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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 9/3/2024.
The IDS filed on 9/3/2024 is considered.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-17 are amended.
Claims 8 is cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9-17 are examined and rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification has typo. The word “boarder” should be replaced by “border”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed to a computer program per se, i.e. the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are software claims directed to non- statutory subject matter.
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 1-7 and 9-17 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 1, recites in part: !) “… upon detection of a crossing of said border by the user equipment, a use by the second network of application layer information to handle an application layer of a roaming of the user equipment from the first network to the second network …”. The underlined claim limitation is unclear, as to what exactly it is meant to “a use” and what is meant by the limitation “by the second network of application layer information… “ It is unclear how “an application layer” has a “second network” and what is “used by the second network”, making this limitation completely unclear and hence indefinite. Also, the limitation “… an application layer of a roaming of the user equipment…” is unclear, making the entire limitation indefinite.
2) Claim 1 further recites: “… the user equipment transmits to at least one of said first and second networks a signal according to which it belongs to a specific class of user equipment being supported by a federation of networks including at least the first and second networks, so as to update a route selection policy of the user equipment being defined as belonging to said specific class …”. The underlined claim limitation states that: the UE transmits a signal according to which it belongs to a specific class of UE, and so it is not clear how a signal belongs to a specific class of UE, making this limitation indefinite.
3) Further claim 1 recites: “… said updated route selection policy being used by the second network to handle said application layer for the roaming of the user equipment, said roaming being thereby seamless for the user equipment…” The underlined limitation states that updated route “used by” the second network, it is not clear who is doing the route update here (UE or the second or first network, or some other entity), making this limitation unclear and hence indefinite.
The claim further states “… to handle said application layer for the roaming of the user equipment…” Here, it is not clear what the limitation “handle said application layer” implies and how it leads to roaming of the UE, and hence it is confusing and indefinite.
4) The limitation: “… prior to said roaming and when the user equipment is attached to the first network, upon reception by the first network of said signal of the user equipment belonging to the specific class, the first network updates the route selection policy of the user equipment to define the user equipment as belonging to said specific class…” This limitation is contradicting itself, firstly it states that prior to roaming the UE attaches itself to the first network, and the “said signal” of a specific UE class, is used to update the route selection policy of the UE and then defines the UE to be “said specific class”. If the network is already receiving the “said signal” from the UE as a specific US class, then it is redundant to specify the UE class again after the routing policy updating of the UE, making this limitation unclear and hence definite. Also, here the limitation “specific class” is unclear as to what exactly it refers, so as to help classify the UE as belonging to a specific class.
5) The limitation: “… during said roaming, the first network triggers an establishment of a federated policy control function node and unified data repository with the second network by transmitting said application layer information to the federated policy control function node, said federated policy control function node being delegated for updating the route selection policy of the user equipment in the second network and for updating a unified data repository of said second network, …” Here it is not clear what is the “said application layer information” and how it establishes the federated policy control function node and unified data repository with the second network. Also, it is unclear at what point during roaming this limitation is executed, is it before the UEs “specific class” is transmitted to the second network, or before that, making this limitation unclear and indefinite.
5) The limitation: “… when the user equipment attaches to the second network, the second network uses said updated unified data repository of said second network to detect the user equipment as belonging to said specific class, and uses said application layer information and said updated route selection policy of the user equipment in the second network, to handle the roaming for said user equipment.” Here, the second network uses the updated route in the unified repository to assist the UE in roaming, however, the previous limitation states that UE also has an updated route that is performed by the second network, and hence it is unclear why and how the route selection policy is now controlled by the federated network, making this limitation unclear and hence indefinite.
Hence the scope of claims 1-7, and 9-17 is completely confusing and indefinite that it cannot be used for prior art rejection purposes.
Independent claim 14, recites in part: “… A system to assist a roaming of a user equipment from a first network to a second network, said first and second networks being located in respective regions separated by a border, comprising said user equipment and said first and second networks, said user equipment and said first and second networks being configured for performing the method according to claim 1”. Here the system claim performs the method of claim 1, that does not provide focus on the capabilities of the system comprising the first network and second network, and specifies actions and functions performed by the UE of claim 1, making this limitation unclear and hence indefinite.
Independent claim 17, recites in part: “… A user equipment of the system according to claim 14.” Here the system claim according to claim 14, performs the method of claim 1, that does not provide focus on the capabilities of the system comprising the first network and second network, and specifies actions and functions performed by the UE of claim 1, making this limitation unclear and hence indefinite.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-12 and 15-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency and for the same reasons stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7, 9-12, 14-17 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (US 20170134311 A1) teaches determining application information associated with a layer 7 (L7) from packets received at a first network device and additional packets received at a second network device. L7 application is classified into layer L7 application classification based on the application information associated with the L7 application, where the L7 application classification is used by the second device to maintain L7 state when the client device roams from the first device to the second device and accesses network services of a network through the second device (Abstract)… paragraph 7, systems and methods for maintaining L 7 state as a client device roams between network devices during a session. In various implementations, data packets used in executing an L 7 application are received at a first network device that a client device is coupled to during a session. Further, data packets received by the first network device are stored in an L 7 application buffer that is sent to a second network device that a client device roams to during a session. An L 7 application buffer is used to classify an L7 application that is the subject of a session in order to maintain L 7 state as a client device roams to a second network device during a session.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA BELUR whose telephone number is (571)270-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at 571-272-3980. 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.
/DEEPA BELUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights