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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Per Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed 9/26/24
Claims 1, 13, 59, 62, 65 and 75 have been amended.
Claims 4-12, 14-15, 19-51, 63-64, 66-74 and 76-77 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 13, 16-18, 52-62, 65 and 75 are pending.
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, 16 AND 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 16 and 52 fail to fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the method recited in independent claims 1, 16 and 52 does not include a hardware or device implementation for performing the method steps. Consequently, the method in accordance with its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a series of acts that can be performed abstractly, by hand or by computer-implementation. Without recitation of an additional element of a hardware processor, memory or structural computer component, the claims are drawn to abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2-3, 13, 17-18 and 53-61 likewise, inherit the same rejection from their respective independent claim and are therefore non-statutory.
CLAIMS 16 AND 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 recites an information obtaining method, performed by a second network function, comprising:
“receiving a subscription request sent by a first network function, wherein the subscription request is used to request for subscribing to an analytics result”;
“according to the subscription request, sending the subscribed analytics result to a fourth network function”.
Claim 16 is directed to the abstract idea of a method for manipulating human activities (“receiving a subscription request, the request is for subscribing to an analytics result, and sending the subscribed analytics result according to the request”) [Electric Power Group; West View; SAP America], such as collecting temporal statistics and computing results based on the statistics. As in the case with Electric Power Group; West View; SAP America, the claimed invention involves collecting data/temporal statistics for an element and computing results based on the statistics received from the elements (i.e., computing a spatial correlation, computing a port dynamic weight). There is no actual performance improvement or any other improvement to the computer-related environment or technology. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they merely state implementing the abstract idea for an element in a computing environment. These limitations are pre-solution and post-solution extra solution activities, which does not transform the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). Furthermore, these claims fail to provide meaningful and structural limitations that would transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea, such that the claims amount to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. The claims are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-3, 13 and 62 are dependent upon the independent claims 1 and therefore inherit the rejection of their base claims as stated above.
The limitations directed towards the receiving the request and sending the results are insignificant extra solution activity, which is a well understood routine, and conventional. MPEP §2106.05(g) details similar data gathering and transmission steps that have been found by the courts to be well understood routine, and conventional (MPEP §2106.05(d). As result, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 52 recites an information obtaining method, performed by a first network function which is an application layer function (AF) or a network data analytics function (NWDAF), comprising:
“obtaining first information”;
“wherein the first information includes at least one of UE location, UE status, subscription information, user plane information, wireless status and service quality monitoring information”;
“selecting a federated learning member according to the first information”.
Each of these limitations would be practical to perform in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Each of these limitations which obtain certain data and draw conclusion and then selecting a member based on the information. These limitations are pre-solution and post-solution extra solution activities, which does not transform the claimed abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). This is the type of analysis can reasonably be done in the human mind. As result, the limitations listed recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites that the method is performed “by a first network function which is an application layer function (AF) or a network data analytics function (NWDAF)”. The claimed network functions are used as just as tools to perform the claimed mental steps. Performing an abstract idea on a computer tool does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application, which does not help integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the method amount 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. Claims 53-61 and 75 are dependent upon the independent claims 52 and therefore inherit the rejection of their base claims as stated above.
The limitations directed towards the obtaining data and making a selection based on the data are insignificant extra solution activity, which is a well understood routine, and conventional. MPEP §2106.05(g) details similar data gathering and transmission steps that have been found by the courts to be well understood routine, and conventional (MPEP §2106.05(d). As result, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
IV. 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.
V. 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.
VI. CLAIMS 62, 65 AND 75 of 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: “the transceiver is configured to”, “the processor is configured to” in Claim 62; and “the transceiver is configured to” in Claims 65 and 75.
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.
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 § 102
VII. 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.
VIII. CLAIMS 1-3, 13, 16-18, 62 AND 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK et al (US 2023/0239680).
Per claim 1, PARK et al teach an information obtaining method, performed by a first network function, comprising:
receiving a first request message sent by a user equipment (UE), wherein the first request message is used to request for obtaining an allowed analytics identifier [paras 0018-21—a subscription transfer request including first subscription information about the one or more analytics subscriptions sent by UE];
obtaining a subscribed analytics identifier of the UE and/or an analytics identifier supported by a network side, according to the first request message [paras 0072, 0075, 0095—subscription request message has subscription information that includes analytics ID, the analytics ID is a parameter indicating the type of analytics data that the consumer NF wants the receive];
determining the allowed analytics identifier of the UE according to the subscribed analytics identifier of the UE and/or the analytics identifier supported by the network side [paras 0072, 0075, 0077, 0105—the analytics ID indicating the type of analytics data that the consumer NF wants the receive and specifying the types of analytics data to be provided by the target NWDAF, and that the central NWDAF wants to provide]; and
sending the allowed analytics identifier to the UE [paras 0020-21, 0117, 0122—transmit a subscription transfer response message including second subscription information about at least one analytics subscription based on first subscription information];
or, receiving a first request message sent by a user equipment (UE), wherein the first request message is used to request for subscribing to an analytics result [paras 0018-21—a subscription transfer request including first subscription information about the one or more analytics subscriptions sent by UE]; according to the first request message, sending a subscription request for subscribing to the analytics result, to a second network function [paras 0020-21, 0117, 0122—transmit a subscription transfer response message including second subscription information about at least one analytics subscription based on first subscription information];
or, sending a subscription request to a second network function, wherein the subscription request is used to request for subscribing to an analytics result, and the first network function is an application layer function (AF) [Abstract, paras 0018-20, 0050, 0055-57, page 4 Table 1—sending a second subscription transfer request to a target network function for subscribing to an analytics result, first network function, consumer NF is an AF].
Claims 16, 62 and 65 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 2, PARK et al teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining a subscribed analytics identifier of the UE according to the first request message, includes: according to the first request message, sending a second request message to a second network function, and obtaining the subscribed analytics identifier of the UE sent by the second network function according to the second request message [page 4 Table 1, paras 0072, 0075, 0095, 0105—the subscription request message includes at least an analytics ID and the subscription response message includes an analytics ID, subscription information includes an analytics ID, NWDAF #2].
Per claim 3, PARK et al teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining an analytics identifier supported by a network side according to the first request message, includes: according to the first request message, obtaining the analytics identifier supported by the network side by using local configuration; or, obtaining the analytics identifier supported by the network side by sending a query request to a third network function [page 4 Table 1, paras 0072, 0075, 0095, 0099-100, 0104-106—the subscription request message includes at least an analytics ID and the subscription response message includes an analytics ID, subscription information includes an analytics ID, transmit data collected from source NF1 to local NWDAFs, the analytics ID indicating the type of analytics data that the consumer NF wants the receive and specifying the types of analytics data to be provided by the target NWDAF, and that the central NWDAF wants to provide].
Per claim 13, PARK et al teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first request message, the subscription request and the query request respectively include an analytics identifier and/or an area of interest (AOI) of the requested analytics result [page 4 Table 1, paras 0018, 0065 0072, 0075, 0095, 0105—the subscription request message includes at least an analytics ID and the subscription response message includes an analytics ID; analytic subscriptions can be based on a target service area].
Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 13, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 18, PARK et al teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the first network function is one of an access and mobility management function (AMF), a session management function (SMF) and a user plane function (UPF); the second network function is one of a network data analytics function (NWDAF) and an application layer function (AF); and the fourth network function is one of an access and mobility management function (AMF), a session management function (SMF) and a user plane function (UPF) [paras 0047-49, 0051-52, page 4 Table 2—NF may include at least one of AMF, SMF, NWDAF, AF, UPF, NSSF].
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
IX. 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.
X. CLAIMS 52-61 AND 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (US 2023/0239680) in view of HAN et al (US 2023/0090022).
Per claim 52, PARK et al teach an information obtaining method, performed by a first network function which is an application layer function (AF) or a network data analytics function (NWDAF), comprising:
obtaining first information [Abstract, paras 0018-20, 0130—receiving a subscription transfer request message including first subscription information];
wherein the first information includes at least one of UE location, UE status, subscription information, user plane information, wireless status and service quality monitoring information [paras 0018, 0020—first subscription information includes analytics such as UE location; paras 0051, 0077, 0116—data collected by the NWDAF include UE ID or location information, quality of service (QOS) data].
PARK et al teach the limitations, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the claim limitation of “selecting a federated learning member according to the first information”. HAN et al teach selecting an NWDAF instance for federated learning according to the analytics information [paras 0023, 0148-150, 0154, 0176].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of PARK et al with HAN et al for the purpose of allowing for the selection of a federated learning member according to the first analytics information, which is well-known in the art for performing a federated learning model among selected application functions for distributing analytics.
Claim 75 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 52, and are therefore rejected under same basis.
Per claim 53, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 52, PARK et al further teach wherein the method includes: sending a subscription request to an access and mobility management function (AMF) [paras 0047, 0049, 0051, 0057, page 4 Table 2—AMF]; wherein the obtaining first information includes: obtaining at least one of UE location, UE status and subscription information sent by the AMF according to the subscription request [paras 0018, 0020, 0052, 0109, 0113—first subscription information includes analytics such as UE location and UE status].
Per claim 54, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 52, PARK et al further teach wherein when the first network function is AF, the method further includes: sending a subscription request to the NWDAF; wherein the obtaining first information includes: obtaining wireless status sent by the NWDAF according to the subscription request; wherein the NWDAF obtains the wireless status by collecting data through an operation administration and maintenance (OAM), and the wireless status includes at least one of reference signal receiving power (RSRP), reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ), signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) and radio resource utilization ratio [paras 0018, 0052, page 4 Table 3—NWDAF entity in a wireless communication network collecting data through OAM, SS-RSRP, CSI-RSRP, RSRP, RSRQ, SS-SINR, CSI-SINR, E-UTRA ratio RS-SINR].
Per claim 55, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 52, PARK et al further teach wherein when the first network function is NWDAF, the method further includes: obtaining wireless status by collecting data through an operation administration and maintenance (OAM); wherein the wireless status includes at least one of reference signal receiving power (RSRP), reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ), signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) and radio resource utilization ratio [paras 0018, 0052, 0128, page 4 Table 3—NWDAF entity in a wireless communication network collecting data through OAM, SS-RSRP, CSI-RSRP, RSRP, RSRQ, SS-SINR, CSI-SINR, E-UTRA ratio RS-SINR].
Per claim 56, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 52, PARK et al further teach wherein the method includes: sending a subscription request to a user plane function (UPF); wherein the obtaining first information includes: obtaining the user plane information sent by the UPF; wherein the user plane information includes at least one of throughput, session resource utilization, rate, delay, packet transmission and packet retransmission [paras 0047, 0049, 0051, 0055, page 4 Table 2—bitrate, flow delay, traffic usage report from a UPF].
Per claim 57, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 52, HAN et al further teach wherein the method includes: sending a service quality monitoring request to a policy control function (PCF); wherein the obtaining first information includes: obtaining service quality monitoring information sent by the UPF; wherein the service quality monitoring information includes packet delay, the PCF sends the service quality monitoring request to the UPF through a session management function (SMF), and the UPF sends a service quality monitoring request response to the first network function according to the service quality monitoring request; the service quality monitoring request response includes packet delay [paras 0053-54, 0057, 0094—PCF governs behaviors of the network and provide policies that have been cared to NFs, traffic processing controlling in the UPF for processing actual user data and using load level analytics information of a UPE; determination by a PCF to retain or change a quality of service (QoS), a determination by an SMF with respect to a traffic path of a UE].
Per claim 58, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 57, HAN et al further teach wherein when the first network function is AF, the UPF sends the service quality monitoring request response to AF in one of the following ways: sending the service quality monitoring request response to the AF; sending the service quality monitoring request response to the AF through network exposure function (NEF); sending the service quality monitoring request response to the AF through SMF and PCF; or, when the first network function is NWDAF, the UPF sends the service quality monitoring request response to NWDAF in one of the following ways: sending the service quality monitoring request response to the NWDAF; sending the service quality monitoring request response to the NWDAF through SMF and PCF [paras 00053, 057, 0062, 0094—the determination being made by using information of a slice load level provided by the NWDAF, a determination by a PCF to retain or change a quality of service (QoS) profile by using service experience analytics information provided by the NWDAF, a determination by an SMF with respect to a traffic path of a UE, using load level analytics information of a UPF, analytics information provided by the NWDAF may be used for a determination by the SMF or the PCF with respect to an optimal data network access identifier (DANI) of a specific application, a determination by the PCF in relation to a radio/frequency selection priority (RFSP) index, and a determination by the NEF or the PCF in relation to detection and use of a new application].
Per claim 59, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 53, HAN et al further teach wherein the subscription request includes at least one of AOI of the requested UE, single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), UE identifier, UE list and UE group [paras 0094, 0113—subscription request includes Area of Interest, a determination by an AMF or a network slice selection function (NSSF) in relation to selection of a slice instance corresponding to S-NSSAI requested by a specific UE].
Per claim 60, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 57, HAN et al further teach wherein the service quality monitoring request includes at least one of AOI of the requested UE, single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), UE identifier, UE list and UE group [paras 0094, 0113—subscription request includes Area of Interest, a determination by an AMF or a network slice selection function (NSSF) in relation to selection of a slice instance corresponding to S-NSSAI requested by a specific UE].
Per claim 61, PARK et al with HAN et al teach the method according to claim 52, HAN et al further teach wherein when the first network function is NWDAF, the method further includes: obtaining a first request message sent by the AF; obtaining the first information according to the first request message; after selecting a federated learning member according to the first information, sending the selected federated learning member to the AF [paras 0023, 0148-150, 0154, 0176—selected and sending an NWDAF instance for federated learning according to the analytics information].
Conclusion
XII. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: FEDER et al (USPN 11,310,731), KIM et al (US 2023/0254719).
XIII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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 Divecha can be reached on 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 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.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453