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 statement (IDS) submitted on January 27, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “one piece of first information…. destination terminal of the first information” in line 8. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, belongs to some information.
Claim 1 recites “the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range” in lines 14-16. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, is located for second information and in the location range.
Claim 1 recites “the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range” in lines 14-16. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, is located for the information and in the location range.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a quantity of first terminals… wherein the first terminal is….” in line 10. It is unclear which one of “a quantity of first terminals” “the first terminal” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “quantity of pieces of second information… wherein the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located” in lines 13-16. It is unclear which one of “quantity of pieces of second information” “the second information” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “quantity of pieces of third information… wherein the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located” in lines 17-20. It is unclear which one of “quantity of pieces of third information” “the third information” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 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 10 recites “one piece of first information…. destination terminal of the first information” in line 10-11. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, belongs to some information.
Claim 10 recites “the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range” in lines 16-19. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, is located for second information and in the location range.
Claim 10 recites “the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range” in lines 20-23. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, is located for the information and in the location range.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a quantity of first terminals… wherein the first terminal is….” in lines 10-11. It is unclear which one of “a quantity of first terminals” “the first terminal” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “quantity of pieces of second information… wherein the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located” in lines 16-19. It is unclear which one of “quantity of pieces of second information” “the second information” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “quantity of pieces of third information… wherein the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located” in lines 20-23. It is unclear which one of “quantity of pieces of third information” “the third information” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 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 17 recites “one piece of first information…. destination terminal of the first information” in lines 9-10 and 24-25. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, belongs to some information.
Claim 17 recites “the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range” in lines 15-18. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, is located for second information and in the location range.
Claim 17 recites “the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range” in lines 19-22. It is not clear how a destination terminal, which is a physical object, is located for the information and in the location range.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a quantity of first terminals… wherein the first terminal is….” in line 10. It is unclear which one of “a quantity of first terminals” “the first terminal” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “quantity of pieces of second information… wherein the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located” in lines 13-16. It is unclear which one of “quantity of pieces of second information” “the second information” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “quantity of pieces of third information… wherein the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located” in lines 17-20. It is unclear which one of “quantity of pieces of third information” “the third information” refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon the rejected claims 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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Biswas et al. (US 2023/0065889, “Biswas”).
Regarding claim 1, Biswas teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a network device, at least one piece of location information based on at least one piece of first information in a plurality of pieces of information ([0098] “the operations include determining a plurality of UE locations of UEs associated with a second plurality of users of the telecommunication service provider”),
wherein each piece of information corresponds to at least one terminal, a destination terminal of each piece of information is a terminal corresponding to the information, the at least one piece of first information corresponds to the at least one piece of location information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”), and location information corresponding to the at least one piece of first information indicates a location of a destination terminal of the first information ([0098] “the operations include determining a plurality of UE locations of UEs associated with a second plurality of users of the telecommunication service provider”); and
determining at least one first location range based on the location information ([0098] “determining one or more locations based upon the plurality of UE locations and user segments, of the plurality of user segments, associated with the second plurality of user”),
wherein a quantity of first terminals in the first location range is greater than or equal to a first threshold, wherein the first terminal is a destination terminal of the at least one piece of first information (see [0079]. Claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
a quantity of pieces of second information in the plurality of pieces of information is greater than or equal to a second threshold, wherein the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range in the at least one piece of first information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
a quantity of pieces of third information in the plurality of pieces of information is greater than or equal to a third threshold, wherein the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range in the at least one piece of first information, and a length of the third information satisfies a first preset condition (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
Regarding claim 2, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 ([0098]), wherein the first preset condition comprises that lengths of the plurality of pieces of information satisfy a length of a preconfigured value (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 3, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 ([0098]), wherein the second preset condition comprises at least one of the following: all device identifiers are the same, the device identifiers are equally spaced and continuous in an interval, and the device identifiers are repeatedly arranged in the interval (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 4, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 ([0098]), wherein the first information is a part of the plurality of pieces of information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 5, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the information comprises a short message and information sent by a terminal application ([0056] the one or more second UEs may be able to at least one of access a network (e.g., a packet-switched network, such as an IP network and/or the Internet), place a telephone call, send and/or receive messages (e.g., text messages), etc. using the telecommunication services), and the information is for verification, notification, marketing, or chatting (“for…” suggests or makes verification, notification, marketing, or chatting optional but does not require steps to be performed, therefore, is not given weight see MPEP 2111.04).
Regarding claim 6, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 ([0098]), wherein the first information is information whose length is greater than or equal to a fifth threshold in the plurality of pieces of information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 7, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 ([0098]), wherein the first information is information that is in the plurality of pieces of information and that is sent by a first application function network element to the destination terminal (it appears that the claimed feature, i.e., “wherein… information sent by… a first application function network element to the destination terminal” is not performed by the claimed method. The claim language “that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation”, see MPEP 2143.03).
Regarding claim 8, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 7 ([0098]), wherein the first information is a first type of information in the plurality of pieces of information, the first type is a type of information corresponding to the first application function network element, and one application function network element corresponds to a type of at least one piece of information (claimed limitations describe information that does not have a functional relationship with the steps of the method and is, therefore, considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 9, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 1 and further teaches, generating, by the network device, alarm information, wherein the alarm information indicates that abnormality occurs in the first location range ([0020] “Identification of anomalous behavior of users using telecommunication services provided by the telecommunication service provider may be beneficial for at least one of mitigating (e.g., preventing) revenue leakage, detecting fraudulent activity, etc.” [0021] “the user may be flagged as having anomalous behavior based upon the comparison of the one or more service usage metrics with the forecast”);
forbidding, by the network device, forwarding a part or all of the plurality of pieces of information to a terminal in the first location range ([0023] “based upon flagging the user as having anomalous behavior, it may be determined that the user is associated with fraudulent activity. Accordingly, in response to flagging the user as having anomalous behavior (and/or in response to determining that the user is associated with fraudulent activity), telecommunication service of one or more UEs associated with the user may be deactivated”).
Regarding claim 10, Biswas teaches a apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor ([0109], FIG. 4), cause the apparatus to:
obtain at least one piece of location information based on at least one piece of first information in a plurality of pieces of information ([0098] “the operations include determining a plurality of UE locations of UEs associated with a second plurality of users of the telecommunication service provider”),
wherein each piece of information corresponds to at least one terminal, a destination terminal of each piece of information is a terminal corresponding to the information, the at least one piece of first information corresponds to at least one piece of location information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”), and
location information corresponding to the at least one piece of first information indicates a location of a destination terminal of the first information ([0098] “the operations include determining a plurality of UE locations of UEs associated with a second plurality of users of the telecommunication service provider”);
determine at least one first location range based on the location information ([0098] “determining one or more locations based upon the plurality of UE locations and user segments, of the plurality of user segments, associated with the second plurality of user”),
wherein a quantity of first terminals in the first location range is greater than or equal to a first threshold, wherein the first terminal is a destination terminal of the at least one piece of first information (see [0079]. Claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
a quantity of pieces of second information in the plurality of pieces of information is greater than or equal to a second threshold, wherein the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range in the at least one piece of first information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
a quantity of pieces of third information in the plurality of pieces of information is greater than or equal to a third threshold, wherein the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range in the at least one piece of first information, and a length of the third information satisfies a first preset condition (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 11, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 10 ([0098]) wherein the first preset condition comprises that lengths of the plurality of pieces of information satisfy a length of a preconfigured value (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 12, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 10 ([0098]) wherein the second preset condition comprises at least one of the following: all device identifiers are the same, the device identifiers are equally spaced and continuous in an interval, and the device identifiers are repeatedly arranged in the interval (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 13, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 10 and further teaches wherein the information comprises a short message and information sent by a terminal application ([0056] the one or more second UEs may be able to at least one of access a network (e.g., a packet-switched network, such as an IP network and/or the Internet), place a telephone call, send and/or receive messages (e.g., text messages), etc. using the telecommunication services), and the information is for verification, notification, marketing, or chatting (“for…” suggests or makes verification, notification, marketing, or chatting optional but does not require steps to be performed, therefore, is not given weight see MPEP 2111.04).
Regarding claim 14, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 10 ([0098]), wherein the first information is information that is in the plurality of pieces of information and that is sent by a first application function network element to the destination terminal (it appears that the claimed feature, i.e., “wherein… information sent by… a first application function network element to the destination terminal” is not performed by the claimed apparatus. The claim language “that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation”, see MPEP 2143.03).
Regarding claim 15, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 14 ([0098]) wherein the first information is a first type of information in the plurality of pieces of information, the first type is a type of information corresponding to the first application function network element, and one application function network element corresponds to a type of at least one piece of information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the communication apparatus and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 16, Biswas teaches the method according to claim 10 and further teaches, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: generate alarm information, wherein the alarm information indicates that abnormality occurs in the first location range ([0020] “Identification of anomalous behavior of users using telecommunication services provided by the telecommunication service provider may be beneficial for at least one of mitigating (e.g., preventing) revenue leakage, detecting fraudulent activity, etc.” [0021] “the user may be flagged as having anomalous behavior based upon the comparison of the one or more service usage metrics with the forecast”);
forbid forwarding a part or all of the plurality of pieces of information to a terminal in the first location range ([0023] “based upon flagging the user as having anomalous behavior, it may be determined that the user is associated with fraudulent activity. Accordingly, in response to flagging the user as having anomalous behavior (and/or in response to determining that the user is associated with fraudulent activity), telecommunication service of one or more UEs associated with the user may be deactivated”).
Regarding claim 17, Biswas teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program ([0109]), and when run on a computer, cause the computer to:
obtain at least one piece of location information based on at least one piece of first information in a plurality of pieces of information,
wherein each piece of information corresponds to at least one terminal, a destination terminal of each piece of information is a terminal corresponding to the information, the at least one piece of first information corresponds to at least one piece of location information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”), and
location information corresponding to the at least one piece of first information indicates a location of a destination terminal of the first information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
determine at least one first location range based on the location information ([0098] “determining one or more locations based upon the plurality of UE locations and user segments, of the plurality of user segments, associated with the second plurality of user”),
wherein a quantity of first terminals in the first location range is greater than or equal to a first threshold, wherein the first terminal is a destination terminal of the at least one piece of first information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
a quantity of pieces of second information in the plurality of pieces of information is greater than or equal to a second threshold, wherein the second information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range in the at least one piece of first information (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”);
a quantity of pieces of third information in the plurality of pieces of information is greater than or equal to a third threshold, wherein the third information is information for which a destination terminal is located in the first location range in the at least one piece of first information, and a length of the third information satisfies a first preset condition (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”); and/or a
quantity of first devices in the first location range is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold, wherein the first device is a device corresponding to the destination terminal of the at least one piece of first information, and a device identifier of the first device satisfies a second preset condition (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 18, Biswas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17 ([0098]), wherein the first preset condition comprises that lengths of the plurality of pieces of information satisfy a length of a preconfigured value (claimed limitations appear to convey “a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” The limitations do not have a functional relationship with the steps performed by the computer method and are considered non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05, “the printed matter owed no patentable weight”).
Regarding claim 19, Biswas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17 ([0098]), wherein the first information is information that is in the plurality of pieces of information and that is sent by a first application function network element to the destination terminal (it appears that the claimed feature, i.e., “wherein… information sent by… a first application function network element to the destination terminal” is not performed by the claimed apparatus. The claim language “that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation”, see MPEP 2143.03).
Regarding claim 20, Biswas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17 and further teaches wherein the computer program, when run on a computer, further cause the computer to: generate alarm information, wherein the alarm information indicates that abnormality occurs in the first location range ([0020] “Identification of anomalous behavior of users using telecommunication services provided by the telecommunication service provider may be beneficial for at least one of mitigating (e.g., preventing) revenue leakage, detecting fraudulent activity, etc.” [0021] “the user may be flagged as having anomalous behavior based upon the comparison of the one or more service usage metrics with the forecast”); forbid forwarding a part or all of the plurality of pieces of information to a terminal in the first location range; or forbid sending information to a terminal in the first location range ([0023] “based upon flagging the user as having anomalous behavior, it may be determined that the user is associated with fraudulent activity. Accordingly, in response to flagging the user as having anomalous behavior (and/or in response to determining that the user is associated with fraudulent activity), telecommunication service of one or more UEs associated with the user may be deactivated”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pang et al. (WO 2017/215553) discloses method for monitoring a short message “to prevent the spread of malicious short messages.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights