures, service access procedures, attachment procedures, routing area update procedures, and tracking area update procedures with the service network 120 via the cellular station 121”) or an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the telecommunications system at a prior time; wherein the second communication channel indicates one or more services available to the UE over the core network (par 0005, 0024).
Regarding claims 6 and 12:
TIWARI further discloses wherein:
the unauthorized status indicates that the UE is not authorized to access a base station (figure 4 shows the unauthorized status indicates that the UE is not authorized to access a base station 120), an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), or an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the telecommunications system, and
transmitting the second message is further based at least in part on the UE not being authorized to access a network entity downstream from the edge computing device (figure 4 shows transmitting the second message S430 is further based at least in part on the UE not being authorized to access a network entity 120 downstream from the edge computing device), the network entity comprising one of: the base station (see base station in figures 1 and 4), the AMF, or the IMS.
Regarding claim 13:
TIWARI further discloses wherein: determining the first communication channel for sending over the core network to the PSAP is based at least in part on extracting emergency information from the first message (The method of claim 13 depends on the apparatus of claim 7. The method of claim 7, clearly recites “at least one of: a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP) or a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network”. Due to the “OR” clause in claim 7, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the examiner has considered one of the claimed “or” clauses of claim 1, which is “a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network”. Thus, the remaining limitations (a first communication channel for sending over the core network to a public service answering point (PSAP)) of claim 7 is not considered by the examiner. The claimed limitation of claim 13 “determining the first communication channel for sending over the core network to the PSAP is based at least in part on extracting emergency information from the first message” is unrelated to the “a second communication channel for sending over the access network and independent of the core network” of claim 7; therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed limitations of “determining the first communication channel for sending over the core network to the PSAP is based at least in part on extracting emergency information from the first message” of claim 13 is not considered by examiner), and determining the second communication channel for sending over the access network is based at least in part on determining that an identifier of the UE is not associated with a service for exchange data over the core network (in par 0028 TIWARI teaches “When receiving the SERVICE REQUEST message, the control node 122 determines whether the mobile communication device 110 has authorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121 (step S420). Subsequently, the control node 122 replies to the mobile communications device 110 with a SERVICE REJECT message via the cellular station 121 due to fact that the mobile communications device 110 doesn't have authorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121 (step S430)”).
Regarding claim 14:
TIWARI further discloses causing the UE to exchange data to over the access network instead of the core network (figures 4 shows the UE (mobile communication device 110) to exchange data to over the access network (service network 120)).
Regarding claim 15 and 20:
TIWARI further discloses determining that the UE is associated with malicious activity over the access network (in par 0028 TIWARI teaches “When receiving the SERVICE REQUEST message, the control node 122 determines whether the mobile communication device 110 has authorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121 (step S420)); and removing the UE from the access network based at least in part on determining that the UE is associated with the malicious activity (in par 0028 TIWARI teaches “Subsequently, the control node 122 replies to the mobile communications device 110 with a SERVICE REJECT message via the cellular station 121 due to fact that the mobile communications device 110 doesn't have authorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121 (step S430). Specifically, the SERVICE REJECT message includes a rejection cause for indicating unauthorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121”).
Regarding claim 17:
TIWARI further discloses determining, by the edge computing device and based at least in part on the first message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the first message over a core network of the telecommunications system (in par 0028 TIWARI teaches “When receiving the SERVICE REQUEST message, the control node 122 determines whether the mobile communication device 110 has authorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121 (step S420). Subsequently, the control node 122 replies to the mobile communications device 110 with a SERVICE REJECT message via the cellular station 121 due to fact that the mobile communications device 110 doesn't have authorized membership of the CSG ID of the cellular station 121 (step S430)”).
Regarding claim 19:
TIWARI further discloses
transmitting the second message (see S430 in figure 4) over the access network independent of the edge computing device sending a request for data (figure 4 shows transmitting the second message S430 is further based at least in part on the UE not being authorized to access a network entity 120 downstream from the edge computing device) to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (122 in figure 1, par 0026) or an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the telecommunications system at a prior time;
wherein the second communication channel indicates one or more services available to the UE over the core network (figures 1 and 4 show communication channel indicates one or more services available to the UE over the core network).
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
11. 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
Prosecution Insights