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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025, has been entered.
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, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 1-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example, “identifying that the UE is in a restricted service area; identifying one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sessions to be released; waiting to release the one or more PDU sessions until the UE is not in the restricted service area; and releasing the one or more PDU sessions by triggering a PDU session release procedure, based on after identifying that the UE is not in the restricted service area”.
The apparatus and the method claim 1 and 16 recites limitation, “identifying restricted service area…identifying protocol data unit session … waiting to release… and releasing…”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites, “identifying restricted service area…identifying protocol data unit session … waiting to release… and releasing…”. The identifying recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of “identifying restricted service area…identifying protocol data unit session … waiting to release… and releasing…” where claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, etc., (See specifically MPEP 2106.05 (f) Sec 1. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/” Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as recited in Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-13.
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 1-4, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US Patent No. 11284240 B2 and Kumar hereinafter).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Kumar teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: identifying that the UE is in a restricted service area (i.e., he mobility schemas define a plurality of features, such as, but not limited to, at least one of features that the devices can support during the mobility procedure, type of Radio Access Technologies (RATs) the devices can latch to; preferred roaming list, service area restrictions, allowed frequencies, preferred neighbor list, and so on. The mobility schemas can restrict frequent cell switching, thereby minimizing the number of handovers. Minimization of the number of handover procedures can allow saving radio resources that would had been otherwise wasted due to unnecessary handovers, and curtail signaling messages. Restriction of cell switching can prevent unnecessary contention among devices for radio resources. As the resources are segregated across the network slices, the contention for the resources is amongst devices within a particular network slice. This can keep congestion in the 5G network under control. The CMM 200 can deliver the mobility schemas to the Access and Mobility Function (AMF) 201. The AMF 201 can provide the mobility schemas to the 5G RAN 202 using a private message mechanism ) (Col 11, lines 13-53); identifying one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sessions to be released (i.e., The information includes registration type (initial registration, mobility registration, periodic registration, emergency registration), user identity (5G Globally Unique Temporary Identity (GUTI), Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI), Permanent Equipment Identifier (PEI), or 5G GUTI derived from 4G GUTI for internetworking), a list of visited Tracking Area Identities (TAIs), security capability of the devices (integrity and encryption methods supported by the devices), requested NSSAI (preferred NSSAI on which the devices may intend to camp on), default NSSAI indication (indicates whether the AMF 201 can select the default NSSAI if a requested NSSAI is not available), Protocol Data. Unit (PDU) session status (previously connected PDU sessions under previous Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN)), a list of PDU sessions to be activated (will be included if there is pending uplink traffic belonging to previous PDU sessions), virtual TAI, and so on. On receiving the registration requests, the AMF 201 can request a Unified Data Management (UDM) 205 for information about the network slices through which the 5G services, intended by the devices, can be provided. The information includes mobility subscription data (retrieved by the AMF 201), Session Management Function (SMF) selection data, device context in SMF data, and so on. The UDM 205 can send a response including the information about the network slices through which the intended 5G services can be availed by the devices.) (Col 15, lines 12-66); waiting to release the one or more PDU sessions until the UE is not in the restricted service area (i.e. trigger detach with re-attach if no data activity); (Col 22, lines 1-2) and releasing the one or more PDU sessions (Col 26, lines 2-21) by triggering a PDU session release procedure, based on after identifying that the UE is not in the restricted service area (Col 11, lines 13-53).
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Kumar teaches further comprising: releasing a procedure transaction identity (PTI) allocated by the UE (Col 15, lines 12-67); performing a local release of a PDU session among the one or more PDU sessions in the restricted service area; and providing, to a network (Col 16, lines 1-6) and (Col 14, lines 3-8) and (Col 15, lines 12-67), information related to the PDU session, based on a subsequent trigger of a registration procedure, wherein the information related to the PDU session is provided using a PDU session status information element (IE) and comprises status information of the PDU session (Col 13, lines 59-67 to Col 14, lines 1-2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Kumar teaches wherein the status information indicates whether the PDU session corresponding to the status information is inactive (Col 21, lines 46-50).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Kumar teaches wherein whether the UE is in the restricted service area is identified based on a tracking area identity (TAI) which is either a non- allowed area or not an allowed area (Col 18, lines 5-18) and (Col 19, lines 3-12).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Kumar teaches further comprising: receiving, from an application layer in the UE, a trigger to release the one or more PDU sessions (Col 9, lines 55-67 to Col 10, lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 13, Kumar teaches wherein the restricted service area is an area where the UE is not allowed to trigger any session management signaling (Col 18, lines 5-18) to (Col 10, lines 1-3).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar et al. (US Patent No. 11284240 B2 and Kumar), “Method and Apparatus for Managing The Mobility Of Device In A Network” (March 22, 2022).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647