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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the Applicant's submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claims 1 and 15 recites, “a computer readable storage medium”, which under BRI (i.e., broadest reasonable interpretation) can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiments. See See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134. [MPEP 2106.03]. Applicant’s computer-readable medium could include signals per se.
When reviewing Applicant’s specification, the appears to be no specific definition or disavowal of scope that would preclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed, “computer-readable storage medium” from including carrier waves or signals per se.
Applicant’s specification merely states, “computer readable storage media readable by processing system 802 and capable of storing software 805. Storage system 803 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Examples of storage media include random access memory, read only memory, magnetic disks, optical disks, flash memory, virtual memory and non-virtual memory, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other suitable storage media.” Paragraph [0058] and does not give a definition of “computer-readable storage medium” as claimed in Claims 1-8 and 15-20.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim language to recite “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
Dependent Claims 2-8 and 16-20 are rejected based on the rejected Independent Claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, Applicant’s claimed, “computer readable storage medium” is non-statutory.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being non-statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 rejections.
Claims 9-14 are allowed over the prior art made of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15, BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) in light of the specification, Examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record, which sets forth in the following:
Hao WU (US Patent Publication No. 20200028692 A1), the closes prior made of record, handling time of the first service data; storing the first service data including the corresponding handling time at a cache, in which the cache stores multiple pieces of additional service data, and in which each piece of additional service data is associated with a respective handling time; determining whether a consensus needs to be performed on at least two pieces of service data. In response to determining that the consensus needs to be performed, selecting the at least two pieces of service data according to a sequence that is based on handling times associated with the at least two pieces of service data; and performing the consensus on the more than one pieces of service data according to the sequence.
However, Wu fails to show “receive a service information block from a non-terrestrial cell hosting a current session of network data service to the computing apparatus; process a service time parameter of the service information block to determine a time remaining of the current session of the network data service; and enable display, in a user interface of the computing apparatus, of a countdown timer based on the time remaining of the current session, … as claimed (supports in the specification Para [0032]; [0035]; [0041]; [0047]; [0050]; [0053], for example).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hao WU (US Patent Publication No. 20200028692 A1), “Blockchain consensus method and device” (January 23, 2020) discloses handling time of the first service data; storing the first service data including the corresponding handling time at a cache, in which the cache stores multiple pieces of additional service data, and in which each piece of additional service data is associated with a respective handling time; determining whether a consensus needs to be performed on at least two pieces of service data. In response to determining that the consensus needs to be performed, selecting the at least two pieces of service data according to a sequence that is based on handling times associated with the at least two pieces of service data; and performing the consensus on the more than one pieces of service data according to the sequence.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights