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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. 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) 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) 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) 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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); 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
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KIM et al. (US 20230047503) disclose a wireless communication method for application client (AC) and edge application server (EAS) discovery with service authorization and location service.
Vivanco et al. (US 20220386220) disclose mobile communication networks and method to identify unauthorized aerial user equipment (aerial UE) communicating over a terrestrial network.
8. 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