DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the RCE filed on June 8th 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed 6/8/26, with respect to the claim objection and 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection and 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, pg. 9-13, regarding the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues (pg. 10) that Hutz does not disclose all of claim 1. Applicant then acknowledges (pg. 11) a second reference Padebettu was also used, but seems to assert that while Padebettu may teach using 5G it does not disclose some of the features of claim 1 (e.g. message request, application client, server, etc.). This is not persuasive because applicant is merely arguing the references individually. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. Furthermore, applicant is reminded that claim 1 no longer recites “a server”, so the argument that either reference does not teach “transmitting messages to a server” (emphasis added) is not persuasive because it relies on features not in the claims.
Applicant also argues that Hutz fails to disclose the feature of comparing the size of the message to a threshold and aggregating the message (pg. 11-12). This is also not persuasive. Hutz clearly teaches comparing the size of received messages to a predetermined size (i.e. threshold) in order to make a determination regarding aggregation or transmission, (see Figs. 3-4, col. 3 ln. 4-7, col. 11 ln. 24-28 and col. 14 ln. 10-14). Hutz also teaches or suggests making optimal use of size (see col. 12 ln. 29-34 which discloses aggregating reports reduces overhead which optimizes the size of sensor data). As explained in the interview summary, Hutz clearly teaches aggregating based on a size threshold. For at least these reasons, applicant’s remarks regarding this feature in view of Hutz are not persuasive.
Finally, it is noted that applicant repeatedly refers to “message requests” and aggregating “message requests” (see pg. 13 for example). Again, applicant is reminded that the previous amendment (claims filed 12/30/25) replaced “requests” with “request”. So these arguments are not persuasive because they rely on features not in the claims. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of aggregating a single thing (i.e. message request) does not actually require any action because a single thing is already the sum/total of itself, thus it is “aggregated”. Therefore any singular message or request disclosed by the reference would read on an aggregated message or aggregated message request.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 21, 24-25, 27-28, 30-32, 35-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutz et al. US 10,122,600 B1 in view of Padebettu US 2021/0227599 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hutz discloses a method performed by user equipment UE including a first entity and a second entity for exchanging messages in an IoT communication system (communicate messages from sensors to other devices – see abstract, Fig. 1; user devices – see Fig. 2, col 8 ln. 19-50, perform the function of the control panel/unit - see col. 9 ln. 17-26), the method comprising;
receiving, by the second entity, from at least one first entity, a message request to send messages to a target device (sensors send reports to control unit – Figs. 1-3, server requests messages - col. 12 ln. 57-59; also see col. 12 ln. 57 – col. 13 ln. 25 which teach a user/first entity “initiating” a message request to a control panel/second entity that results in sending the sensor messages to a server/target device);
identifying, by the second entity, a size of a message associated with the message request (identify size of messages – Figs. 3-4 and col. 3 ln. 4-7 and col. 14 ln. 11-24;);
determining, by the second entity, whether to aggregate the message request when the size of the message associated with the message request is less than a threshold segment size (aggregate message requests based on size threshold – see Fig. 4 and col. 12 ln. 10-34; e.g. reporting criteria is satisfied when “predetermined size” / threshold exceeds a buffer size; Fig. 3 also describes an embodiment that determines to automatically aggregate messages when the predetermined size is less than a buffer, which is equivalent to a “segment size”; also see col. 13 ln. 34-39 which teaches immediately sending “high priority” messages);
aggregating, by the second entity, the message request until an optimal use of a segment size is reached (aggregate messages – abstract, col. 12 ln. 15-34 and Fig. 4; purpose of aggregation is to optimally transmit data based on the segment size – col. 12 ln. 23-34); and
sending, by the second entity, an aggregated message request to the target device in the IoT communication system (transmit message over network to server – Figs. 2 and 3).
Hutz does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one first entity is an “application client” but it does teach the devices communicate with a server (abstract, Fig. 1). Based on this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first entity is an “application client” under the broadest reasonable interpretation because the first entity is in communication with a server and thus it is a server/client relationship which is so well-known and conventional in the art. This is merely the combination of an extremely well-known technique in order to yield a predictable result.
Hutz does not explicitly disclose the second entity is a messaging fifth generation (MSGin5G) client but this is taught by Padebettu as a client device utilizing point-to-point messages to communicate with 5G network (abstract, Fig. 1A, paragraph 8 explicitly discloses “5G client”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hutz with the 5G client taught by Padebettu. Padebettu teaches this allows a client application to communicate with a 5G network without wasting resources (paragraph 15), and improves the functioning of the 5G network and client device (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 3, Hutz discloses identifying, by the second entity, a priority level of the message associated with the message request (identify message priority – col. 13 ln. 34-50).
Regarding claim 4, Hutz does not explicitly disclose the message request further includes a destination 5G client ID but this is taught by Padebettu (network packets have destination information – paragraphs 34, 39; there are also client and session identifiers – paragraphs 18, 24). The motivation to combine is the same as that given above.
Regrading claim 21, Hutz discloses determining whether to aggregate the message request when the priority level of the message associated with the message request is not high priority (col. 13 ln. 34-39 which teaches immediately sending “high priority” messages and queueing/aggregating message that are not high priority).
Regarding claim 24, Hutz discloses the message request includes an individual message ID for indicating a unique identifier of the message request, and a payload of the message request (messages have payload and message ID – Fig. 1, col. 13-14).
Regarding claim 25, Hutz discloses the message request includes at least one of … a priority type for indicating priority level requested for the message (priority – Figs. 3-4, col. 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 27, Hutz discloses the target device is another UE including a first entity and a second entity for exchanging messages in the IoT communication system (UE – Fig. 1, also see user devices – Fig. 2, items 140, 150).
Regarding claim 28, it is a system claim (user equipment) that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons because Hutz discloses a system for performing the method including a UE comprising a transceiver and a controller (user equipment – Figs. 1-2, col. 7 ln. 13-28 and col. 8 ln. 19-55).
Regarding claims 30-31, 35-36 and 38, they correspond to the method of claims 3-4, 24-25 and 27 respectively; thus they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 32, Hutz discloses if the priority level associated with the message request is not high, aggregating the message request into the message (use size threshold and priority for aggregation/reporting – see Figs. 3-4 and col. 11, 13-14).
Claim(s) 22-23, 26 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutz and Padebettu in view of Lee et al. US 2012/0005727 A1.
Regarding claims 22-23, the combination of Hutz and Padebettu does not explicitly disclose a reject or information related to a reject in the case the UE is not authorized. But Hutz discloses messages include a message ID and payload as discussed above.
Hutz does not explicitly disclose information related to a reject includes a failure cause indicating that the UE is not authorized to send the message or the message is not valid. But this is taught by Lee as preforming user terminal authentication (abstract, Fig. 1) and upon authentication failure, rejecting a user including sending a message indicating the failure reason (abstract, paragraphs 24-26 and 88).
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 combination of Hutz and Padebettu to perform authentication and sending reject message with reasons as taught by Lee for the purpose of informing a user why the authentication was unsuccessful. This would allow a user to re-try authorization and cure the deficiency.
Regarding claim 26, Hutz discloses an individual message ID (messages have payload, priority and message ID – see Fig. 1, col. 13 ln. 34-50 and col. 14 ln. 55-67). Padebettu discloses a 5G Client ID as discussed above. The combination of Hutz and Padebettu does not explicitly disclose these are information related to the reject but this is taught by Lee as discussed above. The motivation to combine is the same. Also, Lee explicitly discloses a reject reason (abstract, paragraph 23). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claims 33-37, they correspond to claims 22-23 and 26 respectively; they are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 29 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 and upon overcoming the 112 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: same subject matter as allowed parent application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu US 9,860,028 B2 discloses a system for network content delivery (abstract) that aggregates data packets and in response to a size threshold, transmits the aggregated data packets (see claim 1).
Graham et al. US 2021/0218808 A1 discloses a small message aggregation system (abstract) that aggregates small messages based on size (paragraph 60, Figs. 2-4).
Zdarsky et al. US 2012/0044887 A1 discloses a mobile terminal sending request messages (abstract, Fig. 1) and performing message aggregation (paragraph 19, Fig. 2) and de-aggregation into single request messages (paragraph 44).
Baldwin et al. US 2002/0004820 A1 discloses delivery reports are known in the prior art (paragraphs 26-27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights