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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “obtaining, … service packet,” and “processing, …the service packet…”. Claim 2 recites “before the obtaining the service packet…” establishing a link between the first service and the second service. Claim 3 recites “wherein the processing the service packet… establishing the communication link…;” these limitations are contradictory because claim 2 is referring to establishing the communication link BEFORE the obtaining of the service packet and claim 3 is referring to processing the obtained service packet to establish the communication link between the first and second service. Other independent claims and corresponding dependent claims exhibit the same deficiency. Other dependent claims do not remedy the deficiency. For these reasons the claims are rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 4 recites a limitation to adjust the service packet according to the second rule when the application information meets the first rule and the second rule. None of these rules is specified. No detail on what the adjustment according to the second rule means is provided. These are cryptic and without meaning as they do not define a scope and breadth for the limitation recited and they are the definition of being indefinite. Corresponding claim 14 is analyzed the same way. Similarly, claim 6 and its corresponding claim 16, recite unspecified second application information and a third rule and these are undefined and a clear scope and breadth of the claim can not be determined. Dependent claims do not remedy the deficiency.
Claim 8 recites limitation related to the service packet being sent by the first service to the second service and the processing the service packet and so on. These limitations do not follow from the fact pattern established in claim 1. In fact, it is not clear from claim 1 that a service packet was transmitted from first service to the second service. Claims 2 and its dependent claims appear to recite a fact pattern where there is no communication link established between the first and services based on unspecified rules. Claim 8 does not follow from claim 1 and the recited limitations are ambiguous. Similar analysis is applied to claim 9 limitations and the corresponding claims 18 and 19. Without clarity in the claim limitations and the sequence of process steps recited, it is not possible to apply prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-7, 10, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lv et al. (US 2017/0094557, hereinafter Lv).
Regarding claim 1, Lv teaches a data transmission method, comprising:
invoking a protocol stack by a first service during communication between the first service and a second service, [see Figure 7, 8, and 9];
obtaining, by the protocol stack, first application information of a service packet transmitted between a first service and a second service, wherein the first application information comprises application layer information, [Abstract, Figure 7 shows the service network layer interacting with the protocol stack on the control plane; Figures 5 and 8 show receiving a service packet, parsing, and based on third party application information sends the packet to an application server; see associated description]; and
processing, by the protocol stack, the service packet based on the first application information and a first control policy library, wherein the first control policy library indicates a manner for processing the service packet, [Abstract and Figure 9 and associated description shows processing the packet according to a policy; Figures 12 and 13].
Claims 11 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, Lv teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein before the obtaining the service packet transmitted between the first service and the second service, the method further comprises:
obtaining a link establishment request initiated by the first service, wherein the link establishment request is used to request to establish a communication link between the first service and the second service; and returning link establishment success indication information to the first service, wherein before the link establishment success indication information is returned to the first service, no communication link is established between the first service and the second service, [Figure 15 shows link establishment between eNB and Application server].
Regarding claim 3, Lv teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the processing the service packet based on the first application information and the first control policy library comprises: establishing the communication link between the first service and the second service when the first application information meets a first rule in the first control policy library, wherein the first rule indicates that the first service is allowed to access the second service, and the communication link is used to transmit the service packet, [see 112b rejection; Par.[0038] describes policy control where a service packet is sent to the application server only if it can be sent: “identifying, with identity information, whether a service packet can be sent to the application server 212, sending, to the application server 212, a service packet that can be sent to the application server”; Figure 15, Par.[0045]].
Regarding claim 4, Lv teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the establishing the communication link between the first service and the second service when the first application information meets the first rule in the first control policy library comprises: when the first application information meets the first rule and a second rule in the first control policy library, adjusting the service packet according to the second rule, wherein the second rule indicates to adjust the service packet; and establishing the communication link between the first service and the second service, wherein the communication link is used to transmit the adjusted service packet, [see 112b rejection; Par.[0041] describes rules used to send the received service packet to the application server; Par.[0061] describes adjusting service packet].
Regarding claim 5, Lv teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the processing the service packet based on the first application information and a first control policy library comprises: returning first error information to the first service when the first application information does not meet the first rule, wherein the first error information indicates that the service packet cannot be sent to the second service, [see 112b rejection; Par.[0038] describes when the service packet can be sent to the second service; see Par.[0041], [0045]].
Regarding claim 6, Lv teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the returning link establishment success indication information to the first service comprises: extracting second application information of the link establishment request, wherein the second application information comprises link information of the link establishment request; and returning the link establishment success indication information to the first service when a second control policy library comprises a third rule, wherein the third rule is related to the second application information, [see 112b rejection; see Figure 15; Par.[0041] describes rules used to send the received service packet to the application server].
Regarding claim 7, Lv teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the returning the link establishment success indication information to the first service when the second control policy library comprises the third rule comprises: returning the link establishment success indication information to the first service when the second application information meets the third rule, [see 112b rejection; Figure 15 and policy and rule restriction for connecting the services in Par.[0038], [0041] among others].
Regarding claim 10, Lv teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first control policy library comprises a traffic management rule, [Par.[0041] describes predefined rules for forwarding service packets].
Claims 12-17 correspond to claims 2-7, respectively and are rejected as above.
Examiner’s Note: claim clarity is a problem as highlighted in the 112b rejections. Dependent claims without art rejection are not to be deemed as allowable but more as not being able to apply prior arts because of the claim limitation deficiencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights