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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible
harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where
the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not
patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either
anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg,
140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d
2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van
Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §
2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions
of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory
double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be
accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimen
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,778,793.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because Claims 1-5 and 10-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,778,793 contains every element of claims 1-13 of the instant application and thus anticipated the claims of the instant application.
Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Instant Application 19,087,644
Pat. No. U.S. 12,279,153 B2
13. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
monitoring a volume of short message service messages;
determining, during the monitoring, a potential overload condition of a downlink portion of a mobile network resulting in a first determination;
based on the first determination:
identifying duplicate short message service messages utilizing machine learning;
dropping the duplicate short message service messages;
identifying a receiving mobile device association with a first portion of the volume of short message service messages resulting in an identification; and
based on the identification, increasing bandwidth associated with the receiving mobile device.
17. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
monitoring a volume of non-access stratum short message service messages;
detecting, based on the monitoring, a potential overload condition, wherein the potential overload condition comprises a condition in which the volume of non-access stratum short message service messages has a defined potential to exceed a bandwidth of a physical downlink shared channel;
in response to detecting the potential overload condition: inhibiting non-access stratum short message service messages directed to the physical downlink shared channel, wherein the inhibiting of the non-access stratum short message service messages comprises delaying transmission of a first portion of the non-access stratus short message service messages over the physical downlink shared channel;
identifying duplicate non-access stratum short message service messages from the volume of non-access stratum short message service messages utilizing machine learning resulting in a first identification;
dropping the duplicate non-access stratum short message service messages based on the first identification;
identifying a receiving mobile device associated with a portion of the volume of non-access stratum short message service messages resulting in a second identification; and
increasing bandwidth associated with the receiving mobile device based on the second identification.
Claims 2-20
Claims 2-20
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to an apparatus and method respectively however these claims are directing to an abstract idea under the mental processes and mathematical concepts/certain method of organization human activity wherein the limitations “monitoring a volume of short message service messages”; “determining a potential overload condition of a downlink portion of a mobile network”; “identifying duplicate short message service messages”; “dropping the duplicate messages”, “identifying a receiving mobile device associated with a portion of the volume”; “increasing bandwidth associated with the receiving mobile device”.
These steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper under Prong I step 2A.
The other limitations in these claims are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A wherein the claims recite generic components and function, including “processing system including a processor and memory”; “non-transitory medium”; “short message services function” are recited at a high level of generality. It recited function amount to no more than generic computer components and instructions to implement the abstract idea on a compute which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under step 2B, The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recited processing system, memory, machine-readable medium, short message services function, congestion manager, network function, and physical downlink shared channel are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer and network components. Performing the abstract data-monitoring, evaluation, and rule-application steps on these generic components does not supply an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). and recite insignificant extra solution activity such as ““processing system including a processor and memory”; “non-transitory medium”; “short message services function” which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 2-12, and 14-19, these claims are not integrated into the practical application as they are either further detail the abstract idea limitations under Prong I step 2A or additional elements which insignificantly amount to the judicial exception under Prong II step 2A.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (U.S. 2011/0292808 A1), Gupta et al. (U.S. 9,635,527 B1), and further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. 9,143,909 B2).
Re claim 1, Stephens discloses a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising (e.g. Abstract): monitoring a volume of short message service messages (e.g. page 1 pars. [0004-0006]); determining, during the monitoring, a potential overload condition of a downlink portion of a mobile network resulting in a first determination (e.g. Figures 2, page 4 pars. [0031-0036]); identifying a receiving mobile device association with a first portion of the volume of short message service messages resulting in an identification (e.g. pages 1-2 pars. [0014-0019]).
Stephens fails to disclose based on the first determination: identifying duplicate short message service messages; dropping the duplicate short message service messages.
However, Gupta et al. discloses based on the first determination: identifying duplicate short message service messages and dropping the duplicate short message service messages (e.g. col. 6 lines 54-67; and col. 15 last paragraph through col. 16 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identifying duplicate short message service messages and dropping the duplicate short message service messages as seen in Gupta et al.’s invention into Stephens’s invention to provide a benefit of reducing overload by eliminating redundant traffic.
Stephens and Gupta et al. disclose all the limitations presented above; however, Stephens and Gupta et al. fail to disclose based on the identification, increasing bandwidth associated with the receiving mobile device.
Kumar et al. disclose based on the identification, increasing bandwidth (~ compression/load balancing) associated with the receiving mobile device (e.g. Figure 6C, col. 52 lines 30-53, and col. 53 lines 18-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increasing bandwidth (~compression/load balancing) associated with the receiving mobile device as seen in Kumar et al.’s invention into Gupta et al.’s and Stephens’s invention to reduces bandwidth consumption and improves capacity utilization, allowing more message to be carried with the available bandwidth and preventing delays or failures under high-volume conditions.
Re claim 2, Stephens further discloses the potential overload condition comprises a first condition in which the volume of short message service messages has threshold likelihood to exceed a bandwidth associated with the downlink portion of the mobile network (e.g. page 1 par. [0008] and page 2 par. [0019]).
Re claim 3, Stephens further discloses based on the first determination, delaying a second portion of the volume of short message service messages (e.g. rate reduction and queuing of remaining SMSs under overload; Figure 3; and page 1 par. [0008]).
Re claim 4, Stephens further discloses a short message services function and a congestion manager (e.g. Figure 1 (SMSC 109 & MSC 107; page 2 pars. [0014-0019]).
Re claim 5, Stephens further discloses the operations are performed by the congestion manager implemented within the short message services function (e.g. Figure 1 (SMSC 109 & MSC 107; page 2 pars. [0014-0019]).
Re claim 12, Stephens further discloses the operation comprise, based on the first determination, facilitating blocking a source of the short message service messages (e.g. selects a reduced subset which is facilitating blocking or throttling of the source; Figure 3, and pages 1-2 pars. [0008] 0019]).
Re claim 20, Re claim 1, Stephens discloses a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising (e.g. Abstract): monitoring a volume of short message service messages (e.g. page 1 pars. [0004-0006]); determining, during the monitoring, a potential overload condition of a downlink portion of a mobile network resulting in a first determination (e.g. Figures 2, page 4 pars. [0031-0036]); identifying a receiving mobile device association with a first portion of the volume of short message service messages resulting in an identification (e.g. pages 1-2 pars. [0014-0019]); and delaying, by the processing system, a second portion of the volume of short message service messages (e.g. queuing/rate reduction under overload, Fig. 3).
Stephens fails to disclose based on the first determination: identifying duplicate short message service messages; dropping the duplicate short message service messages.
However, Gupta et al. discloses based on the first determination: identifying duplicate short message service messages and dropping the duplicate short message service messages (e.g. col. 6 lines 54-67; and col. 15 last paragraph through col. 16 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identifying duplicate short message service messages and dropping the duplicate short message service messages as seen in Gupta et al.’s invention into Stephens’s invention to provide a benefit of reducing overload by eliminating redundant traffic.
Stephens and Gupta et al. disclose all the limitations presented above; however, Stephens and Gupta et al. fail to disclose based on the identification, increasing bandwidth associated with the receiving mobile device.
Kumar et al. disclose based on the identification, increasing bandwidth (~ compression/load balancing) associated with the receiving mobile device (e.g. Figure 6C, col. 52 lines 30-53, and col. 53 lines 18-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increasing bandwidth (~compression/load balancing) associated with the receiving mobile device as seen in Kumar et al.’s invention into Gupta et al.’s and Stephens’s invention to reduces bandwidth consumption and improves capacity utilization, allowing more message to be carried with the available bandwidth and preventing delays or failures under high-volume conditions.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (U.S. 2011/0292808 A1), Gupta et al. (U.S. 9,635,527 B1), Kumar et al. (U.S. 9,143,909 B2) and further in view of Vallur (U.S. 10,587,627 B1).
Re claims 6-11, Stephens, Gupta et al., Kumar et al. teaches determine the potential overload condition, drop the duplicate short message service messages, dropping of the duplicate short message service messages, directed to the network function and the network function communicates via a physical downlink shared channel, and a capability of the physical downlink shared channel comprises a maximum number of bits included in subframes transmitted via the physical downlink shared channel (~standard LTE/5G channel used for downlink data (including SMS over NAS or user plane delivery); however, Stephens, Gupta et al., Kumar et al. fail to teach the operations comprise employing model data representative of a machine learning model.
Vallur discloses the technique of employing model data representative of a machine learning model for detection of flooding of unwanted messages (e.g. Abstract, col. 3 lines 21-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a model data representative of a machine learning model for detection of flooding of unwanted messages as seen in Kumar et al.’s invention into Gupta et al.’s, Stephens’s, and Kumar et al.’s invention to use machine learning to learn to detect the potential overload conditions as well as to learn actions to take to address the potential overload condition..
Re claims 13-19, they are non-transitory machine-readable medium claims having similar limitations cited in claims 1-7 respectively. Thus, claims 13-19 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1-7 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10587627-B1
US-9635527-B1
US-9143909-B2
US-8554174-B2
US-8321520-B2
US-8626148-B2
US-20250165599-A1
US-20110292808-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights