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 .
General Remarks
1/ Claims 1-20 are pending.
2/ claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 are independent
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 8 and 9 are 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.
The way the claims written uses comma punctuations without indicating where a limitation starts and where it ends making it confusing to determine specific limitations and rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 14 is 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 14 claims “transmitting, to a first wireless device, update information of proximity service, ProSe, subscription data of at least one wireless terminal”. The way the punctuation used around ProSe It is not clear if the update information is for ProSe or subscription data. On first use Acronym, Examiner suggests writing proximity service (ProSe) instead of “…proximity service, ProSe,…”
Claim 20 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 20 claims A computer program product comprising a computer-readable program medium code stored thereupon, the code.
1/ computer-readable program medium code, the phrase is not clear as to what it represents and lacks clear structural meaning and fails to claim statutory computer readable storage medium. If applicant is intending write computer readable storage medium storing a program, Examiner suggests writing instead computer readable storage medium storing a program code.
2/ The claim encompasses a transmission signal that is not patent eligible. Examiner suggests writing as non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(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:
“a communication unit, configured to”, in claims 19.
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.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “ a communication unit, configured to”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. The claim language specifies a general computer system comprising a generic place holders such as a communication unit without mentioning a specific structure for performing claim functions. However a general computer system comprising a generic place holder is not enough to provide structural support for performing claim functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Paradugu (US pg. no. 20210136555).
Regarding claim 1. Paradugu discloses a wireless communication method for use in a first wireless device (fig. 6 discloses PSMF (first wireless device)), the wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, from a second wireless device (fig. 6 UDM ), update information of proximity service (ProSe) subscription data of at least one wireless termina ([0082] discloses the session management device (first wireless device) may obtain, from a UDM device (e.g., a network device 130 configured with the UDM function) subscription information that indicates whether the UE is authorized for ProSe sessions. Here, the PSMF may determine whether the UE is authorized for ProSe sessions based at least in part on the subscription information. In some aspects, the PSMF may register with the UDM to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE; [0090 and 0092] as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive updated prose session authorization indication from the UDM device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated prose session authorization based at least in part on registering with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information (update information of proximity service (ProSe) subscription data)) associated with the UE. Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the updated prose session authorization indication to the session management device. [0092] In some aspects, as shown by reference 622, the session management device may provide, and the UE may receive, a session modification command. In some aspects, the session modification command may include an updated prose session authorization indication associated with the UE (e.g., received from the UDM device) and/or updated Prose policy information for the ProSe service type associated with the Prose session (e.g., received from the policy control device).)
Regarding claim 2. Paradugu discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1.
Paradugu further discloses, wherein the update information comprises at least one of:
a ProSe subscription update indication for each wireless terminal ([0090] In some aspects, as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive an updated Prose session authorization indication from the UDM (second wireless device) device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated Prose session authorization (ProSe subscription update indication ) based at least in part on registering with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE. Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the updated Prose session authorization indication to the session management device).
Regarding claim 3. Paradugu discloses the wireless communication method of claim 2.
Paradugu further discloses, wherein the ProSe subscription update indication indicates at least one of:
a list of public land mobile networks (PLMNs) authorized for ProSe ([0090] In some aspects, as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive an updated Prose session authorization indication from the UDM device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated Prose session authorization (ProSe subscription update indication ) based at least in part on registering with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE. Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the updated Prose session authorization indication to the session management device; [0085] the ProSe policy information may include one or more operational and/or service parameters configured for the ProSe service. For example, the ProSe policy information may include authorization policy information associated with the ProSe service type (e.g., an allowed PLMN list for in-coverage).
Regarding claim 4. Paradugu discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1.
Paradugu further discloses, further comprising: transmitting, to the second wireless device, a subscription message for the update information ([0090] In some aspects, as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive an updated Prose session authorization indication from the UDM device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated Prose session authorization (ProSe subscription update indication ) based at least in part on registering with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information (the subscription registration request message sent to UDM corresponds to subscription message) associated with the UE. Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the updated Prose session authorization indication to the session management device; [0082] the PSMF (first wireless device) may register with the UDM (second wireless device) to receive updates to the subscription information (subscription registration request message to UDM corresponds to sending subscription message) associated with the UE).
Regarding claim 5. Paradugu The wireless communication method of claim 4.
Paradugu discloses, wherein the subscription message comprises at least one of: a service code associated with a ProSe ([0076] In some aspects, the session request may include ProSe session specific information, such as information that indicates a ProSe service type associated with the ProSe session. That is, the session request may include information that identifies a type of ProSe service for which the ProSe session is to be used by the UE. In some aspects, the ProSe service type of the ProSe service may be, for example, a public safety service type, a commercial service type (service code associated with UE and to be passed to UDM for subscription request); [0090] In some aspects, as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive an updated Prose session authorization indication from the UDM device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated Prose session authorization (ProSe subscription update indication ) based at least in part on registering with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE (Prose indicator in the subscription request corresponds to service code). Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the updated Prose session authorization indication to the session management device; [0082] In some aspects, the session management device may determine whether the UE is authorized for ProSe sessions based at least in part on subscription information associated with the UE (authorization indicator corresponds to service code). For example, as shown by reference 608, the session management device may obtain, from a UDM device (e.g., a network device 130 configured with the UDM function) subscription information that indicates whether the UE is authorized for ProSe sessions).
Regarding claim 6. Paradugu discloses the wireless communication method of claim 3.
Paradugu further discloses, wherein the service code indicates at least one of:
an authorization identification of the ProSe for each wireless terminal ([0082] In some aspects, the session management device may determine whether the UE is authorized for ProSe sessions based at least in part on subscription information associated with the UE (authorization identity of each wireless terminal) that is subscribed to get update on in the subscription registration. For example, as shown by reference 608, the session management device may obtain, from a UDM device (e.g., a network device 130 configured with the UDM function) subscription information that indicates whether the UE is authorized for ProSe sessions).
Regarding claim 7. Paradugu discloses the wireless communication method of claim 6.
Paradugu further discloses, wherein the authorization identification relates to at least one policy of the ProSe for each wireless terminal ([0090] the session management device may receive updated ProSe policy information (associated with UE terminal) for the ProSe service type from the policy control device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated ProSe policy information based at least in part on registering with the policy control device to receive updates to the ProSe policy information associated with the ProSe service type. The identifier associated with the policy corresponds to authorization id).
Regarding claim 8. The wireless communication method of claim 4.
Paradugu discloses, wherein the subscription message for the update information is transmitted no earlier than at least one of: storing the ProSe subscription data of at least one wireless terminal([0082]the PSMF may register with the UDM to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE (subscription registration request message for the update information where UDM stores all subscription information to all UE); [0090] as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive an Updated Prose Session authorization indication from the UDM device. For example, the session management device may receive the Updated Prose Session authorization based at least in part on registering (corresponds to requesting based on subscription to receive for the ProSe subscription data) with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE. Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the Updated Prose Session authorization indication to the session management device. Which of the signaling is to come earlier or not is a mere engineering choice where the system can be programmed to function without a structural change on the system hence amounting to a mere printed natter or programming where printed mater or programming of the system that would not result any structural difference is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.05)).
Regarding claim 9. The wireless communication method of claim 4.
Paradugu discloses , wherein the subscription message of the update information is transmitted no earlier for than at least one of: checking authorization information of providing a ProSe to the at least one wireless terminal([0090] In some aspects, as shown by reference 618, the session management device may receive an updated Prose session authorization indication from the UDM device. For example, the session management device may receive the updated Prose session authorization (ProSe subscription update indication ) based at least in part on registering with the UDM device to receive updates to the subscription information associated with the UE. Here, based on such an update, the UDM device may provide the updated Prose session authorization indication to the session management device;. Which of the signaling is to come earlier or not is a mere engineering choice where the system can be programmed to function in any sequence without a structural change on the system hence amounting to a mere printed natter or programming where printed mater or programming of the system that would not result any structural difference is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.05)).
Regarding claim 10. The wireless communication method of claim 1.
Paradugu discloses, wherein the updated information is received in an update request (fig. 6 discloses subscription update notification message sent based on prior subscription request for updated prose information in step 608).
Regarding claim 11. The wireless communication method of claim 10.
Paradugu further discloses, further comprising:
transmitting, to the second wireless device, a response in response to the update request (fig. 6 discloses UDM storing all information. The UDM is capable of requesting if there is a change in the stored information periodically to synchronize stored information. The system can be configured to perform periodic request to PSMF of update information stored of UE).
Regarding claim 13. The wireless communication method of claim 1.
Paradugu discloses, wherein the second wireless device comprises at least one of a unified data management (fig. 6 discloses UDM as second wireless device).
Regarding claim 14. Paradugu discloses a wireless communication method for use in a second wireless device (fig. UDM), the wireless communication method comprising:
transmitting, to a first wireless device (fig. 6 PSMF), update information of proximity service, ProSe, subscription data of at least one wireless terminal (fig. 6 discloses per subscription relationship, UDM transmits UE prose subscription update information to PSMF).
Regarding claim 15. The wireless communication method of claim 14.
All other limitations of claim 15 are similar with the limitation of claim 2 rejected above.
Regarding claim 16. The wireless communication method of claim 15.
All other limitations of claim a6 are similar with the limitations of claim 3 rejected above.
Regarding claim 17. The wireless communication method of claim 14.
All other limitations of claim 17 are similar with the limitations of claim 4 rejected above.
Regarding claim 18. The wireless communication method of claim 17.
All other limitations of claim 18 are similar with the limitations of claim 4 rejected above.
Regarding claim 19. Paradugu discloses a first wireless device (Fig. 6 PSMF), comprising: a communication unit, configured to receive, from a second wireless device, update information of proximity service (ProSe) subscription data of at least one wireless terminal (fig. 6 discloses per subscription relationship, UDM transmits UE prose subscription update information to PSMF. Component of PSMF receiving the message corresponds to communication unit). .
Regarding claim 20. A computer program product comprising a computer-readable program medium code stored thereupon, the code, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to implement a wireless communication method recited in claim 1.
All other limitations of claim 20 are similar with the limitations of claim 1 rejected above.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradugu (US pg. no. 20210136555), further in view of Fu (US pg. no. 20240196206).
Regarding claim 12. Paradugu discloses wireless communication method of claim 1.
Paradugu does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first wireless device comprises at least one of a ProSe anchor function or a ProSe key management function.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fu discloses wherein the first wireless device comprises at least one of a ProSe anchor function or a ProSe key management function (fig. 5a. 218 discloses PAnF that corresponds to the first wireless device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Paradugu with Fu. The modification would allow a secured Prose service system with secured key management to enforce security measures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESSERET F. GEBRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8272. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 5712701684. 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.
/MESSERET F GEBRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445