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 1-20 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of Japanese Patent Application 2024-021222 filed February 15, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2025, 9/12/2025 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 11.
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 11-19 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NTT DOCOMO (“KI#3: New Sol: 5G Core Energy Saving”, 3GPP Draft: S2-2400129 2024-01-29) hereinafter NTT in view of Papageorgiou et al. (US20230060071A1) hereinafter Papageorgiou.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 20. NTT teaches an information processing method comprising (Page 1 see contribution proposes a solution for KI#3 where user plane traffic paths in the 5GC are adjusted based on the operator’s energy policy):
a first network function (NF) within a Energy Efficiency Control Function first determines the UP path of PDU drives UP paths based on the operator’s policy):
in a case where the first NF receives a request regarding route setting in accordance with energy related to communication within the 4. The EECF receives a trigger [request] (e.g., expiration of a periodic timer or a notify of the subscribed information in steps 1-3) to adjust UP paths.. EECF subscribes to the NF load information stored in NRF [network repository function]), acquiring energy related information regarding the energy related to the communication (Page 3 EECF may optionally subscribe to some NWDAF analytics (e.g., NF load analytics and energy analytic see Fig 6.x.3-1 NWDAF 3b); and
determining to change a communication route set for predetermined user equipment based at least on the energy related information (Page 3 see 6. Based on the information that the EECF collected in steps 1-5, it adjusts the UP paths in 5GC in such a way that the steering N9 traffic through the paths optimizes the operator objective on energy)
NTT 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 NTT and the teachings of Papageorgiou for utilizing a core network for network functions to combine the teachings such that NTT 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 11: Papageorgiou further teaches an information processing apparatus that operates 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 20: Papageorgiou further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storing medium recording a computer program for causing a computer to perform an information processing method according to claim 1 (Papageorgiou ¶0068 see computer program product may comprise or may be embodied as a (tangible/non-transitory) computer-readable (storage) medium)
Regarding claims 2, 12. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF changes the communication route set for the user equipment in a case where the first NF determines to change the communication route (NTT Page 3 see 6. it adjusts the UP paths in 5GC in such a way that the steering N9 traffic through the paths optimizes the operator objective).
Regarding claims 3, 13. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF acquires the energy related information from a network data analytics function (NWDAF) (NTT Fig 6.x.3-1 see element 3b [subscription to NWDAF]..see Page 3 4. EECF may optionally subscribe to some NWDAF analytics (e.g., NF load analytics and energy analytics)).
Regarding claims 4, 14. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF acquires the energy related information from the second NF (NTT Page 3 see 3b. EECF may optionally subscribe to some NWDAF analytics (e.g., NF load analytics and energy analytics)).
Regarding claims 5, 15. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first NF determines to change the communication route in a case where the energy related information satisfies a predetermined requirement (NTT Page 3 see 6. Based on the information that the EECF collected in steps 1-5, it adjusts the UP paths in 5GC in such a way that the steering N9 traffic through the paths optimizes the operator objective on energy).
Regarding claims 6, 16. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 5, wherein the energy related information includes information regarding at least one of energy consumption, energy efficiency or a renewable energy ratio (NTT Page 2 see OAM can provide energy related information (e.g., energy consumption, carbon emission, etc.) of NFs Page 3 see Fig 6.x.3-1 elemetn 2 “subscribe to energy information” and Page 3 see 2. EECF subscribes to the energy-related information of the UPFs collected by OAM).
Regarding claims 7, 17. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the first NF determines not to change the communication route, the first NF notifies the second NF of a reason of the determination (NTT Page 3 see 8. determines a set of PDU sessions needs to be steered through this path..9. PCF takes the EMF’s request into account besides other parameters influence N9 traffic steering (e.g., delay) and drives the corresponding PCC rules. 10. PCF sends the PCC rules via Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify to the SMF).
Regarding claims 8, 18. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the request includes a predetermined energy requirement, and the first NF determines to change the communication route in a case where the energy related information satisfies the predetermined energy requirement (NTT Page 3 see 4. EECF receives a trigger [request] (e.g., expiration of a periodic timer or a notify of the subscribed information in steps 1-3) to adjust UP paths..based on 3b.. NWDAF analytics (e.g., NF load analytics and energy analytics) Page 3 see 8. EECF determines a set of PDU sessions needs to be steered through this path. Then via Npcf_TrafficPathInfluence asks from PCF to derive PCC rules for this set of PDU sessions (specified by the traffic description input parameter of this service operation) to use the specified UP path)
Regarding claims 9, 19. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 2,
wherein in a case where the first NF determines to change the communication route, the first NF transmits, to the second NF, a confirmation as to whether or not it is possible to change the communication route (NTT Page 4 see 10. PCF sends the PCC rules via Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify to the SMF [notification sent to SMF]), and
in a case where the first NF receives a response indicating permission of change of the communication route, the first NF performs change of the communication route (NTT Pages 3 and 4 see 8. Determines [determination is interpreted as an indication] a set of PDU sessions needs to be steered through this path. Then via Npcf_TrafficPathInfluence asks from PCF to derive PCC rules for this set of PDU sessions (specified by the traffic description input parameter of this service operation) to use the specified UP path (specified by the N9 Traffic Steering Policy reference input parameter of this service operation)).
Regarding claim 10. The already combined references teach the information processing method according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the first NF performs change of the communication route, the first NF transmits, to the second NF, a result of the change of the communication route (NTT Page 4. 10 see PCF sends the PCC rules via Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify to the SMF).
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