Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, et al. (US 20190188033 A1, hereinafter, "SUZUKI") in view of MIKI (US 20150371011 A1, hereinafter, "MIKI") and TERABE, et al. (US 20210298031 A1, hereinafter, "TERABE").
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI teaches assign the plurality of terminal devices to at least a group according to a service to be provided;
SUZUKI writes, “...there are a plurality of groups to each of which a plurality of information processing apparatus 101 belong and which provide given services…” (paragraph 0048).
determine a resource to be allocated to the plurality of terminal devices corresponding to the group when the service is started to be provided to the plurality of terminal devices corresponding to the group;
SUZUKI writes, “...the acquisition unit 802 may map, for each of the groups, the magnitude of a HW resource used in a plurality of VMs in each of the information processing apparatus 101 belonging to the group and the performance information of a service provided by the group” (paragraph 0094). SUZUKI adds, “...the control instruction unit 912 controls the information processing apparatus 101 and may control the HW resource to be allocated to the VM” (paragraph 0108). SUZUKI indicates the HW resources used in each of the information processing apparatus belonging to the group are mapped and allocated by the acquisition unit and control instruction unit.
SUZUKI fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “an information processing apparatus comprising a control unit configured to:”, “request a cellular communication system to perform activation of a communication line to be used by a plurality of terminal devices that are service providing targets;”, and “and request the cellular communication system to secure the resource.”
However, in analogous art, MIKI teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a control unit configured to:
MIKI writes, “...the conference server device 12 is an example of an information processing apparatus” (paragraph 0169; figure 4, conference server device: 12). MIKI continues, “The conference control unit 61 is an example of a control unit” (paragraph 0169; figure 4, conference control unit: 61).
request a cellular communication system to perform activation of a communication line to be used by a plurality of terminal devices that are service providing targets;
MIKI writes, “In step S27, the conference control unit 61 of the conference control unit 61 establishes a communication line (session) with the conference client device 10, based on the participation request from the conference client device 10. The conference server device 12 and the conference client device 10 participating in the conference exchange information needed for sharing the conference screen, by using the established communication line (session)” (paragraph 0101; figure 9). MIKI notes, “The conference client device 10 may be a PC, a tablet terminal, a smartphone, a mobile phone, a mobile information terminal such as a PDA...” (paragraph 0043). MIKI indicates the control unit establishes a communication line with the conference client device based on participation request and the server and client exchange information needed for the service using the communication line. MIKI notes that the client may be a smartphone, mobile phone or mobile information terminal suggesting the system may be a cellular communication system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI to include aspects described by MIKI that “relates to a terminal device and an information processing system.” The motivation for modification includes the use of a system to share a service between multiple devices including cellular devices, wherein the roles of the terminal devices are self-determined and shared.
SUZUKI and MIKI fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “and request the cellular communication system to secure the resource.”
However, in analogous art, TERABE teaches and request the cellular communication system to secure the resource.
TERABE writes, “…a control unit configured to execute control to secure the resource amount identified for the communication requirement selected by the user” (paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI and MIKI to include aspects described by TERABE that “relates to a control apparatus, a control method, and a computer-readable storage medium and specifically relates to technology for assisting the setting of a communication requirement when providing a service.” TERABE provides the motivation for modification stating, “the user-friendliness and the user satisfaction can be improved by presenting to the user options on the basis of the communication requirement corresponding to the service requirement presented by the user and the relaxed communication requirement and the user selection the appropriate communication requirement” (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 4, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit:
Additionally, MIKI teaches accepts an application for use of the service from a user,
MIKI writes, “In step S27, the conference control unit 61 of the conference control unit 61 establishes a communication line (session) with the conference client device 10, based on the participation request from the conference client device 10. The conference server device 12 and the conference client device 10 participating in the conference exchange information needed for sharing the conference screen, by using the established communication line (session)” (paragraph 0101; figure 9). MIKI notes, “The conference client device 10 may be a PC, a tablet terminal, a smartphone, a mobile phone, a mobile information terminal such as a PDA...” (paragraph 0043). MIKI states, “the conference control unit 61 establishes a communication line (session) with the conference client device 10, based on the participation request from the conference client device 10.”
and requests the cellular communication system to perform the activation of the communication line for each of the plurality of terminal devices used by the user.
MIKI writes, “In step S27, the conference control unit 61 of the conference control unit 61 establishes a communication line (session) with the conference client device 10, based on the participation request from the conference client device 10. The conference server device 12 and the conference client device 10 participating in the conference exchange information needed for sharing the conference screen, by using the established communication line (session)” (paragraph 0101; figure 9). MIKI notes, “The conference client device 10 may be a PC, a tablet terminal, a smartphone, a mobile phone, a mobile information terminal such as a PDA...” (paragraph 0043). MIKI indicates an activation of the communication line for the terminal device mentioning that “the conference control unit 61 of the conference control unit 61 establishes a communication line (session) with the conference client device 10, based on the participation request from the conference client device 10.” The control unit establishes (i.e. activates) the communication line.
Regarding claim 7, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Additionally, MIKI teaches wherein the control unit acquires service information regarding the service from a service server that provides the service to the plurality of terminal devices.
MIKI writes, “In step S27, the conference control unit 61 of the conference control unit 61 establishes a communication line (session) with the conference client device 10, based on the participation request from the conference client device 10. The conference server device 12 and the conference client device 10 participating in the conference exchange information needed for sharing the conference screen, by using the established communication line (session)” (paragraph 0101; figure 9). MIKI notes, “The conference client device 10 may be a PC, a tablet terminal, a smartphone, a mobile phone, a mobile information terminal such as a PDA...” (paragraph 0043). MIKI indicates service information is exchanged between the service server that provides the service to the terminal device when stating, “The conference server device 12 and the conference client device 10 participating in the conference exchange information needed for sharing the conference screen, by using the established communication line (session).”
Regarding claim 8, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Additionally, MIKI teaches wherein the control unit notifies a service server of at least one of start and end of the service, the service server providing the service to the plurality of terminal devices.
MIKI writes, “Note that one of the conference client devices 10 can be operated by the presenter to request the conference server device 12 to start the conference and end the conference” (paragraph 0044).
Claims 12 and 13 are system and method claims corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 that has already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MORIOKA (US 20170063701 A1, hereinafter, "MORIOKA").
Regarding claim 2, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein the control unit determines, as the resource, an average bandwidth while the service is provided,” and “the average bandwidth being determined based on at least one of a packet amount available to the group, a number of the plurality of terminal devices corresponding to the group, and a providing time of the service.”
However, in analogous art, MORIOKA teaches wherein the control unit determines, as the resource, an average bandwidth while the service is provided,
MORIOKA writes, “...the average data size observation unit 62 of the bandwidth control unit 6 causes the shared timer 8 to measure the time, and calculates the average usage bandwidth within a predetermined monitor period” (paragraph 0052).
the average bandwidth being determined based on at least one of a packet amount available to the group, a number of the plurality of terminal devices corresponding to the group, and a providing time of the service.
MORIOKA writes, “...the average data size observation unit 62 of the bandwidth control unit 6 causes the shared timer 8 to measure the time, and calculates the average usage bandwidth within a predetermined monitor period” (paragraph 0052). MORIOKA states the device, “calculates the average usage bandwidth within a predetermined monitor period”, therefore MORIOKA indicates that the usage bandwidth is what is used by the group over a predetermined monitor period. SUZUKI previously discussed a plurality of terminal devices grouped by services, in which the number of terminals can be obtained.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by MORIOKA that “pertains to a bandwidth control circuit, an arithmetic processing apparatus, and a bandwidth control method for the apparatus.” MORIOKA provides the motivation for modification stating, “Each bandwidth control unit includes: a bandwidth monitor unit to monitor a bus usage bandwidth of each of the plurality of the circuit blocks; an operating period observation unit to monitor a start and an end of an operating period of each of the plurality of the circuit blocks; and a limit unit to be enabled to limit the bus usage bandwidth of each of the plurality of the circuit blocks” (abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ISHIZUKA, et al. (US 20230308365 A1, hereinafter, "ISHIZUKA").
Regarding claim 3, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein each of the plurality of terminal devices receives the service by using a subscriber identity module (SIM) card or an embedded SIM (eSIM).”
However, in analogous art, ISHIZUKA teaches wherein each of the plurality of terminal devices receives the service by using a subscriber identity module (SIM) card or an embedded SIM (eSIM).
ISHIZUKA writes, “The user device information, as in the SIM information, may be referred to by the management apparatus 100 to determine the carrier that provides communication service to the terminal device 200” (paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by ISHIZUKA that “relates to a management apparatus.” ISHIZUKA provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to the present invention, regarding an application program that is installed in a terminal device capable of being concurrently connected to a plurality of networks and that requests start of QoS control, it is possible to prevent the application program from becoming complicated” (paragraph 0006).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KOIKE (US 20210021586 A1, hereinafter, "KOIKE").
Regarding claim 5, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein the control unit registers the communication line with the cellular communication system.”
However, in analogous art, KOIKE teaches wherein the control unit registers the communication line with the cellular communication system.
KOIKE writes, “Under this environment, when the terminal 140 is to use a service provided by the server 170, a request from the terminal 140 to the server 170 is relayed by the information processing apparatus 100. Use of the service involves the server 170 verifying the certificate of the terminal 140. The server 170 uses a certificate-revocation-list (CRL) distribution server 180 to verify the certificate of the terminal 140” (paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by KOIKE that “relates to a management apparatus.” KOIKE provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to the present invention, regarding an application program that is installed in a terminal device capable of being concurrently connected to a plurality of networks and that requests start of QoS control, it is possible to prevent the application program from becoming complicated” (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 6, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein the control unit cancels the communication line when the service ends.”
However, in analogous art, KOIKE teaches wherein the control unit cancels the communication line when the service ends.
KOIKE writes, “...the state in which ‘the server 170 finishes providing a service’ is detected by detecting the case in which communication between the terminal 140 and the server 170 ends, the case in which a signal indicating the end of the process for a service is received from the server 170, or the like” (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by KOIKE that “relates to a management apparatus.” KOIKE provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to the present invention, regarding an application program that is installed in a terminal device capable of being concurrently connected to a plurality of networks and that requests start of QoS control, it is possible to prevent the application program from becoming complicated” (paragraph 0006).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CAKULEV, et al. (US 20210037375 A1, hereinafter, "CAKULEV").
Regarding claim 9, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein the control unit requests the resource from a policy control function (PCF) of the cellular communication system.”
However, in analogous art, CAKULEV teaches wherein the control unit requests the resource from a policy control function (PCF) of the cellular communication system.
CAKULEV writes, “...the RAN can define and apply a set of policies to the communications session to try to provide an optimal allocation of the radio access resources to support the communications session. For example, upon registering and authenticating a UE in a RAN, an access and mobility function (AMF) device of the RAN may transmit a request to a policy control function (PCF) device to create an access and mobility policy for the UE...” (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by CAKULEV that “In a wireless telecommunications system, such as a 5G/NR wireless telecommunications network, a radio access network (RAN) may include a base station and manage radio access resources to facilitate a communications session between a user equipment (UE) and a core network associated with the wireless telecommunications system.” CAKULEV provides the motivation for modification stating, “In some instances, the RAN can define and apply a set of policies to the communications session to try to provide an optimal allocation of the radio access resources to support the communications session” (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 10, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein the control unit requests the resource via a network exposure function (NEF) of the cellular communication system.”
However, in analogous art, CAKULEV teaches wherein the control unit requests the resource via a network exposure function (NEF) of the cellular communication system.
CAKULEV writes, “NEF 204 can support the exposure of capabilities and/or events in the wireless telecommunications system to help other entities in the wireless telecommunications system discover network services and/or utilize network resources efficiently” (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by CAKULEV that “In a wireless telecommunications system, such as a 5G/NR wireless telecommunications network, a radio access network (RAN) may include a base station and manage radio access resources to facilitate a communications session between a user equipment (UE) and a core network associated with the wireless telecommunications system.” CAKULEV provides the motivation for modification stating, “In some instances, the RAN can define and apply a set of policies to the communications session to try to provide an optimal allocation of the radio access resources to support the communications session” (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 11, SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein, among a plurality of the communication lines registered in the cellular communication system, the control unit groups the communication lines with same data network name (DNN) into the group.”
However, in analogous art, CAKULEV teaches wherein, among a plurality of the communication lines registered in the cellular communication system, the control unit groups the communication lines with same data network name (DNN) into the group.
CAKULEV writes, “The registration request may include information relating to a user identity associated with the UE, a data network name associated with the UE, a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) of the UE, and/or the like. In some examples, the registration request may include a group identifier of a group of UEs (e.g., a group of M2M devices and/or the like)” (paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of SUZUKI, MIKI, and TERABE to include aspects described by CAKULEV that “In a wireless telecommunications system, such as a 5G/NR wireless telecommunications network, a radio access network (RAN) may include a base station and manage radio access resources to facilitate a communications session between a user equipment (UE) and a core network associated with the wireless telecommunications system.” CAKULEV provides the motivation for modification stating, “In some instances, the RAN can define and apply a set of policies to the communications session to try to provide an optimal allocation of the radio access resources to support the communications session” (paragraph 0010).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A REYES whose telephone number is (703)756-4558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EDT.
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, KHALED KASSIM can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/Christopher A. Reyes/Examiner, Art Unit 2475 3/6/2026
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475