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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “display nit 220 “ in Paragraph [0035] should be changed to ---display unit 220---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication unit and control unit in claim 1, notification unit in claim 2, and display unit in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “communication unit”, “control unit”, “notification unit” and “display unit” recited in claims 1-3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Figures 2 and3 only show empty boxes for each unit identified above. There is also no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-8 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nasielski et al. (US 2016/0066261 "Nasielski" hereinafter) .
Regarding claim 1, Nasielski teaches a communication device (Figs. 13 and 14) comprising:
a communication unit ([0132]) that performs communication between a network device (1302 in Fig. 13) and a terminal (1308 or 1330 in Fig. 13); and
a control unit (1316 in Fig. 13) that specifies a charge system for the communication ([0134]; “ … generate the cost information in response to receiving the query and also send the cost information associated with the network. The cost information also includes at least one or more of cost information for a high-level application or cost information for a location where service charging may occur”),
wherein the control unit specifies the charge system based on one or more parameters selected from among a parameter related to a type element of the communication, a parameter related to a time element of the communication, a parameter related to a location element of the communication, a parameter related to a method of the communication, and a parameter related to user information of the terminal ([0134]; also see claims 12, 14, 15, and 48-51).
Regarding claim 2, Nasielski teaches a notification unit that notifies the terminal of an information element related to a specified charge system when the communication device is the network device (1316 in Fig. 13; [0134], “… send the cost information …”).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Nasielski teaches a display unit that displays information on a specified charge system when the communication device is the terminal ([0073], “display screen”).
Regarding claim 5, this claim is related to a method claim that includes the steps performing the functions recited in claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akira et al. (JP 2005341314, listed in IDS filed 3/22/2024, "Akira" hereinafter) .
Regarding claim 1, Akira teaches a communication device comprising:
a communication unit that performs communication between a network device and a terminal (Paragraph [0021]; “A charging control device 5 that controls a charging rate related to communication of the mobile unit 1 in each communication area 2 and notifies the base station 3 via the mobile communication network 4, and a charging rate related to communication of the mobile unit 1 in each communication area A charging rate database (DB) 6 that stores information and notifies the charging control device 5 as necessary is provided. The charging control device 5 notifies the charging rate applied to the communication in the communication area 2 covered by each base station 3 to the base station 3 based on the information registered in the charging rate DB 6. The accounting rate DB 6 may be installed in the accounting control device 5 or may be installed separately from the accounting control device 5.”); and
a control unit that specifies a charge system for the communication , (Paragraph [0021]; “A charging control device 5 that controls a charging rate related to communication of the mobile unit 1 in each communication area 2 and notifies the base station 3 via the mobile communication network 4, and a charging rate related to communication of the mobile unit 1 in each communication area A charging rate database (DB) 6 that stores information and notifies the charging control device 5 as necessary is provided.”; Claim 7, “… In a charging rate control method for charging the mobile unit using a control device and a charging rate database that accumulates information related to the charging rate and passes it to the charging control device …”);
wherein the control unit specifies the charge system based on one or more parameters selected from among a parameter related to a type element of the communication, a parameter related to a time element of the communication, a parameter related to a location element of the communication, a parameter related to a method of the communication, and a parameter related to user information of the terminal (Paragraph [0010], “… The charging rate database stores a charging plan selected by a user who owns the mobile unit at a predetermined time …”; [0025], “… a charging rate is assigned to each base station 3 .., i.e. location); [0029], “… matching these pieces of information, the mobile unit 1 can know the billing rate applied to communication at the current location”; [0036], “FIG. 10 is a diagram showing user information and area information stored in the discount DB.” ).
Regarding claim 2, Akira teaches a notification unit that notifies the terminal of an information element related to a specified charge system when the communication device is the network device (Paragraph [0022], “… The mobile unit 1 is charged according to the charge by the device 5. The base station 3 notified of the charging rate from the charging control apparatus 5 notifies the charging rate to the subordinate communication area 2 using the notification information. The broadcast information here is information that is always notified to the communication area 2 that the base station 3 covers for mobile communication control. The mobile 1 can receive these pieces of information before actually starting communication…”; also see claim 7, “… A billing rate notifying step for notifying information related to the billing rate controlled in the billing control device together with broadcast information to be reported from the base station to the mobile unit …”).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Akira discloses a display unit that displays information on a specified charge system when the communication device is the terminal (Paragraph [0022], “… by displaying the charging rate determined in the mobile unit 1 on the screen, the user can determine how much the user is charged for communication at the current location before communication …”; also see claim 7, “… a display step of displaying information on the billing rate by the mobile body…”).
Regarding claim 4, 7 and 8, Akira teaches that the charge system is set based on at least any one of a communication history between the network device and the terminal, and selection of a user of the terminal . (Paragraph [0010], “… The charging rate database stores a charging plan selected by a user who owns the mobile unit at a predetermined time …”; [0035] “… First, the user selects a discount plan for charging when using or updating the service …” ).
Regarding claim 5, this claim is related to a method claim that includes the steps performing the functions recited in claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason applied to claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasielski et al. (US 2016/0066261 "Nasielski" hereinafter) in view of Tusda (US 2014/0194093).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 8, Nasielski teaches the claimed limitations as explained in the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 3 above, respectively, but does not specifically mention the charge system is set based on at least any one of a communication history between the network device and the terminal, and selection of a user of the terminal. Tusda teaches that the charge system is set based on a communication history (Paragraph [0095]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set the charge system based on the communication history so as to effectively use wireless communication resources ( [0007] in Tusda).
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasielski et al. (US 2016/0066261 "Nasielski" hereinafter) in view of Yarkosky et al. (US 7,206,593, “Yarkosky).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 8, Nasielski teaches the claimed limitations as explained in the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 3 above, respectively, but does not specifically mention the charge system is set based on at least any one of a communication history between the network device and the terminal, and selection of a user of the terminal. However, A user being able to select the charge system is well-known. Yarkosky teaches the charge system is set based on selection of a user of the terminal (col. 1, lines 14-18). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set the charge system based on the user selection so as to provide the user flexibility to control communication cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharma et al. (US 8,712,374) teaches method and apparatus for providing charging status information to subscriber of communication service. Gonzalez Plaza et al. (US 2015/0079926) teaches modifying a quality of a connection between a terminal and an application server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chieh M Fan whose telephone number is (571)272-3042. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 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.
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.
/CHIEH M FAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2632