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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/923,119 last filed on October 22nd, 2024.
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined, directed to PHYSIOLOGICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND RELAY DEVICE.
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 limitations are found in claims 1 and 7.
In claim 1 for example:
Directed to a physiological information processing system with multiple components including
“…a first information processing device configured to process…”
and “…a relay device configured to control…”
In claim 7:
The “relay device” further comprises:
“…a controller configured to control…”
The term “device” is interpreted as a generic placeholder term, along with generic placeholder “means” language, and coupled with functional language, and are not tied to sufficient structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the filed Specification shows that the entire “physiological information processing system” can be implemented as a computer program (e.g., Filed Specifications: ¶ [0027]). The current claim language regarding a/the relay device (100) still lacks the hardware processor, and the memory with the instructions for carrying out the steps.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-7 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.
Claim limitations in claim 1 with:
“…a first information processing device configured to process…”
and “…a relay device configured to control…”
and in claim 7 with:
The “relay device” further comprises:
“…a controller configured to control…”
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.
A review of the filed Specification shows that the entire “physiological information processing system” can be implemented as a computer program (e.g., Filed Specifications: ¶ [0027]). The current claim language regarding a/the relay device (100) still lacks the hardware processor, and the memory with the instructions for carrying out the steps.
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.
Dependent claims following claim 1 are rejected under the same rationale.
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
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0199550 A1 to Xing et al. (referred to hereafter as “Xing”).
As to claim 1, Xing further discloses a physiological information processing system comprising:
a first information processing device configured to process physiological information (Xing discloses of an overall similar system with distributed devices/systems, including users with their user end terminal devices/systems connecting to a larger system, via an intermediary device/system. The first device can be interpreted a terminal device and which can be in the health related industry, working with medical/health related data, e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 116 and 137 and Fig. 3);
a second information processing device (This can be interpreted as the system at the other end that the first system is communicating with, so either another remote device/system or an access network device that connects to a further (larger) network, e.g., Xing: Figs. 3 and 5); and
a relay device configured to control network communication between the first information processing device and the second information processing device (The overall system can utilize a relay UE to relay data/communications between remote UEs and/or a (larger) network, (e.g., Xing: ¶ 142 and Figs. 3 and 5) or the access network device can also be interpreted as an intermediary element, to a larger network, where the access network device further involves various functions like the AMF/SMF/PCF that can manage connections from remote UEs, via the relay UEs as well (e.g., Xing: Figs. 5 and 10),
wherein the relay device includes a controller configured to control the network communication between the first information processing device and the second information processing device, based on at least one of first device information included in a packet transmitted from the first information processing device or second device information set through a device information setting unit (Due to the conditional statement “based on at least one of…”, the first condition is met, wherein Xing’s relay device manages or controls the communications, and prevents excessive traffic or requests, from the first remote UE, towards its destination, (e.g., Xing: ¶ 46 and Fig. 5). If considering the case with the access network device as the intermediary relay, the various functions involved also further deal with managing the requests coming from the remote (first) UE(s), via the relay UE(s), e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 231, 244, 295 and Fig. 10).
As to claim 2, Xing further discloses the physiological information processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to limit a packet communication amount between the first information processing device and the second information processing device, based on at least one of the first device information or the second device information (Following claim 1, Xing discloses about identifying and evaluating the sizes of UE requests in terms of the type of data being requested within the PDU (packet data unit) sessions and evaluating numbers like the UE-AMBR (aggregated max bitrate) as a measure to limit the communications if needed, e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 137-138, 182-184, 186, 198-199, and 202-204).
As to claim 3, Xing further discloses the physiological information processing system according to claim 2,
wherein the controller is configured to set a first threshold value for the packet communication amount, based on at least one of the first device information or the second device information (Following claims 1 and 2, the system is following some guidelines based on some threshold limits on the amount of resources used, which can be measured in different units of measure, like the AMBR value or overall bandwidth, e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 137-138, 198-199 and 202-204), and
in a case where the packet communication amount between the first information processing device and the second information processing device exceeds the first threshold value within a predetermined time, the controller cuts off the network communication (the system can refuse or terminal connections when some threshold limit is exceeded, e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 137-138, 198-199 and 202-204).
As to claim 4, Xing further discloses the physiological information processing system according to claim 3,
wherein the relay device includes an error notification unit configured to, in a case where the controller cuts off the network communication, give a notification of an error in the network communication (Following claims 1-3, the system can notify the UE of the reasons or cause of failure of their request, e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 60 and 83).
As to claim 6, Xing further discloses the physiological information processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the second information processing device is configured to process physiological information (Similar to what was already established in claim 1, the second processing device can be interpreted as another similar remote UE, which can handle the same type of data contents, e.g., Xing: ¶¶ 116 and 137 and Figs. 3 and 5).
As to claim 7, Xing further discloses the relay device for relaying network communication between a first information processing device and a second information processing device, the first information processing device being configured to process physiological information (See the similar sections covered in claim 1), the relay device comprising:
a controller configured to control the network communication between the first information processing device and the second information processing device, based on at least one of first device information included in a packet transmitted from the first information processing device or second device information set through a device information setting unit (See the similar corresponding sections covered in claim 1).
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.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0199550 A1 to Xing in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0245943 A1 to Dukhovny et al. (referred to hereafter as “Dukhovny”).
As to claim 5, Xing does not fully further disclose of the physiological information processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to set a second threshold value for a packet size, and in a case where a packet size of the packet exceeds the second threshold value, the controller discards the packet transmitted between the first information processing device and the second information processing device (Following claim 1, under a different scenario branch, Xing does not expressly disclose of discarding the packet data, after exceeding a threshold limit scenario.
Dukhovny more expressly discloses of a similar system with one or more intermediary components to manage connections and wherein Dukhovny discloses of a proxy manager with the ability to delete or discard data within a queue or cache (e.g., Dukhovny: ¶ 154).
Based on Dukhovny’s teachings of this feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate this within Xing’s overall system and teachings because it is a measure to reduce wasting resources, and reducing the load on the overall processing system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455