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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Network Access Processing Method and Device.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “A first device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the first device to perform: transmitting first information, the first information comprising information of the first device that requests to access a network and/or information of a group to which the first device belongs; and receiving second information, the second information comprising response information that is determined according to the first information.”
Claim 1 recites “A first device” in the preamble in line 1 and “and/or” in line 5. The body of the claim recites the action/steps: “configure…transmit…receive” performed by the device. For clarity and placing the claim into proper machine claim, it is suggested to insert “:” after “comprising” and it is also suggested to use of word instead mathematical operator “/” (e.g., instead of “A and/or B”, preferred language is “at least one of A or B”).
Claim 3 recites “and/or” in page 1, line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to use of word instead mathematical operator “/” (e.g., instead of “A and/or B”, preferred language is “at least one of A or B”).
Claim 12 recites “and/or” in page 2, line 5. For clarity, it is suggested to use of word instead mathematical operator “/” (e.g., instead of “A and/or B”, preferred language is “at least one of A or B”).
Dependent Claims 2, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are also objected since they are depended upon objected independent claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the
direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a
restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are
drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because the claims of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims of
the Patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims, and the claims of this instant application are therefore and obvious variant thereof.
Regarding Claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 2, 5, and 19 of the FU Patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims as set forth below.
Claim 1 of Instant application
Claims of FU
Claim 1: A first device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the first device to perform:
Claim 19: A communication device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface communicated with a network device; wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, causing the processor to execute:
transmitting first information, the first information comprising information of the first device that requests to access a network and/or information of a group to which the first device belongs;
Sending request information to the network device through the communication interface, wherein the request information is configured to indicate a first transmission requirement, and the request information is access stratum information.
and receiving second information, the second information comprising response information that is determined according to the first information.
Claim 2: receiving, by the terminal device, first indication information from the network device, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate a first corresponding relationship between at least one transmission requirement and at least one transmission resource, and determining, by the terminal device, the first transmission requirement from the at least one transmission requirement, wherein a transmission resource corresponding to the first transmission requirement in the at least one transmission resource is a first transmission resource.
Claim 5: receiving, by the terminal device, first response information from the network device, wherein the first response information is configured to configure the first transmission resource or to confirm that the first transmission resource is configured for transmission data, and the first transmission resource is a transmission resource that meets the first transmission requirement.
In view of above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application iterates the same concept of the claim 2, 5, and 20 of the FU Patent, where a first/terminal device (UE) is transmitting/sending first/request information where first device is requesting access to a network or transmission requirement. Afterwards receiving a response information based on the first/request information.
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant application, FU discloses First/request information comprises transmission data configuration (see claim 4).
FU doesn’t explicitly disclose “ wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: a group identity (ID) of the first device, an ID of a member device in the group to which the first device belongs, a number of member devices in the group to which the first device belongs, a location range of a member device in the group to which the first device belongs, a service ID requested to be used, an ID of the first device, a category of the first device, or a category of a member device in the group to which the first device belongs”.
However, Wang discloses wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: an ID of the first device (See FIG. 9; step – 903-904; see col. 11, line 45-51; see col. 14, line 36-43; First UE sends first message jointly with the second message which holds Identifier ID of first UE and all the second UEs (group ID)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide “the first information comprises at least one of the following: a group identity (ID) of the first device, an ID of a member device in the group to which the first device belongs, a number of member devices in the group to which the first device belongs, a location range of a member device in the group to which the first device belongs, a service ID requested to be used, an ID of the first device, a category of the first device, or a category of a member device in the group to which the first device belongs” as taught by Wang in the system of FU, so that it would reduce wastes of network resources (Wang, see col. 2, line 5-8).
Regarding Claim 3 of the instant application, FU discloses the response information comprises first transmission resource configuration (see claim 5).
FU doesn’t explicitly disclose, “the response information comprises at least one of the following: information on admission to the network, comprising information of the first device admitted to the network and/or information of the group to which the first device belongs; or rejection information, comprising a reason for rejecting access to the network”.
However, Wang discloses wherein the response information comprises at least one of the following: information on admission to the network, comprising information of the first device admitted to the network (see FIG. 1; step – 106-107; See FIG. 7; step – 701-704 See FIG. 9; step – 907-910; see col. 11, line 45-51; see col. 12, line 12-15; see col. 13, line 4-8; see col. 14, line 51-66; see col. 17, line 4-9; The first and second message is sent to the base station jointly. The network device adds identifiers to the first UE, second UEs (Group that first UE is a part of) and sends the message to the MME. MME receives and sends initial context setup request back to the network device. The network device/eNB sends an access response to the first device/first UE and second UEs to access the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide “ the response information comprises at least one of the following: information on admission to the network, comprising information of the first device admitted to the network and/or information of the group to which the first device belongs; or rejection information, comprising a reason for rejecting access to the network” as taught by Wang in the system of FU, so that it would reduce wastes of network resources (Wang, see col. 2, line 5-8).
Regarding Claim 4 of the instant application, FU discloses transmission requirement (see claim 5).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “the information on admission to the network comprises at least one of the following: a service ID allowed for use, a service area corresponding to the service ID allowed for use, an admitted group ID, an admitted ID of the first device, ID(s) of admitted member device(s) in a group, or a number of the admitted member device(s) in the group”.
Wang discloses wherein the information on admission to the network comprises at least one of the following: ID(s) of admitted member device(s) in a group (See FIG. 9; step – 909-910; see col. 13, line 4-8; see col. 14, line 51-66; see col. 17, line 4-9; The network device adds identifiers to the first UE, second UEs (Group that first UE is a part of) and sends the message to the MME. MME receives identifiers of the second UEs and sends initial context setup request back to the network device. The network device/eNB sends an access response to the first device/first UE and second UEs to access the network. So, the access response from the network device holds all the ID(s) of the admitted member device(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “the information on admission to the network comprises at least one of the following: a service ID allowed for use, a service area corresponding to the service ID allowed for use, an admitted group ID, an admitted ID of the first device, ID(s) of admitted member device(s) in a group, or a number of the admitted member device(s) in the group” as taught by Wang in the system of FU, so that it would reduce wastes of network resources (Wang, see col. 2, line 5-8).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702) and further view of Ghosh (20170078003).
Regarding Claim 5 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “the group ID comprises at least one of a globally unique ID, a group ID within a service, or an ID unique in a PLMN”.
Wang discloses first information has ID for each UE.
Although Wang discloses each UE having unique ID in the first information, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose group ID comprising globally unique ID.
Ghosh discloses wherein the group ID comprises at least one of a globally unique ID (see FIG. 5B; Group ID – 520; see ¶0052; The group ID is a global unique identifier (GUID)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “the group ID comprises at least one of a globally unique ID, a group ID within a service, or an ID unique in a PLMN” as taught by Ghosh, in the combined system of FU and Wang, so that it would improve bandwidth allocation and provide faster response times (Ghosh, See ¶¶0003, 0004).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702) and further view of Xiang (20240205814).
Regarding Claim 6 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “the service ID comprises at least one of an application ID or an ID defined by an operator”.
Wang discloses First UE requesting service (see FIG. 9; Step – 906; see col. 14, line 47-50).
Although Wang discloses requesting service, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose service having ID comprising application ID.
Xiang discloses wherein the service ID comprises at least one of an application ID (see ¶0086; A service has ID and it includes an application ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “the service ID comprises at least one of an application ID or an ID defined by an operator.” as taught by Xiang, in the combined system of FU and Wang, so that it would improve bandwidth allocation and provide faster response times (Ghosh, See ¶¶0003, 0004).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702) and further view of Qiao (20190109823).
Regarding Claim 7 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “a device ID is at least one of a radio frequency identifier (RFID) of a device, an ID defined by an operator, or a network access identifier (NAI)”.
Wang discloses a device has ID (See FIG. 9; step – 903-904; see col. 11, line 45-51; see col. 14, line 36-43; First UE sends first message jointly with the second message which holds Identifier ID of first UE and all the second UEs (group ID)).
Although Wang discloses a device that has ID, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose a device ID is at least one of a network access identifier.
Qiao discloses wherein a device ID is at least one of a network access identifier (NAI) (see ¶0109; A device identifier/ID comprises a wireless device network access identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “a device ID is at least one of a radio frequency identifier (RFID) of a device, an ID defined by an operator, or a network access identifier (NAI)” as taught by Qiao, in the combined system of FU and Wang, so that it would resolve difficulties that arise for a wireless device to obtain desired services using Ethernet over wireless communications (Qiao, see ¶0002).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702) and further view of Lee (20130029716).
Regarding Claim 8 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “a category of a device comprises at least one of a zero-power consumption terminal, a group head terminal, or other non-group head terminal in a group”.
Wang discloses a device has category (see col. 8, line 33-42; UE has different type of devices.).
Although Wang discloses a device has different categories, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose a category of a device comprises a group head terminal.
Lee discloses wherein a category of a device comprises a group head terminal (see FIG. 11; see ¶¶0084, 0085, 0010, 00223; The device category is M2M device, and M2M group has a group head device/terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “a category of a device comprises at least one of a zero-power consumption terminal, a group head terminal, or other non-group head terminal in a group.” as taught by Lee, in the combined system of FU and Wang, so that it would improve the overhead problem considering features of the M2M communication system (Lee, see ¶0005).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702) and further view of Gan (20200403670).
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “a condition for the first device to transmit the first information comprises at least one of the following: the first device generating a service demand; the first device having received a trigger signal; the first device reaching at a preset time point; or the first device being manually triggered”.
Wang discloses wherein a condition for the first device to transmit the first information (see col. 9, line 25-28; The first message/information transmission is done in either manner 1 or manner 2 (a condition)).
Although Wang discloses a condition for first message transmission by the first device, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose the first device having received a trigger signal.
Gan discloses the first device having received a trigger signal (see ¶0037; Received by the first device a trigger signal which is used to trigger the first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “a condition for the first device to transmit the first information comprises at least one of the following: the first device generating a service demand; the first device having received a trigger signal; the first device reaching at a preset time point; or the first device being manually triggered” as taught by Gan, in the combined system of FU and Wang, so that it would improve communication quality of a communications system (Gan, see ¶0004).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702), Lee (20130029716), and further view of Shin (20240001925).
Regarding Claim 10 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “the trigger signal comprises at least one of the following: scatter signals periodically transmitted by an access network device; a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device; or a function signal transmitted by the scanning device”.
Wang discloses First information.
Lee discloses First device received trigger signal (see ¶0037; Received by the first device a trigger signal which is used to trigger the first device).
Although the combined system of Wang and Lee discloses First device to transmit first information comprising trigger signal, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device.
Shin discloses wherein the trigger signal comprises a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device (see ¶0055; The monitoring/scanning device generate a trigger signal and transmit the trigger signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “the trigger signal comprises at least one of the following: scatter signals periodically transmitted by an access network device; a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device; or a function signal transmitted by the scanning device” as taught by Shin, in the combined system of FU, Wang and Lee, so that it would improve arrival time at a destination (Shin, see ¶0004).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 20230403684 (hereinafter refers as FU) in view of Wang (US 11206702) and further view of SUN (20230247418).
Regarding Claim 11 of the instant application, FU discloses first information (see claim 19).
Fu doesn’t explicitly disclose, “transmitting a notification of admission to the network to terminal(s) admitted to the network in the group or other terminal(s) in the group in a case of determining that the network is allowed to access according to the information on admission to the network”.
Wang discloses transmitting an access response to the terminal(s) (see FIG. 1; step-106; see col. 11, line 23-24; Base station sends an access response/second information).
Although Wang discloses transmitting an access response to the terminal(s), Wand doesn’t explicitly disclose transmitting a notification of admission to terminal(s).
SUN discloses transmitting a notification of admission to the network to terminal(s) (see ¶¶0506, 0507; The network sends a response message of admission to the first terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was make to provide, “transmitting a notification of admission to the network to terminal(s) admitted to the network in the group or other terminal(s) in the group in a case of determining that the network is allowed to access according to the information on admission to the network” as taught by SUN, in the combined system of FU and Wang, so that it would improve security of internal data on a network side (SUN, see ¶0006).
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “transmitting first information, the first information comprising information of the first device that requests to access a network and/or information of a group to which the first device belongs;” in lines 4-5. It is unclear which of the following options are being claimed.
Version 1:
the first information comprising
Information of the first information of the first device that request to access a network
And/or
Information of a group
, to which the first device belongs [this clause applies to both option a and b]
version 2:
the first information comprising
Information of the first information of the first device that requests to access a network
And/or
Information of a group to which the first device belongs
Version 3:
The first information comprising
Information of the first information of the first device that requests to access a network
And/or
Information of a group to which the first device belongs
Only one option where first information is requesting to access network and/or information of a group.
Claim 12 is also rejected for the same reason as claim 1 set forth above.
Claim 3 recites, “information on admission to the network, comprising information of the first device admitted to the network and/or information of the group to which the first device belongs” in lines 3-4. It is unclear which of the following options are being claimed.
Version 1:
The response information comprising
Information of admission of the first device that admitted to the network, or
Information of the group, or
Transmitting a notification of admission to (1) the network and (2) to terminal(s)
Version 2:
The response information comprising
Information of admission of the first device that admitted to the network
or
Information of a group to which the first device belongs
Claim 11 recites, “transmitting a notification of admission to the network to terminal(s) admitted to the network in the group or other terminal(s) in the group in a case of determining that the network is allowed to access according to the information on admission to the network.” In lines 2-4. It is unclear whether, “admission to the network” or “admission to terminal(s)” or “admitted to the network in the group” or “admitted to the network other terminal(s) in the group” is separated from the rest of the claim sentence. It is unclear which of the following options are being claimed.
Choice 1:
Transmitting a notification of admission to the network
Or
Transmitting a notification of admission to terminal(s)
Or
Transmitting a notification of admission to (1) the network and (2) to terminal(s)
Choice 2:
Transmitting a notification of admission admitted to the network and
to the terminal(s) admitted to the network in the group
Or
to other terminal(s) in the group
in a case of determining that the network is allowed to access according to the information on admission to the network [This clause is ONLY applicable to option b].
Choice 3:
Transmitting a notification of admission admitted to the network, to
the terminal(s) admitted to the network in the group
Or
other terminal(s) in the group
in a case of determining that the network is allowed to access according to the information on admission to the network [This clause is applicable to both options a or b]
The claims are ambiguous. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret as best understood.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are also rejected since they are depended upon rejected independent claims set forth above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 11206702).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a first device (see FIG. 1; First UE), comprising a processor (see FIG. 11; Processor – 1102; see col. 18, line 3) and a memory(see FIG. 11; Memory – 1101; see col. 18, line 1-3), wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program (see col. 18, line 1-4), and the processor is configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the first device to perform(see col. 18, line 1-6):
transmitting first information (see FIG. 1; step-104; see col. 9, line 18; First UE transmits first message/information to a base station/network device), the first information comprising information of the first device that requests to access a network (see col. 5, line 26-32; col. 10, line 67; see col. 11, line 1-2, 41-44, 45-51; The first message includes information of UEs and instruction for UEs to access the network. The first message is sent jointly with a second message which includes first UE identity); and
receiving second information, the second information comprising response information that is determined according to the first information (see FIG. 1; step-106, 107; see col. 11, line 23-29; UE receives access response sent by the base station based on the first message).
Regarding Claim 2 and 13, Wang discloses wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: an ID of the first device (See FIG. 9; step – 903-904; see col. 11, line 45-51; see col. 14, line 36-43; First UE sends first message jointly with the second message which holds Identifier ID of first UE and all the second UEs (group ID)).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the response information comprises at least one of the following: information on admission to the network, comprising information of the first device admitted to the network (see FIG. 1; step – 106-107; See FIG. 7; step – 701-704 See FIG. 9; step – 907-910; see col. 11, line 45-51; see col. 12, line 12-15; see col. 13, line 4-8; see col. 14, line 51-66; see col. 17, line 4-9; The first and second message is sent to the base station jointly. The network device adds identifiers to the first UE, second UEs (Group that first UE is a part of) and sends the message to the MME. MME receives and sends initial context setup request back to the network device. The network device/eNB sends an access response to the first device/first UE and second UEs to access the network).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the information on admission to the network comprises at least one of the following: ID(s) of admitted member device(s) in a group (See FIG. 9; step – 909-910; see col. 13, line 4-8; see col. 14, line 51-66; see col. 17, line 4-9; The network device adds identifiers to the first UE, second UEs (Group that first UE is a part of) and sends the message to the MME. MME receives identifiers of the second UEs and sends initial context setup request back to the network device. The network device/eNB sends an access response to the first device/first UE and second UEs to access the network. So, the access response from the network device holds all the ID(s) of the admitted member device(s)).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang discloses a second device (see FIG. 1; Base station), comprising a processor (see FIG. 13; Processor – 1302; see col. 19, line 39-41) and a memory (see FIG. 13; Memory – 1301; see col. 19, line 39-41), wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the second device to perform (see col. 19, line 39-46):
receiving first information (see FIG. 1; step-104, 105; see col. 9, line 18; see col. 11, line 9-10; First UE transmits first message/information to a base station/network device and the base station receives and obtains the first message sent by UE), the first information comprising information of a first device that requests to access a network(see col. 5, line 26-32; col. 10, line 67; see col. 11, line 1-2, 41-44, 45-51; The first message includes information of UEs and instruction for UEs to access the network. The first message is sent jointly with a second message which includes first UE identity);
obtaining second information (see FIG. 1; step 105; see col. 11, line 9-10; Base station obtains the first message sent by the first UE), the second information comprising response information that is determined according to the first information (see FIG. 1; step-106, 107; see col. 11, line 23-29; see col. 8, line 43-55; UE receives access response sent by the base station based on the first message);
and transmitting the second information (see FIG. 1; step-106; see col. 11, line 23-24; Base station sends an access response/second information).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses wherein the second device is an access network device (see FIG. 9; see First UE, Base station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; First UE access the core network (MME) through the base station (access network device)); and receiving the first information comprises: receiving the first information from the first device (see FIG. 1; step- 104-105; see col. 9, line 18; see col.11, line 9-10; Base Station receives first message/information from First UE).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses wherein obtaining the second information comprises: transmitting the first information to a core network device (See FIG. 9; step - 903-908; see First UE, Base station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; First UE access the core network (MME) through the base station (access network device)); and receiving the second information from the core network device (See FIG. 1; step – 106; see col. 11, line 23-24; See FIG. 9; step - 903-908; see First UE, Base station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; First UE receives the response back from MME (core network) through the base station (access network)).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang discloses wherein the second device is a core network device (see FIG. 9; see first UE, Base Station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; First UE communicates with the core network (MME) which verifies the UE access through the base station (access network device). Here the second device is the MME and the base station); and receiving the first information comprises: receiving the first information of the first device via an access network device (see FIG. 9; see step 901-910; see first UE, Base station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; The MME receives the first information about the UEs via the base station (access network device)).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang discloses wherein obtaining the second information comprises determining the second information according to the first information (see col. 8, line 43-55; The access response/resource allocation (second information) is based on the first and second message sent jointly by the first UE (see also col. 11, line 45-51)).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang discloses wherein the second device is an application device (see col. 19, line 39-65; The second/network device is an application specific device); and receiving the first information comprises: receiving the first information of the first device via a core network device and an access network device (see FIG. 9; see step 901-910; see first UE, Base station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; The MME(core network) receives the first information about the UEs via the base station (access network device)).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang discloses wherein transmitting the second information comprises: transmitting the second information to the first device via the core network device and the access network device (see FIG. 9; see step 901-910; see first UE, Base station, MME; see col. 14, line 22-66; The MME receives the first information about the UEs via the base station (access network device) and transmits it back from the MME to the UE via the base station (see also FIG. 1; step 106-109)).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang discloses wherein a way of determining the second information comprises:
a received ID of the first device, a received ID of a group member is consistent with known information of the second device (see col. 14, line 23-67; see col. 16, line 11-56; The MME received the ID of the first and second UEs (group member) from the base station with S1AP IDs to determine the second message or context).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 11206702) in view of Ghosh (20170078003).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses first information has ID for each UE.
Although Wang discloses each UE having unique ID in the first information, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose group ID comprising globally unique ID.
Ghosh discloses wherein the group ID comprises at least one of a globally unique ID (see FIG. 5B; Group ID – 520; see ¶0052; The group ID is a global unique identifier (GUID)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for group ID to comprise a globally unique ID as taught by Ghosh, in the system of Wang, so that it would improve bandwidth allocation and provide faster response times (Ghosh, See ¶¶0003, 0004).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 11206702) in view of Xiang (20240205814).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses First UE requesting service (see FIG. 9; Step – 906; see col. 14, line 47-50).
Although Wang discloses requesting service, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose service having ID comprising application ID.
Xiang discloses wherein the service ID comprises at least one of an application ID (see ¶0086; A service has ID and it includes an application ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for service to have ID which includes application ID as taught by Xiang, in the system of Wang, so that it would improve access to the dedicated local network by UEs (Xiang, see ¶0003).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 11206702) in view of Qiao (20190109823).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang discloses a device has ID (See FIG. 9; step – 903-904; see col. 11, line 45-51; see col. 14, line 36-43; First UE sends first message jointly with the second message which holds Identifier ID of first UE and all the second UEs (group ID)).
Although Wang discloses a device that has ID, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose a device ID is at least one of a network access identifier.
Qiao discloses wherein a device ID is at least one of a network access identifier (NAI) (see ¶0109; A device identifier/ID comprises a wireless device network access identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a device ID is at least one of a network access identifier (NAI) as taught by Qiao, in the system of Wang, so that it would resolve difficulties that arise for a wireless device to obtain desired services using Ethernet over wireless communications (Qiao, see ¶0002).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 11206702) in view of Lee (20130029716).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses a device has category (see col. 8, line 33-42; UE has different type of devices.).
Although Wang discloses a device has different categories, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose a category of a device comprises a group head terminal.
Lee discloses wherein a category of a device comprises a group head terminal (see FIG. 11; see ¶¶0084, 0085, 0010, 00223; The device category is M2M device, and M2M group has a group head device/terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a category of a device comprises a group head terminal as taught by Lee, in the system of Wang, so that it would improve the overhead problem considering features of the M2M communication system (Lee, see ¶0005).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 11206702) in view of Gan (20200403670).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses wherein a condition for the first device to transmit the first information (see col. 9, line 25-28; The first message/information transmission is done in either manner 1 or manner 2 (a condition)).
Although Wang discloses a condition for first message transmission by the first device, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose the first device having received a trigger signal.
Gan discloses the first device having received a trigger signal (see ¶0037; Received by the first device a trigger signal which is used to trigger the first device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/follow a condition for the first device to transmit the first information comprises the first device having received a trigger signal as taught by Lee, in the system of Wang, so that it would improve communication quality of a communications system (Gan, see ¶0004).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gan as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shin (20240001925).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses First information (see FIG. 1; step-104; see col. 9, line 18; First UE transmits first message/information to a base station/network device).
Gan discloses First device received trigger signal (see ¶0037; Received by the first device a trigger signal which is used to trigger the first device).
Although the combined system of Wang and Gan discloses First device to transmit first information comprising trigger signal, Wang doesn’t explicitly disclose a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device.
Shin discloses wherein the trigger signal comprises a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device (see ¶0055; The monitoring/scanning device generate a trigger signal and transmit the trigger signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a trigger signal transmitted by a scanning device as taught by Shin, in the combined system of Wang and Lee, so that it would improve arrival time at a destination (Shin, see ¶0004).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 11206702) in view of SUN (20230247418).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang discloses transmitting an access response to the terminal(s) (see FIG. 1; step-106; see col. 11, line 23-24; Base station sends an access response/second information).
Although Wang discloses transmitting an access response to the terminal(s), Wand doesn’t explicitly disclose transmitting a notification of admission to terminal(s).
SUN discloses transmitting a notification of admission to the network to terminal(s) (see ¶¶0506, 0507; The network sends a response message of admission to the first terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit a notification of admission to the terminal(s) as taught by SUN, in the system of Wang, so that it would improve security of internal data on a network side (SUN, see ¶0006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rommer (US 20150327073) FIG. 1-10
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mominur Rashid whose telephone number is (571)272-0535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7 AM - 5:30 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 Ian N Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
Mominur Rashid Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/MOMINUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 2469
/Ian N Moore/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469