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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 “from VAL server” should read “from the VAL server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 “from VAL server” should read “from the VAL server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 “The method of claim 9” should read “The user equipment (UE) of claim 9”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 “from VAL server” should read “from the VAL server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 “The method of claim 13” should read “The notification management server of claim 13”. 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) are: “a controller configured to” in claims 9-12. “a controller configured to” in claims 13-15.
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.
However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structures for “a controller”.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the VAL server" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-12 and 13-15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites limitations of “a controller configured to” which invokes 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 functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The use of the term “a controller” does not describe a particular structure for performing the claimed functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the recited functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. Same rationales apply to dependent claims 10-12. Therefore, claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Same rationales apply to “a controller configured to” recited in claim 13. The use of the term “a controller” does not describe a particular structure for performing the claimed functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the recited functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. Same rationales apply to dependent claims 14-15. Therefore, claims 13-15 are 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-12 and 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-12 and 13-15 are rejected under 112(a) because the specification is devoid of clear and adequate structure for the “a controller” performing the claimed functions. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the 112(b) rejection, set forth above, for more details.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20230262418 A1) in view of Pateromichelakis (US 20220369221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a SEAL client of the UE from a vertical application layer (VAL) client of the UE, a SEAL service request message to receive a SEAL service message from a VAL server; (Fig. 1: The UE include VAL client(s) and SEAL client(s). VAL server(s). SEAL server(s). Fig. 2: The UE include VAL client(s) and location management client(s). VAL server(s). Location management server(s). [0004]-[0006]: The SEAL functional entities on the user equipment (UE) and the server are grouped into SEAL client(s) and SEAL server(s) respectively. The SEAL may include a common set of services (e.g. group management, location management) and reference points. The SEAL offers its services to the vertical application layer (VAL).)
transmitting, by the SEAL client of the UE to a SEAL server, a create SEAL service channel request message for a SEAL service channel; (Fig. 3, 4, 5a, 5b. [0008]: At step 1, location management client 2 (authorized VAL user or VAL UE) or VAL server sends a location reporting trigger to the location management server to activate a location reporting procedure for obtaining the location information of location management client 1.)
receiving, by the SEAL client of the UE from the SEAL server, a create SEAL service channel response message; (Fig. 3 and 4. [0008]: At step 2, Location management server checks whether location management client 2 or VAL server is authorized to send a location reporting trigger. Depending on the information specified by the location reporting trigger, location management server initiates an on-demand location reporting procedure or an event-triggered location reporting procedure for the location of location management client 1.)
transmitting, by the SEAL client of the UE to the SEAL server, an open SEAL service channel message to start receiving a SEAL service message based on the create SEAL service channel response message; and (Fig. 3, 4, 5a and 5b. [0021]-[0022]: initiating a location reporting procedure for the location information of the first location management client. The method further comprises, when location information of the first location management client is available in the location management server, sending a location information report comprising the location information of the first location management client to the client or the server based on the endpoint information of the client or the server.)
transmitting, by the SEAL client of the UE to the VAL client of the UE, an indication of success or failure to start receiving the SEAL service message. (Fig. 3, 4, 5a and 5b. [0005]: The SEAL client(s) provides the service enabler layer support functions to the VAL client(s) over SEAL-C reference points. [0017]: to fulfill immediate reporting requirement for requesting VAL UE/user.)
Xu does not explicitly disclose the SEAL service is a notification management.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches the SEAL service is a notification management. ([0131]-[0134]: FIG. 3 shows a notification 201 provided by the entity 100 to the application 200. The same procedure may notably be used by the entity 100 to likewise notify other entities than the application 200. This procedure enables, in particular, the notification 201 of the configuration/adaptation of the NSI or slice requirements to one or more other vertical/applications/application servers (e.g., VAL, VAE, SEAL servers etc.).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because this procedure enables, in particular, the notification 201 of the configuration/adaptation of the NSI or slice requirements to one or more other vertical/applications/application servers (e.g., VAL, VAE, SEAL servers etc.). This is beneficial to allow for further service adaptation based on the adapted network slice, NSI, or NSI parameters. As taught by Pateromichelakis, [0131]-[0134].
Same rationales apply to claim 5 (method), claim 9 (user equipment) and claim 13 (server) because they are substantially similar to claim 1 (method).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20230262418 A1) in view of Pateromichelakis (US 20220369221 A1), and in view of Fox (US 20040068665 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Xu and Pateromichelakis teach the method of claim 1.
Xu and Pateromichelakis do not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the notification management client of the UE to the notification management server, request to start a PUSH notification service in case that a notification type is a PUSH method.
However, Fox teaches transmitting, by the notification management client of the UE to the notification management server, request to start a PUSH notification service in case that a notification type is a PUSH method. ([0086]: there are two different types of notifications: Pull notifications and Push notifications. Push notifications contain a information payload that specifies updated information. However, the information payload of a push notification may include a URL that refers to outside information. Abstract: The push server is used for sending notifications to different wireless clients on different wireless networks. The push server allows information service providers to send notifications to the wireless clients.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu and Pateromichelakis to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because it is common knowledge there are two different types of notifications: Pull notifications and Push notifications. Push notifications contain a information payload that specifies updated information. However, the information payload of a push notification may include a URL that refers to outside information. As taught by Fox, [0086].
Same rationales apply to claim 7 (method), claim 11 (user equipment) and claim 15 (server) because they are substantially similar to claim 3 (method).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20230262418 A1) in view of Pateromichelakis (US 20220369221 A1), and in view of Ding (US 20160150027 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Xu and Pateromichelakis teach the method of claim 5.
Xu and Pateromichelakis do not explicitly disclose receiving, from the notification management client of the UE, delete notification channel request message for deleting the notification channel based on stop receiving notification management request message; and transmitting, to the notification management client of the UE, delete notification channel response message.
However, Ding teaches receiving, from the notification management client of the UE, delete notification channel request message for deleting the notification channel based on stop receiving notification management request message; and transmitting, to the notification management client of the UE, delete notification channel response message. ([0030]-[0031]: When the client desires to delete the notification channel, the client sends a delete notification channel request to the notification server. When the delete notification channel request is received, the notification server deletes the notification channel. The notification server then sends a response back to the client to advise the client that the notification channel has been deleted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu and Pateromichelakis to include above limitations. One would have been motivated to do so because creating and deleting a notification channel and a subscription in a RESTful environment is well-known in the art. The creation, deletion, and use of the notification channel using a REST architecture and API are described in more detail in the RESTful Network API for Notification Channel, Candidate Version 1.0, specification published Jul. 30, 2013. As taught by Ding, [0019] and Fig. 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 14 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. Claim 6 would be allowable only after applicant overcomes the 112(b) rejection. Claims 12 and 14 would be allowable only after applicant overcomes the 112(b)/112(a) rejection in view of 112(f) claim interpretation.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455