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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 6, and 16, these claims recite a process and a machine, thus falling within the defined statutory categories of invention (step 1 of the 101 analysis is YES). The claims describe a concept of sending and receiving information. These operations are deemed to be mental processes and processes performed by a human, which, while being claimed as implemented by a generic processor executing instructions stored in memory, do not require a special purpose computer to perform the claimed steps and are capable to be performed in the human mind including a perception (hearing or vision), evaluation, judgement, and opinion (step 2A prong one is YES).
In particular, as to claims 1 and 16, steps of sending a first and a second service requests can be performed in the human mind visually in the form of making a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly by expressing the service request verbally. The steps of receiving a first and a second service responses can analogously be performed in the human mind visually in the form of observing a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly by hearing the responses.
As to claim 6, the step of receiving a second service request can be performed in the human mind visually in the form of observing a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly by hearing the response. The step of making a determination whether provide the requested service can be performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper by evaluating availability schedule of different entities on a spreadsheet. The step of sending a second service response can be performed in the human mind visually in the form of making a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly by expressing the service response verbally.
There is nothing in the claims that would require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks that would be unreasonable to perform in a human mind in a reasonable amount of time. In particular, each of “a consumer network function”, “a first producer network function”, and “a second producer network function” do not require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks and can be substituted by three persons, one making a request to two other individuals, one denying the request, and other accepting the request, where the “network function” is a social network function. Therefore, Examiner determined that each of the claimed steps can be reasonably handled by a human without undue effort. The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A prong two is NO). In particular, the only additional elements beyond the abstract idea are the generic recitation of a processor and memory storing instructions. However, these elements are described at a high level of generality and amount to no more than using a generic computer to perform the abstract steps. The claim does not recite any specific, non-conventional arrangement of hardware, any particular algorithm or data structure for performing the steps, nor any concrete improvement to the functioning of the equipment or the network (for example, an improvement tied to particular operations). Sending and receiving information has been notoriously old and well known as process. Because the claim merely instructs implementation of the abstract idea using conventional computer components, the additional recited elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore does not confer patent eligibility.
The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B is NO). Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed above, reciting a generic “processor” and “memory” and performing routine steps of detecting an instructing amount to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Mere invocation of generic computer components to automate an abstract process cannot supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 1, 6, and 16 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims further define existing steps (via “wherein” clauses) and recite additional steps that can still be reasonably performed by the human mind without requiring a computer to perform the tasks. None of the dependent claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are 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.
As to claims 11 and 12, the claim language “the apparatus is further caused” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the claims refer to the instructions of claim 6 which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform a function or some extraneous events like a loss of power that results in the apparatus being further caused to do (or not to do) a function.
As to claim 12, it is further unclear which of the steps of claim 6 this “wherein” cause is further limiting. It appears that the steps of claim 12 are additional features that are not part of the steps recited in claim 6. Therefore, the steps of claim 12 must be recited under “further comprising instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” the additional steps instead of “wherein” clause.
As to claim 20, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the cause for redirection”. It appears that claim 20 was intended to depend from claim 19, not claim 16, consistent with other claims 4-5 and 9-10.
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 1-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klein et al. (US 2023/0110429 A1).
As to claim 1, Klein teaches an apparatus [UE 102/103] comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions (par. [0035]) for a consumer network function which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
send, to a first producer network function, a first service request comprising information indicating a requested service [UE 103 attempting to connect with base stations in TAC 111 that a home network of UE 103] (par. [0017]);
receive, from the first producer network function, a first service response comprising information indicating that the first service request is to be redirected to a second producer network function [receiving a rejection of an attach request from the home BS for OpY UEs (RRC_RejofAttachforOpYUEs)] (par. [0016]-[0017]);
send, to the second producer network function, a second service request based on receiving the first service response [UE 103 attempts to connect with a visitor TAC 101 by connecting with BS 106] (par. [0017]), wherein the second service request comprises information indicating the requested service and information identifying the first producer network function that is unable to provide the requested service [the attach request has an indication of a response to a failure of UE 103 to connect with a base station of TAC 111. The attach request (or another message) may be a type of request that often occurs when there is unavailability of a home network. A particular cause code or the like may be within the attach request or similar message] (par. [0018]); and
receive, from the second producer network function, a second service response to the second service request [configuring the visitor TAC to allow roaming and notifying UE and home service provider of roaming permission] (par. [0019], [0026]).
As to claim 2, Klein teaches that the second service request further comprises information indicating that the first service request is a request that was transmitted or retransmitted to an alternative producer network function [the attach request to the visitor network includes a cause code indicating that the home network in unavailable] (par. [0018]).
As to claim 3, Klein teaches that the second service request further comprises information indicating that the first producer network function redirected the first service request for the requested service [the attach request to the visitor network includes a cause code indicating that the home network in unavailable] (par. [0016], [0018]).
As to claim 4, Klein teaches that the first service response comprises information indicating a cause for redirection [a rejection of an attach request from the home BS for OpY UEs (RRC_RejofAttachforOpYUEs) is itself an indication that home network is unable to serve the request and roaming is required] (par. [0016], [0032]), and wherein the second service request further comprises the information indicating the cause for redirection [cause code] (par. [0015], [0018]).
As to claim 5, Klein teaches that the information indicating the cause for redirection comprises at least one of: information indicating that the first producer network function is overloaded [a number of RRC attempts within a period is over the threshold, which triggers enablement of roaming] (Fig. 4, par. [0021]-[0027]); information indicating that the first producer network function is shutting down; or information indicating that another producer network function is owning a resource targeted by the first service request.
As to claim 6, Klein teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions (par. [0035]) for a second producer network function [functionality performed by TAC 101 of the visited network in coordination with MME 107 and analyzer 109] (Fig. 3) which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a consumer network function, a second service request [UE 103 attempts to connect with a visitor TAC 101 by connecting with BS 106] (par. [0017]) comprising information indicating a requested service and information identifying a first producer network function that is unable to provide the requested service [the attach request has an indication of a response to a failure of UE 103 to connect with a base station of TAC 111. The attach request (or another message) may be a type of request that often occurs when there is unavailability of a home network. A particular cause code or the like may be within the attach request or similar message] (par. [0018]);
determine whether to provide the requested service [a number of RRC attempts determines whether to enable roaming] (Fig. 4, par. [0026]); and
based on the determining, send, to the consumer network function, a second service response to the second service request [the visitor TAC is configured to allow roaming and UE and home service provider are notified of roaming permission] (par. [0019], [0026]).
As to claims 7-10, Klein teaches all the elements, as discussed per claims 2-5 above.
As to claim 11, Klein teaches that the apparatus is further caused to: refrain, based on the first service request, from redirecting the second service request or one or more further service requests for the requested service towards the first producer network function [visitor network 101 provides dynamic roaming] (par. [0032]).
As to claim 14, Klein teaches that the first producer network function and the second producer network function are a same type of network function [same type of base stations] (Fig. 3, par. [0014]-[0015]).
As to claim 15, Klein teaches that the first producer network function and the second producer network function belong to a same network functions set [same set of network functions providing service to mobile devices] or a same network function service instances set (Fig. 3, par. [0016]).
As to claim 16, Klein teaches a method for a consumer network function [functionality performed by UE 102/103], the method comprising steps, as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claims 17-20, Klein teaches all the elements, as discussed per corresponding claims 2-5 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. in view of Takakura et al. (US 2024/0121740 A1).
As to claim 12, Klein teaches that the apparatus is further caused to receive the one or more further service requests for the requested service [a threshold number of requests] (par. [0019]); and
determine that the one or more further service requests are to be redirected away from the second producer network function [disable roaming depending on whether the threshold RRC max is reached] (par. [0032]).
Klein fails to teach that in response to determining to redirect the one or more further service requests away from the second producer network function and refraining from redirecting the one or more further service requests towards the second producer network function, discover one or more candidate producer network functions towards which the one or more further service requests may be redirected, wherein the one or more candidate producer network functions excludes the first producer network function.
Takakura is directed to identifying an alternative second server to redirect service request to when the identified server is unavailable (abstract). In particular, Takakura teaches discover one or more candidate producer network functions [alternative server] towards which the one or more further service requests may be redirected, wherein the one or more candidate producer network functions excludes the first producer network function [alternative server if the second server cannot be identified or is not available] (par. [0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Klein by discovering one or more candidate producer network functions towards which the one or more further service requests may be redirected, wherein the one or more candidate producer network functions excludes the first producer network function, in order to redirect attach and service requests of UE in Klein to alternative network elements when roaming in TAC 101 is disabled, but the home network in still not available of overloaded, so the UE 103 of Klein would be redirected to another roaming providing that can server UE request for service.
As to claim 13, Klein in view of Takakura teaches that discover the one or more candidate producer network functions comprises: sending, to a network repository function, a discovery request comprising information identifying the requested service and indicating that the first producer network function is to be excluded from a list of candidate producer network functions (par. [0053] in Takakura); and receiving, from the network repository function, a list of candidate producer network functions for providing the requested service, wherein the list of candidate producer network functions excludes the first producer network function [list of alternative servers besides the one that is unavailable] (par. [0056]-[0062] in Takakura).
Related Prior Art
Bhatt et al. (US Patent 12,170,666 B1) is directed to analyzing information included with the authentication request and selecting an authentication provider from a plurality of authentication providers based on the information in the request (abstract). In particular, Bhatt teaches the authentication engine using information from the request to implement a discovery strategy to select a different provider (Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 35-65). Therefore, Bhatt is applicable to the pending claims and can be relied on in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights