DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 7/31/2024. Claims 1-19 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 5, wherein the sensing service request message comprises an identifier of the UE, and determining, by the sensing function network element, the first network element comprises: determining, by the sensing function network element, the first network element based on the identifier of the UE.” [the repeated language, underlined above, should be corrected/addressed].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-6, 12 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.
Claim 1: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation(s), “determining, by the network capability exposure function network element, based on the first sensing service request message, that the first sensing service is authorized” is/are 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 element, “network capability exposure function network element” and “sensing network element” is applying abstract idea using general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (network element(s)) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receiving, by a network capability exposure function network element, a first sensing service request message” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity); and “sending, by the network capability exposure function network element, a second sensing service request message to a sensing network element, wherein the second sensing service request message is used to request the first sensing service to sense a user equipment (UE)” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “sensing service request message” is/are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (sensing) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine sensing service authorized.
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, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitations, “receiving, a first sensing service request message” and “sending, a second sensing service request message to a sensing network element, wherein the second sensing service request message is used to request the first sensing service to sense a user equipment (UE)” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (network communication) using a generic computer.
Other independent claim 12, [apparatus/machine claim] recite similar claim language and thus is rejected for the same reasons as that of claim 1.
Claim 5: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation(s), “determining, by the sensing function network element, a first network element based on the sensing service request message, wherein the first network element supports the first sensing service” is/are 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 element, “sensing function network element” and “RAN network element” is applying abstract idea using general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (network element(s)) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receiving, by a sensing function network element, a sensing service request message used to request a first sensing service, wherein the first sensing service is to sense a UE” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity); and “sending, by the sensing function network element, a sensing control request message to the first network element, wherein the sensing control request message is used to control a RAN network element to perform a sensing operation of the first sensing service” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “sensing service request message” “sensing control request message” is/are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (sensing) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine sensing service authorized.
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, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitations, “receiving, a sensing service request message used to request a first sensing service, wherein the first sensing service is to sense a UE” and “sending, a sensing control request message to the first network element, wherein the sensing control request message is used to control a RAN network element to perform a sensing operation of the first sensing service” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (network communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claim 6 fails to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Introduction of network based Sensing in 5G Advanced (Vivo, China telecom, China unicom; 7/30/2021 as in IDS; 17 pages; attached [D1 hereinafter])
Regarding claim 5:
D1 discloses a terminal device sensing method (pages 1-5), comprising:
receiving, by a sensing function network element, a sensing service request message used to request a first sensing service, wherein the first sensing service is to sense a UE (pages 11-13; page 14 [step 3, Sensing Function equivalent to sensing function network element, receives sensing service request]; step 1a [sensing service for UE with the target area/UE ID]);
determining, by the sensing function network element, a first network element based on the sensing service request message, wherein the first network element supports the first sensing service (page 14 [in step 4, Sensing function selects RAN-node based on target area/UE]); and
sending, by the sensing function network element, a sensing control request message to the first network element, wherein the sensing control request message is used to control a RAN network element to perform a sensing operation of the first sensing service (see page 14 [step 5a, 5b sensing messages exchange, essentially has control request, as RAN is selected and configured for sensing operation by sensing function]; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 6:
D1 discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the sensing service request message comprises an identifier of the UE, and determining, by the sensing function network element, the first network element based on the identifier of the UE (see page 14 [step 1a, sensing service request include UE ID, step 4, The Sensing Function selects the RAN-Node and/or UE based on the target Area/UE]; and see throughout the disclosure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Introduction of network based Sensing in 5G Advanced), in view of Xie (CN 112788518, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1:
D1 discloses a terminal device sensing method (page 1-5; figs), comprising:
receiving, by a network capability exposure function network element, a first sensing service request message (see page 14 [step 1, NEF receive sensing service request from AF and, further sent to AMF]); and
sending, by the network capability exposure function network element, a second sensing service request message to a sensing network element, wherein the second sensing service request message is used to request the first sensing service to sense a user equipment (UE) (see page 12 [figs 1-2; NEF with introduction of sensing function as sensing network element, to send sensing request]; page 11; page 14 [sensing request from NEF at step 1 go to sensing function at step 3]).
D1 discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching that determining, by the network capability exposure function network element, based on the first sensing service request message, that the first sensing service is authorized.
However, Xie in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for location service wherein determining, by the network capability exposure function network element, based on the first sensing service request message, that the first sensing service is authorized (para 50 [NEF may verify and authorize and assist the application function AF]; figure 2; para 40-41; para 60; para 107-112; fig 4; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Xie in D1 in order to provide requested service as only authorized (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 12:
D1 discloses all of the subject matter as described above in claim 1, except for specifically teaching a transceiver; at least one processor; and one or more memories.
However, Xie in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for location service wherein apparatus comprises a transceiver; at least one processor; and one or more memories storing instruction to perform the functions (figure 8 [block 801, 802,804]; para 50,60,107-112; para 147-148 {network-side device 800 includes: a processor 801, a memory 802, a bus interface 803, and a transceiver 804, wherein the processor 801, the memory 802, and the transceiver 804 are all connected ..further includes: a computer program stored in the memory 802 …}; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Xie in D1 in order to provide apparatus for performing functions and requested service as only authorized (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 2024/0196216) discloses a system and method for providing configuration for serving terminal device.
Yao et al. (US 2024/0196255) discloses a system and method for measuring sensing signal.
Cheng et al. (US 2023/0370820) discloses a system and method for sensing mode configuration for wireless sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631