DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-15 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of Japanese patent application 2024-021279 filed February 15 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2025, 10/06/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a controller configured to execute in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer or microprocessor. See WMS Gaming, Inc., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description of the specification must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm that performs the claimed function. Aristocrat at 1338. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. See Finisar Corp., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the written description of the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm. Aristocrat at 1337-1338. For example, merely referencing to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing any detailed explanation of the appropriate programming, see Id. at 1334, or simply reciting software without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, even when one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software to convert a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer to perform the claimed function. See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-1341. ***
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 5-9, 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samdanis Kostantinos et al. (“New Solution KL#2, BDT Policy considering Energy Metrics”, 3GPP Draft: S2-2400937 2024-01-12) hereinafter Samdanis in view of Papageorgiou et al. (US20230060071A1) hereinafter Papageorgiou.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15. Samdanis teaches an information processing method comprising:
a first network function (NF) within a H-PCF [Control plane network function]):
receiving, from a second NF, a provision request for a BDT policy to be utilized when background data transfer is performed, and an energy requirement that is a requirement regarding energy related to communication (Fig 6.X.3-1 see BDT Policy Negotiation/Selection Request (Incl. energy criteria) and paragraphs 6.X.2, 6.X.3.1 see energy criteria can also be used to check whether a BDT policy is affected when network conditions change and inform the corresponding AF); and
acquiring a BDT policy that satisfies the energy requirement (Fig. 6.x.3-1 see steps 3 and 4 and 6.X.2 and 6.X.3.1 see The UDR provides the request stored BDT policies and corresponding related information (as defined in clause 6.1.2.4 of TS 23.503 also including Energy Criteria) to the H-PCF. The H-PCF determines, based on the information provided by the AF, one or more BDT policies. The H-PCF may obtain more information to make this decision from the NWDAF by requesting additionally network analytics (e.g., Analytics ID = “Network Performance”) for the desired time window and/or the area of interest)
Samdanis highlights a network (fig. 6.x.3-1) however does not explicitly teach core network
Papageorgiou however in the same field of computer networking teaches core network (¶0122 see model provisioning in the context of performing or supporting network data analytics is applied in a 3GPP-standardized system environment, especially a core network thereof, such as 5G Core.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the network of Samdanis and the teachings of Papageorgiou for utilizing a core network for network functions to combine the teachings such that Samdanis utilizes the core network of Papageorgiou for network functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so will allow enabling/realizing inference-aware ML (machine learning) model provisioning in a mobile/wireless communication system (Papgeorgiou ¶0002)
Further regarding claim 8: Papageorgiou further teaches an information processing apparatus that functions as a first network function (NF) within a core network, the information processing apparatus comprising: a controller configured to execute (Papageorgiou ¶0155 see As indicated in FIG. 6 , according to at least one exemplifying embodiment, an apparatus 600 may comprise or realize at least one processor 610 and at least one memory 620 (and possibly also at least one interface 630), which may be operationally connected or coupled, for example by a bus 640):
Further regarding claim 15: Papageorgiou further teaches a non-transitory storage medium in which a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing method (Papageorgiou ¶0068 see computer program product may comprise or may be embodied as a (tangible/non-transitory) computer-readable (storage) medium)
Regarding claims 2, 9. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF acquires the BDT policy based at least on energy related information within a network provided by a network data analytics function (NWDAF) (Samdanis 6.x.3-1 see The H-PCF may obtain more information to make this decision from the NWDAF by requesting additionally network analytics (e.g., Analytics ID = “Network Performance”) for the desired time window and/or the area of interest.. BDT policies and corresponding related information (as defined in clause 6.1.2.4 of TS 23.503 also including Energy Criteria) to the H-PCF).
Regarding claims 5, 12. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF acquires a plurality of BDT policies stored in advance from a unified data repository (UDR) (Samdanis 6.X.3.1 see The UDR provides the request stored BDT policies and corresponding related information (as defined in clause 6.1.2.4 of TS 23.503 also including Energy Criteria) to the H-PCF).
Regarding claims 6, 13. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 5, wherein the first NF selects one or more BDT policies that match the energy requirement from the acquired plurality of BDT policies (Samdanis 6.X.2 see indicates to the PCF that it needs to select a BDT policy that optimizes energy costs or energy efficiency considering the current network conditions Fig. 6.X.3-1 see UDR and BDT policy selection request).
Regarding claims 7, 14. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF acquires a BDT policy that further satisfies a second energy requirement designated by a network operator (Samdanis 6.x.3.1 see H-PCF decides based on operator policies, whether a new list of candidate BDT policies can be determined for each affected AF).
Claims 3-4, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samdanis-Papageorgiou in view of China Telecom (“Solution for NWDAF assisted energy saving in FS_eNA_Ph2”, 3GPP Draft: S2-2004226 2020-06-12) hereinafter China Telecom
Regarding claims 3, 10. Samdanis-Papageorgiou teaches information processing method according to claim 2, wherein:
the first NF registers the energy requirement to the NWDAF (Samdanis: see The H-PCF may obtain more information to make this decision from the NWDAF by requesting additionally network analytics), and
Samdanis-Papageorgiou does not explicitly teach the first NF receives, from the NWDAF, the energy related information transmitted in accordance with whether the energy requirement is satisfied
China Telecom however in the same field of computer networking teaches the first NF receives, from the NWDAF, the energy related information transmitted in accordance with whether the energy requirement is satisfied (6.X.1 see NWDAF can provide Observed Service Experience (i.e. average observed Service MoS) related analytics, in the form of statistics or predictions, to a service consumer (such as the MDA Service in the OAM) for the purpose of energy saving assistance)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the network of Samdanis and the teachings of China Telecom for utilizing NWDAF to transmit energy information to combine the teachings such that Samdanis utilizes the NDWAF of China Telecom for network functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so will allow for assisted energy savings via analytics (China Telecom see 2 Discussion)
Regarding claims 4, 11. Samdanis-Papageorgiou-China Telecom teaches information processing method according to claim 3, wherein the energy requirement includes a requirement regarding one of energy consumption, energy efficiency and a renewable energy ratio (Samdanis 6.X.2 an energy identifier to support energy saving optimization; once this identifier is enabled it indicates to the PCF that it needs to select a BDT policy that optimizes energy costs or energy efficiency considering the current network conditions. a target energy cost, when the AF needs to collect or transmit background data from or towards a set of UEs based on the expected average data volume. a target energy efficiency considering the expected performance to the total energy cost related to the background data transfer)
Conclusion
References are cited not only for their quoted language but for all that they teach.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atta Khan whose telephone number is 571-270-7364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 09:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATTA KHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights