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 .
Applicant’s Response to the Non-Final Office Action
Abstract
The abstract was objected to in the non-final Office action (NFOA). See NFOA at 2. The applicant’s replacement abstract is accepted and this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation and § 112(b) Rejections
The NFOA stated that the claims were of indefinite scope. See NFOA at 2-4 and 6-7. The recent amendment overcomes these issues. Most § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, but a rejection of claim 14 remains. New rejections under § 112(b) are also made in light of the recent amendments. See below.
Claim 1 previously recited that the range information is “used for the second network element to determine an executor.” The NFOA stated that this language does not limit the scope of claim 1, because claim 1 is drawn to a method performed by a first network element, and the above-quoted language describes what occurs at a second network element. NFOA at 3-4. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the range information is “configured to enable the second network element to determine an executor.” The applicant submits that this describes “a limitation on the content and functional capability of the range information being sent, not merely a description of what the second network element does with it.” Remarks at 9. This is not persuasive.
The specification describes that the range information is an “area” that is identified by a “TA collection”, “latitude and longitude”, or “cell collection.” Spec1. ¶¶ 99-102. This is also recited in claim 6, which depends from claim 1. Therefore the “range information” merely indicates an area. The claim language describing that this information is “configured to enable the second network element to determine an executor” does not place any further limitation on the content of the range information. Instead, this shows how the second network element interprets the range information. From the perspective of the first network element to which claim 1 is drawn, the range information does not have any additional “functional characteristic” as the applicant submits (Remarks at 9). The range information only describes an area. Therefore the description of what the range information is “configured to enable” the second network element to do does not place any limitation on the method that the first network element performs.
The BRI of this claim only requires that the first network element send range information, which is an indication of an area that is identified by, for example, “TA collection”, “latitude and longitude”, or “cell collection.” Spec. ¶¶ 99-102 and claim 6. The BRI of claim 1 does not require that the range information be used by the second network element to determine an executor. Therefore the language “is configured to enable the second network element to determine an executor of the sensing service” is not taken to limit these claims. Claim 14 includes similar language that also does not limit its scope.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites further detail regarding the “executor.” But the determination of the executor is not performed by the first network element, as is described above. Instead, the second network element determines the executor. The description in claim 7 of what the executor comprises does not provide any limitation on the method that is performed by the first network element. Claim 7 is therefore not given patentable weight.
In the interest of compact prosecution, all claim language is addressed in the prior art rejections below.
While not included in the BRI of these claims, this language introduces uncertainty in claim scope. As described above, the specification shows that the “range information” defines a particular area. It is not clear if, or whether, the claim is further limited by the new language describing that this range information is “configured to enable” the second network element to determine an executor. The applicant’s arguments suggest that this language places further limitation on the content or the “functional capability” of the range information. Remarks at 9. It is not clear if this means that the range information contains something more than a definition of an area. Stated in another way: if the claim were amended to remove the language “configured to enable …”, would the operations that are performed at the first network element be any different? It is not clear if they would.
For reasons given above, claim 14 still contains language that describes what is intended to occur at another device as a result of sending the range information. The rejection of claim 14 under § 112(b) is maintained.
Rejections Under § 101
The claims were previously rejected under § 101 for being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. See NFOA at 4-5. The amended claims are no longer drawn to the abstract idea that was described in the previous action. This rejection is withdrawn.
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, 4-9, 11, 14-15, and 18-22 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended to recite that the range information is “configured to enable the second network element to determine an executor.” This introduces uncertainty in claim scope. The specification shows that the “range information” defines a particular area. See Spec. ¶¶ 164-167. It is not clear how (or if) the claim is further limited by the language describing that this range information is “configured to enable” the second network element to determine an executor. In particular, it is not clear if this language requires the range information to contain something more than a definition of an area; if so, it is unclear what the additional content of the range information would be.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and their dependents are additionally rejected under § 112(b). Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite that “the executor is a device that is [to be] instructed to execute the sensing service.” It is not clear if this requires any steps to be performed. For example, in claim 1, the first network element does not appear to actually instruct the executor to execute the sensing service. Therefore it is not clear if this claim language requires that any steps be taken, or if this merely describes what is intended to occur as a result of the “sending range information.” Claim 8 and 14 include similar language and are indefinite for this same reason.
Claim 14 and its dependents are additionally rejected under § 112(b). Claim 14 is drawn to a device that is configured to "send range information" to a different device, a second network element. The claim recites that the range information is “configured to enable the second network element to determine an executor of the sensing service." This appears to show what is intended to occur as a result of the apparatus sending range information to another device. An intended result that is expressed in an apparatus claim is indefinite because this language "does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it impose[s] no structural limits on the screen." MPEP 2173.05(g). Claims 18-20 depend from claim 14 and inherit this issue.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 14-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong, US 20240236935 in view of Ying, US 20240205639. The passages in the references that are relied upon in the rejections below find support in each reference’s foreign priority document.
Claim 1: Chong discloses a method for processing a sensing service, performed by a first network element, comprising:
receiving a request for the sensing service; wherein the request for the sensing service comprises at least one of: sensing service type information or location information of a user of the sensing service (The SCF (first network element) receives a sensing service request message from the AF. ¶ 442. The first sensing service request contains an identification of the UE and a description of the type of requested sensing service. ¶ 446. The first sensing service request also contains UE location information. ¶ 457.);
determining an execution range of the sensing service based on the request for the sensing service (The SCF determines a sensing serving area, or execution range, based on the request. ¶ 462.),
wherein the sensing service comprises a service that senses at least one of a location or a behavior of a sensing target through transmission, collection, and processing of sensing signals in the wireless communication system (see Chong throughout, and e.g. ¶¶ 141-156), the execution range of the sensing service comprises at least one of a spatial range or a geographical range for collecting and processing sensing data of the sensing service (¶ 462); and
sending range information of the execution range to a second network element (Area information (i.e., range information) is sent to the AMF, a second network element. ¶¶ 463-466.), wherein the range information is configured to enable the second network element to determine an executor of the sensing service located within the execution range, wherein the executor is a device that is instructed to execute the sensing service (Using the location of the UE and the sensing area, the AMF determines a sensing device located within the AOI, or execution range. ¶ 528. See above regarding the interpretation of this “wherein” clause.).
Chong does not disclose that the request is an authorization request.
Ying discloses a first network element receiving an authorization request for a sensing service (¶¶ 270 and 273-274).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chong with Ying, the rationale being to control network resource usage by only performing sensing services when explicitly authorized.
Claim 4: Chong-Ying discloses that determining the execution range of the sensing service based on the authorization request for the sensing service comprises: determining the execution range of the sensing service based on the authorization request for the sensing service and at least one of user subscription information or an operation policy of the sensing service (Chong ¶ 378, Ying ¶¶ 131-132).
Claim 5: Chong-Ying discloses that the execution range comprises at least one of: a cell where a user of the sensing service is located; the cell where the user of the sensing service is located and one or more neighbor cells of the cell where the user of the sensing service is located; a tracking area (TA) where the user of the sensing service is located; the TA where the user of the sensing service is located and one or more neighbor TAs of the TA where the user of the sensing service is located; or a preset range centered on a location of the user of the sensing service (Chong ¶¶ 191, 205, 252).
Claim 6: Chong-Ying discloses that the range information comprises at least one of: an area identified by a TA collection; an area identified by latitude and longitude; or an area identified by a cell collection (Chong ¶ 252).
Claim 7: Chong-Ying discloses that the executor comprises at least one of: a base station located within the execution range; or a communication terminal located within the execution range (The executor is a sensing UE, which is a communication terminal located within the execution range. ¶ 532. See also ¶¶ 115-120.).
Claim 8: Chong-Ying discloses a method for processing a sensing service, performed by a second network element, comprising:
sending an authorization request for the sensing service to a first network element, wherein the authorization request for the sensing service comprises at least one of: sensing service type information or location information of a user of the sensing service (Chong Fig. 2 and its description shows an alternative embodiment in which the SCF (first network element) receives a sensing service request message from the AMF (second network element). Chong Fig. 2 and ¶ 111. The first sensing service request contains an identification of the UE and a description of the type of requested sensing service. ¶ 446. The first sensing service request also contains UE location information. ¶ 457. The request includes an authorization request, as in Ying ¶¶ 270-274);
receiving range information of an execution range of the sensing service returned by the first network element based on the authorization request for the sensing service (Area information (i.e., range information) is received by the AMF from the SCF. ¶¶ 463-466.), wherein the sensing service comprises a service that senses at least one of a location or a behavior of a sensing target through transmission, collection, and processing of sensing signals in the wireless communication system (see Chong throughout, and e.g. ¶¶ 141-156), the execution range of the sensing service comprises at least one of a spatial range or a geographical range for collecting and processing sensing data of the sensing service (Chong ¶ 462); and
determining an executor of the sensing service located within the execution range according to the range information, wherein the executor is a device that is to be instructed to execute the sensing service (Using the location of the UE and the sensing area, the AMF determines a sensing device located within the AOI, or execution range. ¶ 528.).
Claim 9: Chong-Ying discloses sending an operation instruction of the sensing service to the executor of the sensing service; wherein the operation instruction is configured to trigger the executor located within the execution range to perform an operation related to the sensing service (Chong ¶ 115).
Claim 11: Chong-Ying discloses that the executor comprises at least one of: a base station located within the execution range; or a communication terminal located within the execution range (The executor is a sensing UE, which is a communication terminal located within the execution range. ¶ 532. See also ¶¶ 115-120.).
Claim 14: Chong-Ying discloses a communication device, comprising a processor, a transceiver, and a memory, wherein, the processor is configured to perform the method that is recited in claim 1. See Chong Fig. 21-22.
Claim 15: Chong-Ying discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium having an executable program stored thereon, wherein when the executable program is executed by a processor, the method of claim 1 is performed. See Chong Fig. 21-22.
Claims 18-20: see rejection of claims 4-6 above.
Claims 21-22: Chong-Ying discloses a communication device, comprising a processor, a transceiver, and a memory, wherein, the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 8, and a non-transitory computer storage medium having an executable program stored thereon, wherein when the executable program is executed by a processor, the method of claim 8 is performed. See Chong Fig. 21-22.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
1 US 20240397474
Prosecution Insights