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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 and 04/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/17/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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 limitations are “reception unit”, “transmission unit”, and “control unit” in claim 1-4.
Because these claim limitations 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 “transmission and reception unit: [0064], control unit: [0066] and [0067]”, as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations recite 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 § 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself, or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories):
The four categories of statutory subject matter are: (1) a process, (2) a machine, (3) a manufacture and (4) a composition of matter. MPEP § 2106.03. Independent claims 1; 4, and 5, recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A (Judicial Exceptions): Claims 1-5 are directed to an apparatus or a method, and the underlying invention is merely to providing services to subscriber, and is therefore an abstract idea.
(Step 2A - Prong 1): Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The underlying invention is merely providing services computing resources to a subscriber.
The claim recites the limitation of transmitting and receiving information indicating properties of the computing resource. This limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. receiving and transmitting related data).
There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, transmitting information indicating properties of the computing resources, the claim encompasses simply transmitting information of resources in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic performance and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
(Step 2A - Prong 2): The claim recites additional elements of receiving a request for discovering computing resources and followed by the transmitting information steps.
The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The receiving, controlling, transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering computing resources to use in the transmitting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims fail to provide an inventive concept. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The same analysis applies here in, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 2-3 recites further collection of properties of the computing resources. The information collected do not add any significant more to the Judicial Exception as they do not add any improvement to the computer system or a technology field.
In light of the explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea, lacking significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GE et al. (Hereinafter “Ge”, US 20220174119.)
Regard to claim 1, and 5: Ge discloses:
A network node comprising, A base station, A communication method performed by a network node, the communication method comprising: (i.e., FIG. 1 provides an architectural diagram 1 of a network structure, and FIG. 2 provides an architectural diagram 2 of a network structure… A network entity may alternatively be referred to as a network element, a network node, or a communications node. As described in paragraph [0197].)
a reception unit configured to receive, from a terminal ; (i.e. [0205] An AMF entity is responsible for authentication of a terminal, mobility management of a terminal, network slice selection, selection of an SMF entity, access authorization and access authentication, a security-related function, and the like. In addition, the AMF entity may serve as an anchor for connection between an N1 interface and an N2 interface, and provide routing of N1/N2 SM information for an SMF entity. In addition, the AMF entity may maintain and manage status information of a terminal, and participate in a broadcast session.
[0223] S11. A terminal sends a PDU session establishment request message to an AMF entity. As described in paragraph [0205] and [0223]), a message including a PDU session establishment request including a request for configuring a communication path to a computing resource that is configured for a subscriber; (i.e., [0225] Then, the terminal generates a new PDU session identifier. Then, the terminal sends the PDU session establishment request (PDU session establishment request) message to the AMF entity. The PDU session establishment request message is a NAS message. Then, the terminal initiates a PDU session establishment procedure. The PDU session establishment request message includes session management-network slice selection assistance information (session management-network slice selection assistance information, S-NSSAI) corresponding to a PDU session, a data network name (data network name, DNN) corresponding to the PDU session, a PDU session identifier, a request type (request type), and N1 SM information (N1 session management information). For example, a format of the PDU session establishment request message is (S-NSSAI, DNN, PDU session ID, request type, N1 SM information). As described in paragraph [0225].)
a control unit configured to identify a network node that manages the computing resource, based on information included in the message; (i.e., [0206] An SMF entity is responsible for a terminal session, allocating and controlling a UPF entity, allocating and managing an internet protocol (internet protocol, IP) address of a terminal, managing quality of service (quality of service, QoS) of a session, obtaining a policy control and charging (policy control and charging, PCC) policy from a policy control function (policy control function, PCF) entity, a termination of an SM part of a non-access stratum (non-access stratum, NAS) message, notifying downlink data, determining a session and service continuity (session and service continuity, SSC) mode of a session, a roaming function, and the like. In this application, the SMF entity may be responsible for broadcast session management, including establishment, update, and release of a broadcast session, allocation of a broadcast session identifier, and the like. In this application, the SMF entity may further receive broadcast received quality information reported by a terminal, to complete switching from broadcast transmission to unicast transmission. . As described in paragraph [0206].) and
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the identified network node that manages the computing resource, the PDU session establishment request including the request for configuring the communication path to the computing resource. (i.e., [0200] A network slice includes a control plane function (control plane function, CPF) entity and a user plane function (user plane function, UPF) entity. The CPF entity includes an access and mobility management function (access and mobility management function, AMF) entity and a session management function (session management function, SMF) entity. The CPF entity mainly completes functions such as access authentication, security encryption, and location registration that are of a terminal, and completes functions such as establishment, release, and modification of a user plane transmission path. The UPF entity mainly completes functions such as routing and forwarding of user plane data. As described in paragraph [0200].)
Regard to claim 2: Ge discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, and further discloses: wherein
the reception unit receives, from the network node that manages the computing resource, information indicating a termination point for a base station, (i.e., : [0248] S110. The SMF entity sends an SM response message to the AMF entity.
[0249] A reference point in the N2 reference point session management information is a reference point between the AMF entity and the SMF entity. The N2 reference point session management information includes the PDU session identifier, the QoS profile (QoS Profile(s)), and the CN tunnel information. The N1 SM information includes a PDU session establishment accept (PDU session establishment accept) message, and the PDU session establishment accept message includes an authorized quality of service rule (authorized QoS rule), the SSC mode, the S-NSSAI, and the IPv4 address (allocated IPv4 address). As described in paragraph [0248] and [0249].)
and the transmission unit transmits, to the base station, a PDU session resource configuration request including the information indicating the termination point for the base station. (i.e., [0250] S111. The AMF entity sends an N2 PDU session request message to a RAN entity.
[0251] Specifically, the AMF entity sends the N2 PDU session request (N2 PDU session request) message to the RAN entity, and the N2 PDU session request includes the N2 SM information and a NAS message (NAS message). The NAS message includes the PDU session identifier and the PDU session establishment accept message. For example, a format of the N2 PDU session request is (N2 SM information, NAS message (PDU session ID, PDU session establishment accept)). As described in paragraph [0250] and [0251].)
Regard to claim 3: Ge discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, and further discloses: wherein
the reception unit receives, from the base station, a PDU session resource configuration response including information indicating a termination point for a network node that has a function of providing the computing resource, (i.e., [0255] S113. The RAN entity sends an N2 PDU session establishment response message to the AMF entity.
[0256] Specifically, the N2 PDU session response (N2 PDU session response) message includes the PDU session identifier, a cause value, and N2 SM information. The N2 SM information herein includes the PDU session identifier, access network tunnel information ((R)AN tunnel info), and a list of accepted/rejected QoS profile(s) (list of accepted/rejected QoS profile(s)). For example, a format of the N2 PDU session establishment response message is (PDU session ID, cause, N2 SM information (PDU session ID, (R)AN tunnel info, list of accepted/rejected QoS profile(s))). As described in paragraph [0255] and [0256].) and
the transmission unit transmits, to the network node that manages the computing resource, the information indicating the termination point for the network node that has the function of providing the computing resource. (i.e., [0257] S114. The AMF entity sends an SM request message to the SMF entity.
[0258] Specifically, the SM request (SM Request) message includes the N2 SM information in step S113. Then, the AMF entity forwards, to the SMF entity, the N2 SM information from the RAN entity.
[0259] S115a. The SMF entity sends an N4 session establishment/modification request message to the UPF entity.
[0260] Specifically, if an N4 session (N4 session) is not established, the SMF entity initiates an N4 session establishment procedure. If an N4 session has been established, the SMF entity initiates an N4 session modification procedure, to update access network (access network, AN) tunnel information and core network (core network, CN) tunnel information.
[0261] S115b. The UPF entity sends an N4 session establishment/modification response message to the SMF entity. As described in paragraph [0257] to [0261].)
Regard to claim 4: Ge discloses:
A base station comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive, from a network node that has a function of mobility management, a PDU session resource configuration request including information indicating a termination point for the base station in a communication path to a computing resource that is configured for a subscriber; (i.e., [0250] S111. The AMF entity sends an N2 PDU session request message to a RAN entity.
[0251] Specifically, the AMF entity sends the N2 PDU session request (N2 PDU session request) message to the RAN entity, and the N2 PDU session request includes the N2 SM information and a NAS message (NAS message). The NAS message includes the PDU session identifier and the PDU session establishment accept message. For example, a format of the N2 PDU session request is (N2 SM information, NAS message (PDU session ID, PDU session establishment accept)).As described in paragraph [0250] to [0251].)
a control unit configured to configure the information indicating the termination point for the base station; ; (i.e., [0253] and the RAN entity allocates a necessary RAN resource based on a QoS rule. For example, the RAN entity allocates N3 tunnel information. In addition, the RAN forwards a NAS message (PDU session ID, N1 SM information (PDU session establishment accept)) to the terminal. As described in paragraph [0253].) and
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the network node that has the function of mobility management, a PDU session resource configuration response including information indicating a termination point for a network node that has a function of providing the computing resource. ; (i.e., [0255] S113. The RAN entity sends an N2 PDU session establishment response message to the AMF entity.
[0256] Specifically, the N2 PDU session response (N2 PDU session response) message includes the PDU session identifier, a cause value, and N2 SM information. The N2 SM information herein includes the PDU session identifier, access network tunnel information ((R)AN tunnel info), and a list of accepted/rejected QoS profile(s) (list of accepted/rejected QoS profile(s)). For example, a format of the N2 PDU session establishment response message is (PDU session ID, cause, N2 SM information (PDU session ID, (R)AN tunnel info, list of accepted/rejected QoS profile(s))). As described in paragraph [0255] to [0256].)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M. VO whose telephone number is (571)272-9854. The examiner can normally be reached T-F; 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/Eric M. Vo/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights