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 .
Application # 18/849,431 was filed on 9/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 9/20/2024 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 14, 16 objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical mistake. In claims 1, 14, 16, it states “..execution an SMF selection”. It should be “…execution a SMF selection”. It should “a” instead of “an”. 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.
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) is/are: “an executing unit, configured to execute an SMF selection…” in claim 14.
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. In Paragraphs 104-105, 127, Fig. 5 & 6, it shows the corresponding structure along with flow diagrams which shows performing the claimed function.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to claim 8, it states the method of claim 1 wherein the XRM group ID is capable of reusing a group ID in an existing network. Examiner would like to point out that claim 8 depends on claim 1, and in claim 1, it states “…XRM service information OR an XRM group identification (ID)”. Since there is a “OR”, and that “XRM group identification (ID)” is not chosen for examination, claim 8 is failing to further limit the limitation of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 14, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) executing an SMF selection wherein selecting a SMF which can be done mentally by a human mind wherein one can select an SMF function. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites a processor/unit for executing an SMF selection. The processor/unit is recited a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor/unit is used to execute a SMF selection amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are patent ineligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17-20, recite similar abstract idea wherein selecting a SMF which can be done mentally by a human mind wherein one can select an SMF function. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites a processor/unit for executing an SMF selection. The processor/unit is recited a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor/unit is used to execute a SMF selection amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuda et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0239818 (hereinafter Tsuda).
With respect to claim 1, Tsuda teaches a method for selecting a session management function (SMF) based on an augmented reality (AR) service, applied to a first network element, comprising:
-executing an SMF selection (i.e. the AMF executes SMF) (Paragraph 201), wherein executing the SMF selection comprises selecting an SMF based on extended reality media (XRM) service indication information (i.e. the AMF selects the SMF for providing services wherein the specific services are for application of XR) (Paragraph 201, 247-248) or an XRM group identification (ID).
With respect to claim 2, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first network element comprises at least one of: an access and mobility management function (AMF) (i.e. access management function)(Paragraph 201, 247); or a network repository function (NRF).
With respect to claim 3, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 2, wherein in case that the first network element is the AMF, the method further comprises: selecting a same SMF for a session that supports an XRM service capability (i.e. the AMF selects the SMF for providing services wherein the specific services are for applications of XR) (Paragraph 201, 247-248) OR has a same XRM group ID.
With respect to claim 4, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 1, wherein further comprises adding information in SMF subscription information in a unified data management (UDM): selecting a same SMF for a plurality of sessions (i.e. PCF and UPF necessary for provision of services)with one or both of the XRM service indication information (i.e. selecting SMF for providing services for services for applications for XR wherein SMF selected for providing services corresponding to S-NSSAI1 selects the PCF and UPF which are for plurality of sessions)(Paragraph 247-248) or a same XRM group ID.
With respect to claim 5, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 2, wherein in case that the first network element is the AMF, the method further comprises: in local configuration information of AMF or SMF subscription information in a unified data management (UDM) (Paragraph 192), taking one or both of the XRM service indication information (Paragraph 200-201) or the XRM group ID as an input of the SMF selection for selecting the SMF.
With respect to claim 6, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: selecting, by the AMF, a same SMF for a session related to the XRM service indication information (Paragraph 200-201) or the XRM group ID.
With respect to claim 7, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 3, wherein selecting the same SMF for the session that supports the XRM service capability or has the same XRM group ID comprises: selecting the same SMF for a plurality of sessions with one or more of a same data network name (DNN) (Paragraph 200-201), or a same single network slice selection auxiliary information (S-NSSAI), or the same XRM group ID.
With respect to claim 9, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 5, wherein in case that the SMF is not selected for the session related to the XRM service indication information (Paragraph 178) or the XRM group ID, the SMF is selected (Paragraph 200-201)
With respect to claim 10, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 5, wherein in case that the SMF has been selected for the session related to the XRM service indication information (Paragraph 200-201) or the XRM group ID, a same SMF is selected for a current related session (Paragraph 200-201)
With respect to claim 11, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 5, wherein in case that the SMF has been selected for the session related to the XRM service indication information or the XRM group ID, and the selected SMF is not capable of meeting a quality of service (QoS) requirement of an XRM service (Paragraph 229-230), an SMF reselection is performed; and in case that there is a migratable protocol data unit (PDU) session in the selected SMF, the migratable PDU session is migrated to a new SMF (Paragraph 198-201)
With respect to claim 12, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: in case that the NRF executes an SMF discovery selection, selecting, by the AMF, a same SMF for a session related to the XRM service indication information (Paragraph 200-201) or the XRM group ID through the NRF
With respect to claim 13, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 2, wherein in case that the first network element is the NRF, the method further comprises: registering the SMF to the NRF (Paragraph 130), and obtaining a profile, wherein SMF selection information of the NRF comprises one or both of the XRM service indication information (Paragraph 128) or the XRM group ID; and marking, by the NRF, that the SMF is available (Paragraph 178, 128, 130)
With respect to claim 14, Tsuda teaches an apparatus for selecting a session management function (SMF) based on an augmented reality (AR) service, applied to a first network element, comprising: an executing unit, configured to execute an SMF selection (i.e. the AMF executes SMF) (Paragraph 201), wherein executing the SMF selection comprises selecting an SMF based on extended reality media (XRM) service indication information (i.e. the AMF selects the SMF for providing services wherein the specific services are for application of XR) (Paragraph 201, 247-248) or an XRM group identification (ID).
With respect to claim 15, it teaches same limitations as claim 2, therefore rejected under same basis.
With respect to claim 16, Tsuda teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having an executable program stored thereon, wherein when the executable program is executed by a processor, a method applied to a first network element for session management function (SMF) selection based on the AR service is implemented, and the method comprising: executing an SMF selection (i.e. the AMF executes SMF) (Paragraph 201), wherein executing the SMF selection comprises selecting an SMF based on extended reality media (XRM) service indication information (i.e. the AMF selects the SMF for providing services wherein the specific services are for application of XR) (Paragraph 201, 247-248) or an XRM group identification (ID).
With respect to claims 17, 18, 19, 20 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 3, 4, 5, 6 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda in view of May et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2022/0188833 (hereinafter May)
With respect to claim 8, Tsuda teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the XRM group ID is capable of reusing a group ID in an existing network. May teaches wherein the XRM group ID is capable of reusing a group ID in an existing network (Paragraph 61-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement May’s teaching in Tsuda’s teaching to come up with having XRM group ID is capable of reusing a group ID in an existing network. The motivation for doing so would be to continue using define default sets of biometric data in the user profiles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Qiao et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0213897 which teaches about AF initiated always-on PDU session.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453