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 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 1-12 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, 9, 10, and 11 recite the limitation "the own instrument". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the systems”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims is directed to signals per se. The specification does not preclude a “recording medium” to be transitory.
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) 1-5, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (pub # US 20200100304 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a controller (first network element in figure 1, details of the first network element shown in figure 2, paragraphs 72, 73) comprising: a transmission/reception unit (Xn interface) that transmits a request for input/output setting of data (channel configuration information, paragraph 73) to an information processing apparatus (second network element), and that receives, from the information processing apparatus, input/output information that defines the input/output setting and that is associated with the controller that performs control of an associated system (receiving information of a transmission channel configuration); and a setting unit (CU-U, paragraph 113) that performs the input/output setting of the own instrument based on the received input/output information (configuring the GTP transmission channel, paragraph 73; details of the steps in figure 6, paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the setting unit receives the input/output information from the information processing apparatus to which the request has been transmitted, the setting unit calls an application programming interface (NG-U interface, paragraph 113) that is associated with the input/output setting by using the input/output information, and performs setting of an input/output module in the own instrument (GTP transmission channel between the CU-U and the DU, paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the controller according to claim controller according to claim 2, wherein the setting unit calls an application programming interface that is common to the systems (centralized RRC management function, paragraph 113) and that is related to the input/output setting by using the input/output information, further calls the application programming interface that is associated with the input/output setting that is different for each system (split of control signaling and user data), and performs setting of an input/output module in the own instrument (configuration described in paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the transmission/reception unit receives the input/output information that defines an input/output type of the data passing through each of input/output channels of the controller (GTP-U protocol, paragraph 118) and that is associated with identification information on the controller (GTP-U Tunnel Endpoint ID).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the transmission/reception unit transmits the request to the information processing apparatus when the controller is connected to a communication network including the information processing apparatus for the first time (during the session establishment process, paragraph 11), or when a control system including the controller is connected to the communication network after a system configuration has been changed (during session modification process, paragraph 90).
Regarding claims 9-11, examiner notes these claims differ only in statutory category and are otherwise substantially similar to claim 1 above. The same grounds of rejection are applied.
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein, in a case where the acquisition unit has accepted the request, the acquisition unit refers to a predetermined database that stores therein the input/output information (from a core network, paragraph 240), and acquires the input/output information that is associated with identification information on the controller in which the request has been accepted (through the request discussed in paragraph 113).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the controller conforms to Open Process Automation (OPA), Module Type Package (MTP), or NAMUR Open Architecture (examiner notes these are protocols well-known before the effective filing date of the invention, and would have been an obvious design choice over the protocols discussed by Liu).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the controller conforms to Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture (OPC UA) - (examiner notes this is a protocol well-known before the effective filing date of the invention, and would have been an obvious design choice over the protocols discussed by Liu).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the controller performs control of a plant (examiner notes that Liu teaches the invention applies industrial systems, paragraph 262, and an industrial plant would have been an obvious application).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8:30 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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/SCOTT C SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181