DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of June 3, 2024, which amendment was ENTERED.
It is note that claims 16-20 are NEWLY-ADDED, and that claims 1-20 are presently pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of June 3, 2024 was considered during examination.
The drawings of June 3, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Trademarks in the Specification
The use of the terms 3GPP, Python, Ruby, Java, Smalltalk, WiMAX, IEEE, GSM, LTE, Bluetooth, ZigBee, and, Sigfoxx, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-20 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.
In each of independent claim 1, independent claim 2, dependent claim 12, independent claim 13, and, independent claim 16, the uses of the word, “function” are indefinite and unclear in context as to whether a software function is meant or some other sense of the word, “function.” For purposes of examination, the uses of the word, “function” are presumed to mean a software function.
On line 3 of independent claim 1, it is unclear in context what is performing the action of “receiving.” Substantially the same remarks apply to the use of the word, “receiving” on line 2 of independent claim 16.
On line 6 of independent claim 1, it is unclear in context what is performing the action of “determining” and “determining to receive.” Substantially the same remarks apply to the use of “determining” and “determining to report” on line 6 of independent claim 16; to the use of “determining” and “determining to report” on line 1 of dependent claim 18; and, to the use of “determining” and “determining to retrieve” on line 1 of dependent claim 20.
On line 8 of independent claim 1, it is unclear in context what is performing the action of “sending.”
On line 10 of independent claim 1, it is unclear in context what is performing the action of “deriving.”
On line 8 of independent claim 16, it is unclear in context what is performing the action of “reporting.”
On line 6 of independent claim 1, the phrase, “determining to retrieve” is indefinite and unclear in context in that expresses the potential of the action of retrieving without claiming the action of retrieving clearly and definitely. What is the action of “determining” in this context? Substantially the same remarks apply to the use of the corresponding phrases on line 11 of independent claim 2; on line 2 of dependent claim 4; on line 2 of dependent claim 12; and, on line 1 of dependent claim 20.
On line 6 of independent claim 16, the phrase, “determining to report” is indefinite and unclear in context in that expresses the potential of the action of retrieving without claiming the action of retrieving clearly and definitely. What is the action of “determining” in this context? Substantially the same remarks apply to the use of same phrase on line 1 of dependent claim 18.
The term “minimum” in claims 7-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill-in-the-art would not be informed by the claim language as to what “minimum” quality of service information is. Is “minimum” quality of service information no service at all?
On line 3 of dependent claim 11, the term, “sustainable” is indefinite and unclear in context as to what is meant by “accuracy” being “sustainable.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first request" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no recitation of “a first request” in either claim 19 or in claim 16.
In claim 19, it is unclear what is meant by a “request” in its usual and ordinary sense being “a route” in its usual and ordinary sense.
In claims 13, 15, 16, and 18, the uses of the words “report” and “reporting” are indefinite and unclear in context as to what the “report” is being made.
Overall, independent claim 13 is indefinite and unclear as to what the “location measurement” and the “location measurement accuracy” pertain, the “target user equipment” or the “group of UEs.” Substantially the same remarks apply to independent claim 16.
Each of dependent claims 3-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 2.
Each of dependent claims 14-15 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 13.
Each of dependent claims 17-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 16.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter Rejection
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 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims encompass at least one embodiment that is “entirely software” (i.e., software per se). Interpreting claims 1 and 16-20 in light of the specification, and, taking into account the specification plainly stating, “embodiments may take the form of … an entirely software embodiment …” (Specification: paragraph [0016] at lines 2-3), each of claims 1 and 16-20 encompasses at least one embodiment that is software per se, and, so, are directed to non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-12 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (WO 2021/212310 A1) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a consumer sending an analytics request.
Hevizi et al (WO 2021/151503 A1) is of general interest for the disclosure related to an analytics node.
Han et al (‘558) is of general interest for the disclosure related to data collection together with an analysis function.
Estevez (‘677) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the receiving from a second entity a first message, and, transmitting to a third entity a second message.
Estevez et al (‘656) is of general interest for the disclosure related to “first information for determining a mapping” and “second information for determining the analytics.”
Lu et al (‘407) is of general interest for the disclosure related to items S301 through S313 in the drawing figures.
Shan (‘047) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the network data analytics function and to quality of service.
Lane et al (‘768) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the analytics module 125.
Pandey et al (‘217) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the generating of location analytics.
Chou et al (‘656) is of general interest for the disclosure related to first and second radio link failure reports.
Li et al (‘813) is of general interest for the disclosure related to drawing Figure 17.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648