DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/27/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of data manipulation and mathematical/logical processing. Specifically, the claim recites "performing data processing based on different pieces of first data corresponding to at least one quality of service (QoS) flow." This tracking, filtering, or sorting of data based on conditional parameters constitutes a mental process or a method of organizing information, which are recognized categories of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality or network technology. Instead, the claim merely recites the abstract concept of "data processing" as a general tool. The recitation of a "QoS flow" merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological field (telecommunications), which does not integrate the idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, The claim does not include an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements in the claim, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do nothing more than instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea using generic, conventional data processing techniques. There is no transformation of the data, no specific hardware architecture recited, and no unconventional step that adds an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without shifting the claim into a practical application, and does not recite an inventive concept.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites the abstract idea of managing network traffic data based on Quality of Service (QoS) parameters. This represents a method of organizing data or a mathematical manipulation of traffic routing.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The claim merely recites a generic 'chip' and 'logic circuits' to execute the function. The application of an abstract concept on generic hardware does not improve the technology of the chip itself.
Under Step 2B, the claim fails to provide an inventive concept. The logic circuits are recited at a high level of generality and perform routine, conventional functions well-known in the networking arts. The combination of these elements adds nothing 'significantly more' than the abstract idea itself.
All dependent claims rejected for having the same deficiencies as the parent claim.
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 and 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, the limitation "performing data processing based on different pieces of first data corresponding to at least one quality of service (QoS) flow" is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what structural boundaries differentiate the "different pieces of first data" or what specific type of "data processing" is being executed. First, It is impossible to determine from the face of the claim what characteristics differentiate these "pieces" (e.g., whether they differ by data format, size, header information, or destination). The phrase "based on" fails to clarify whether the processing is triggered by, modified by, or structurally limited by the QoS flow. Because the claim relies entirely on functional outcomes without establishing clear boundaries, a person ordinary skilled in the art (PHOSITA) cannot determine the metes and bounds of the protected invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites a broad functional result ("performing data processing based on different pieces of first data") without reciting the specific technical steps to achieve that result. The specification only provides written description support for “data processing in a 5G network by including the requirements of different PDUs or sets of PDUs. The data processing is mapping or filtering the first set of PDUs and the second set of PDUs based on their respective QoS flows, and PDU types.”
The current claim language is broad enough to encompass any data processing mechanism whatsoever. The disclosure does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full, unrestricted scope of "performing data processing" across all possible types of "first data" without undue experimentation.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuda et al (US Publication 2024/0381165) disclosed PCT/JP21/048714.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Tsuda teaches an apparatus and a method for processing data, comprising:
performing data processing based on different pieces of first data corresponding to at least one quality of service (QoS) flow. (i.e. Tduda discloses a control device of a base station in a 5G Network may identify a type of data in a QoS flow by a QFI (QoS flow identifier) and based upon the flow classification, select a type of processing to be executed on the flow; see paragraph 204)
Claim(s) 1 , 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (US Publication 2025/0039740) disclosed in PCT/CN22/087156.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Fu teaches an apparatus and method for processing data, comprising:
performing data processing based on different pieces of first data corresponding to at least one quality of service (QoS) flow. (i.e. fig. 8 of Fu shows a device may determine a type of operation to perform on a information of a PDU, PDU group or PDU set as part of a QOS flow; see paragraphs 433 – 436, 592 – 595)
NOTE: As the examiner noted in the 112(b) rejection, it is difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the claim language as written, as such the examiner writes prior art rejections for only the independent claims as a courtesy by trying to anticipate future possible limitations from the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 EST.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
September 3, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights