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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on March 13, 2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2025 was filed with the mailing date of the instant application dated on 03/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US Publication 2023/0044211) hereafter KIM, in view of Lawson et al. (US Publication 2017/0103137) hereafter Lawson.
As per claim 1, KIM discloses a data interaction method for a programmable logic controller, comprising: generating a parsed tag by parsing a configuration file of a target application (paragraphs 65, 80-81: configuration and subscription information); acquiring subscription data of a user equipment (UE) from a user data management (UDM) network element based on an internet protocol (IP) address of the UE in the parsed tag (paragraphs 166-167: session management policy with subscriber information that identifies the IP address); determining whether pre-configured first quality requirement information of the UE is consistent with second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the UE (paragraphs 15-16, 76, 98:first and second network different service requirements and managing subscription information); and sending a modification request for the subscription data of the UE to the UDM network element in a case that the first quality requirement information of the UE is inconsistent with the second quality requirement information of the UE, such that the UDM network element modifies the second quality requirement information of the UE based on the first quality requirement information of the UE, and modifies a protocol data unit (PDU) session of the UE using a session management function (SMF) network element, whereby the UE performs data interaction for the target application based on the first quality requirement information (paragraphs 97, 115-117, 128: PDU session includes transmission and reception of request message and subscription data update-based session release and modified updated subscribed information). Although, KIM discloses subscription update information of a UE and its application in various fields of industries, but fails to expressly disclose generating a parsed tag by parsing a configuration file of a target application; wherein the target application is an application graphically developed using industrial configuration software.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lawson discloses the claimed limitation of generating a parsed tag by parsing a configuration file of a target application, wherein the target application is an application graphically developed using industrial configuration software (paragraphs 41-43, 75, 71, 100-101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lawsons’ teaching with KIM. One would be motivated to modify connections with quality appropriate requirements in industrial configuration application using metadata tags and criteria using cloud-based system, thus improving automation system.
As per claim 2, KIM discloses the method wherein the acquiring the subscription data of the UE comprises: sending a query request for identification information of the UE to the UDM network element based on the IP address of the UE, such that the UDM network element searches for identification information of the UE based on the IP address of the UE (paragraphs 65, 166-167); writing the identification information of the UE sent from the UDM into the parsed tag; sending a query request for the subscription data of the UE to the UDM network element based on the identification information of the UE in the parsed tag; and receiving the subscription data of the UE from the UDM network element (80, 166-167). Although, KIM discloses subscription update information of a UE and its application in various fields of industries, but fails to expressly disclose identification information of the UE sent from the UDM into the parsed tag; sending a query request for the subscription data of the UE to the UDM network element based on the identification information of the UE in the parsed tag.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lawson discloses the claimed limitation of identification information of the UE sent from the UDM into the parsed tag; sending a query request for the subscription data of the UE to the UDM network element based on the identification information of the UE in the parsed tag (paragraphs 71, 99-101).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
As per claim 3, KIM discloses the method wherein the determining whether the pre-configured first quality requirement information of the UE is consistent with the second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the UE comprises: determining whether identification information of a first network slice and identification information of a first quality requirement in the first quality requirement information of the UE are respectively consistent with identification information of a second network slice and identification information of a second quality requirement in the second quality requirement information of the UE (paragraphs 15-16, 76, 80-81, 98); determining the first quality requirement information of the UE is consistent with the second quality requirement information of the UE in a case that the identification information of the first network slice is consistent with the identification information of the second network slice, and the identification information of the first quality requirement is consistent with the identification information of the second quality requirement; or determining the first quality requirement information of the UE is inconsistent with the second quality requirement information of the UE in a case that the identification information of the first network slice is inconsistent with the identification information of the second network slice and/or the identification information of the first quality requirement is inconsistent with the identification information of the second quality requirement (paragraphs 97, 115-117, 128).
As per claim 4, KIM discloses the method wherein the UE comprises a source UE; and the acquiring the subscription data of the UE comprises: acquiring subscription data of the source UE from the UDM network element based on an IP address of the source UE in the parsed tag; wherein the determining whether the pre-configured first quality requirement information of the UE is consistent with the second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the UE comprises: determining whether first quality requirement information of the source UE is consistent with second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the source UE (paragraphs 65, 80-81, 166-167); and wherein the sending the modification request for the subscription data of the UE to the UDM network element in a case that the first quality requirement information of the UE is inconsistent with the second quality requirement information of the UE comprises: sending a modification request for the subscription data of the source UE to the UDM network element in a case that the first quality requirement information of the source UE is inconsistent with the second quality requirement information of the source UE (paragraphs 97, 104, 115-117).
As per claim 5, KIM discloses the method wherein the UE comprises a destination UE; and the acquiring the subscription data of the UE comprises: acquiring subscription data of the destination UE from the UDM network element based on an IP address of the destination UE in the parsed tag (paragraphs 80, 166-167); wherein the determining whether the pre-configured first quality requirement information of the UE is consistent with the second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the UE comprises: determining whether first quality requirement information of the destination UE is consistent with second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the destination UE; and wherein the sending the modification request for the subscription data of the UE to the UDM network element in a case that the first quality requirement information of the UE is inconsistent with the second quality requirement information of the UE comprises: sending a modification request for the subscription data of the destination UE to the UDM network element in a case that the first quality requirement information of the destination UE is inconsistent with the second quality requirement information of the destination UE (paragraphs 97, 104, 115-117).
As per claim 6, KIM discloses the method wherein prior to determining whether the pre- configured first quality requirement information of the UE is consistent with the second quality requirement information in the subscription data of the UE, the method further comprises: determining the first quality requirement information of the UE from the parsed tag; or retrieving the first quality requirement information of the UE from a predetermined database based on a field corresponding to an information channel in the parsed tag (paragraphs 80, 97, 115-117, 166-167).
Claim 7 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 8-12 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-6 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-6 apply equally as well to claims 8-12 respectively.
Claim 13 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
14. The data interaction apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a query request for identification information of the UE sent by, based on the IP address of the UE, the server; the processor is further configured to search for identification information of the UE based on the IP address of the UE; the data interaction apparatus further comprises a transmitter, configured to send the identification information of the UE to the server to write the identification information of the UE into the parsed tag (paragraphs 97, 104, 115-117; the receiver is further configured to receive a query request for the subscription data of the UE sent by, based on the identification information of the UE in the parsed tag, the server; and the transmitter is further configured to send the subscription data of the UE to the server (paragraphs 80, 97, 166-167).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Apostolis Salkintzis (US Publication 2023/0275896) discloses for creating service rules based on user information retrieved from an application server. One apparatus in a network that supports said techniques includes a memory storing instructions executable by a processor to cause the apparatus to receive, from a PCF, a request to provide service rules for a user and to identify one or more service contexts associated with the user, each service context holding information for accessing user information in an external application server. The instructions further cause the apparatus to retrieve user information from the external application server using each of the identified one or more service contexts, and to create one or more service rules by using the retrieved user information, where the network applies the one or more service rules to configure the data connection requested by the user.
Sempere et al. (US Publication 2023/0354165) discloses to receive a request from a network function for establishing a session for the network function and a User Equipment device (UE); obtain an identifier corresponding to a network slice for providing the session; update the subscriber data with the network slice identifier; and set up the session, for the network function from the UE to the network slice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights