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 .
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
RE: 101, The core of the invention is in policy-based file slicing over multiple networks with dynamic policy updating based on changing network conditions. To advance the 101 discussion, Examiner suggests rolling up into Claim 1, Claim 5 (and intervening claim 2), as well as incorporating this: “updating the policy as the plurality of communication network parameters change” (look to claim 10, instant spec 0186, Fig. 1b-1c & 2). Last, per the claim interpretation section, adding additional technical details can help clarify and narrow the technical details to possibly overcome 101.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/21/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Suggestion(s)
The following suggestions to the claim limitations place the claims in better form by improving consistency within the claims and/or with respect to the specification:
Claim 8:
Amend to: “wherein the first selected communication network and the second selected communication network are either the same communication network or different communication networks”.
Claim 9:
Amend to: “wherein the at least one transmission data size is either configured manually or configured by an autonomous method”.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant may also wish to provide additional detail to further narrow technical features in an attempt to overcome the outstanding rejections.
Claim 1:
Broad language directed to “status information”, “policy for transmission”, “at least one part of data”, and “communication network” can be interpreted in many ways technically. Examiner suggests narrowing the technical features that govern the claimed selection and transmission. For example in the description more specific technical content is mentioned:
Status information: SINR, RSRP, latency, bandwidth, RAT, etc.
Policy for transmission: network ranking score/level, dispatch logic, predefined rules, dynamic updating, etc.; and
Data transmitted: slice size, transmission data size, etc.
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 2-5 & 8-9 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.
Claims 2-5:
The claims are unclear. Claim 2 defines that each part of the data is transmitted via each selected communication network respectively, whereas claims 4 & 5 define conditions based on comparing “a size of the data” with “a transmission data size”. It’s not clear whether “the data” in Claims 4 & 5 refers to the original file or full data unit, to a queued upload item, or to an already determined part/slice of the data. This ambiguity affects the meaning of the threshold logic in claims 4 & 5 and therefore renders the scope of these claims unclear.
Claims 8 & 9:
The claims recite the phrase “and/or” which is indefinite. Despite the everyday usage of this term [“and/or”], the inherent ambiguity creates as to the legal scope of the claims at hand which require picking either ‘and’ or ‘or’ and not both.” The Examiner will interpret this to mean “or”.
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 1-4, 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claim 17. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A method performed by a communication device, comprising: obtaining status information of a plurality of communication networks; generating a policy for transmission, based at least on the status information of the plurality of communication networks; and selecting at least one communication network from the plurality of communication networks for transmitting at least one part of data, based at least on the policy.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) of selection of a transmission network based on a policy for transmission.
Similarly if a claim limitation under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63; "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The device and networks in Claim 1 (in addition the processor, memory & plurality of modems in Claim 17) are just using generic computer components. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements (including Claim 3 – ranking levels – which are merely representing data; ) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are potentially allowable once the remaining rejections are overcome.
The closest prior art of record is Fu (US 2015201373) in view of Li (CN 113840331)
Claim 1.
Fu teaches the following limitations:
A method performed by a communication device, comprising: obtaining status information of a plurality of communication networks;
[0007] In a first possible implementation manner, the method further includes respectively obtaining network state information of the at least two access networks from the at least two access networks. The network state information includes information used to indicate a resource usage state of the access network.
Examiner Note: implicit that the resource usage state is indicated to the communication device
selecting at least one communication network from the plurality of communication networks for transmitting at least one part of data, based at least on the policy.
[0038] A selecting module is configured to select, according to the concurrency policy, the at least one access network from the at least two access networks to transmit the at least one data stream. At least one second transmission module is configured to transmit the at least one data stream through the at least one access network. [0076] The user equipment may be a user equipment capable of transmitting data through multiple access networks.
However, based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter, as a whole or taken in combination, and does not teach:
generating a policy for transmission, based at least on [the status information of the plurality of communication networks; and]
While Li teaches:
“According to the solution provided in this embodiment, after receiving the data transmission indication, the data transmission between the network access device and the server may be determined based on the preset routing priority of the network access device, to ensure that the network access device can provide a higher bandwidth through the aggregation interface; and If an abnormality is detected in the transmission process, data transmission may be performed by using a single independent interface that meets the load requirement of the network access device, to ensure that the network provided by the network access device has high availability, or may control the plurality of independent interfaces to perform data transmission based on the load balancing routing policy, to achieve an effect similar to bandwidth superposition, thereby ensuring that the network provided by the network access device has high availability.”
Li does not explicitly teach that the load-balancing transmission resides in the communication device, instead it resides in the network access device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Kucera (US 20210084523) provides a method for controlling data transmission by using network slices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULMAJEED AZIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5046. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:00 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, ALLANA LEWIN BIDDER can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights