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 April 3, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 was filed with the mailing date of the instant application. 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 § 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, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. In these claims applicants mention “at least one of a first condition regarding at least one of a consumption of energy consumed in communication using a network and energy efficiency based on the consumption and a second condition regarding renewable energy in the communication”, which is unclear and indefinite with the invention. Applicants do not point out clearly which options include in the present invention. Therefore, referring limitation is ambiguous. Any ordinary skill in the art will be failed to understand that meets and bounds of the claim limitations with this indefinite limitation of “at least one of a first condition regarding at least one of a consumption of energy consumed in communication using a network and energy efficiency based on the consumption and a second condition regarding renewable energy in the communication”. Therefore, these limitations with these ambiguity are indefinite with the present application. The examiner will interpret these terms and limitations with the regarding claims as best understood for applying the appropriate art for rejection purposes. Appropriate correction needs to overcome the rejection.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These are “system” claims without showing any tangible or hardware elements in the body of the claims. Therefore, it is evidentiary that these “apparatus” claims do not comprises any tangible components or hardware elements. Hence, the “system” is reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill as just software, it is a system of software, per se. The function of the system is just software not any hardware. Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. Similarly, computer programs module claimed as computer instructions per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs modules do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions. So, it does not appear that a claim reciting software module with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in § 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAJIC et al. (US Publication 2024/0381179) hereafter Gajic, in view of Cella et al. (US Publication 2023/0221692) hereafter Cella.
As per claim 1, Gajic discloses a communication control method comprising: acquiring, by a first device, information indicating an energy condition including at least one of a first condition regarding at least one of a consumption of energy consumed in communication using a network and energy efficiency based on the consumption and a second condition regarding renewable energy in the communication (paragraphs 98-100, 103: energy efficiency and energy consumption measurements and metrics); and determining, by the first device, at least one of a network node in the network to be applied to the communication and a policy to be applied to the communication, based on a desired communication quality and the energy condition (paragraphs 67-68, 99, 107: different QoS optimization energy policies and communication parameter configuration). Although, Gajic discloses optimization operation based on the quality and energy type data, he fails to expressly disclose a policy to be applied to the communication, based on a desired communication quality and the energy condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cella discloses the claimed limitation of network node in the network to be applied to the communication and a policy to be applied to the communication, based on a desired communication quality and the energy condition (paragraphs 105, 117-118).
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 Cellas’ teaching of optimized energy usage with Gajic. One would be motivated to apply the corrective policies to communication with appropriate QoS and the energy condition to further enhance the system communication.
As per claim 2, Gajic discloses the communication control method further comprising: acquiring, by the first device, the information indicating the energy condition from a database disposed in the network (paragraphs 116, 133-134).
As per claim 3, Gajic discloses the communication control method further comprising: acquiring, by the first device, the information indicating the energy condition transmitted from an external device of the network (paragraphs 133-134, 169-171).
As per claim 4, Gajic discloses the communication control method further comprising: acquiring, by the first device, information indicating candidates of a plurality of network nodes applicable to the communication; acquiring, by the first device, for each of the candidates of the plurality of network nodes, information indicating at least one of a consumption of energy in a case where the desired communication quality is used for the communication, energy efficiency based on the consumption, and an amount or ratio of renewable energy in the communication (paragraphs 55, 81, 98, 104-105); and selecting, by the first device, a network node to be applied to the communication from among the candidates of the plurality of network nodes, based on the information indicating at least one of the consumption of the energy, the energy efficiency, and the amount or ratio of the renewable energy for each of the candidates of the plurality of network nodes (paragraphs 98-100, 104-105).
As per claim 5, Gajic discloses the communication control method further comprising: transmitting, by the first device, a request for changing the policy to be applied to the communication, to a network node that performs policy control (Figure 2, paragraphs 77-80).
As per claim 6, Gajic discloses the communication control method further comprising: transmitting, by the first device, information indicating the desired communication quality, to a second device; receiving, by the first device, from the second device, information indicating at least one of a consumption of energy used in a case where the desired communication quality is used for the communication, the energy efficiency, and an amount or ratio of the renewable energy (paragraphs 104-107, 128, 138-141); and determining, by the first device, application of the communication quality to the communication in a case where information indicating the consumption of the energy, the energy efficiency, and the amount or ratio of the renewable energy satisfies the energy condition (paragraphs 106-107, 132-134).
As per claim 7, Gajic discloses the communication control method further comprising: determining, by the first device, application of a relaxed communication quality to the communication in a case where information indicating the desired communication being the relaxed communication, is received (paragraphs 107, 131-134).
Claim 8 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-7 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-7 apply equally as well to claims 9-14, respectively.
Claim 15 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 16-20 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 16-20, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gonzalez et al. (US Publication 2023/0422004) discloses updating a background data transfer (BDT) policy negotiated between an application function (AF) and a core network (CN) of a telecommunication network, the method being performed by a Policy Control Function (PCF) of the CN and comprising: in response to receiving a notification of degraded network performance of a network area, determining that the negotiated BDT policy is affected by the degraded network performance and an Application Service Provider (ASP) associated with the negotiated BDT policy requested a warning notification; determining, at least based on operator policies, updated BDT policy information for the negotiated BDT policy, wherein the updated BDT policy information comprises at least one of the following: at least one candidate BDT policy, and updated conditions for the negotiated BDT policy, and sending the updated BDT policy information to the AF.
Sahlstrom et al. (US Publication 2015/0081374) discloses method, comprising: performing, by a plurality of computing devices: implementing one or more programmatic interfaces enabling a client of a network-accessible service to select, from among a plurality of power source categories including a renewable energy category and a non-renewable energy category, a power source category to be used for resources associated with one or more service units; estimating, based at least in part on inputs received via the one or more programmatic interfaces from one or more clients, a first amount of power to be obtained from electrical power sources of the renewable energy category during a time period and a second amount of power to be obtained from electrical power sources of the non-renewable energy category during the time period; and verifying that power is obtained for resources associated with the network-accessible service during the time period in accordance with the estimated first and second amounts of power
Kumar et al. (US Publication 2022/0109742) discloses methods, apparatus, systems, and articles of manufacture are disclosed to partition neural network models for executing at distributed Edge nodes. An example apparatus includes processor circuitry to perform at least one of first, second, or third operations to instantiate power consumption estimation circuitry to estimate a computation energy consumption for executing the neural network model on a first edge node, network bandwidth determination circuitry to determine a first transmission time for sending an intermediate result from the first edge node to a second or third edge node, power consumption estimation circuitry to estimate a transmission energy consumption for sending the intermediate result to the second or the third edge node, and neural network partitioning circuitry to partition the neural network model into a first portion to be executed at the first edge node and a second portion to be executed at the second or third edge node.
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