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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-10 of patent US 11758456 (application 16764825) in view of Zee, US 20190208555.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in light of the following evidences.
Current application’s claims:
1. A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection method, comprising:
determining, by a first network element, whether an initial trigger message of a user equipment (UE) traffic flow transmitted by a second network element is received,
wherein the initial trigger message of the UE traffic flow is transmitted through an SCTP association on which a UE currently sticks
or through a new SCTP association after the second network element redirects the UE to the new SCTP association;
in response to a determination result, performing, by the first network element, an SCTP association redirection on the UE.
Patent’s claims:
1. A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection method, comprising:
determining, by a first network element, whether an initial trigger message of a traffic flow of a user equipment (UE) transmitted by a second network element is received;
in response to determining that the initial trigger message of the traffic flow of the UE transmitted by the second network element is received and the initial trigger message of the traffic flow of the UE is transmitted through a new SCTP association after the second network element redirects the UE to the new SCTP association, updating, by the first network element, SCTP association information of the UE to the new SCTP association;
and in response to determining that the initial trigger message of the traffic flow of the UE transmitted by the second network element is not received and the UE is in a flow steady state, performing, by the first network element, an SCTP association redirection on the UE according to a factor related to the first network element, wherein the flow steady state means that the UE has established contexts in the first network element and the second network element and has no traffic flow to process.
18. A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection apparatus, which is applied to a first network element and comprises: a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores processor-executable programs, and the processor executes the programs to perform the method of claim 1.
9. A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection apparatus, which is applied to a first network element and comprises: a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores processor-executable programs, and the processor executes the programs to perform the SCTP association redirection method of claim 1.
19. A non-transitory storage medium, which comprises stored programs, wherein the programs, when executed, perform the method of claim 1.
10. A non-transitory storage medium, which comprises stored programs, wherein the programs, when executed, perform the method of claim 1.
20. A processor, which is configured to execute programs, wherein the programs, when executed, perform the method of claim 1.
9. A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection apparatus, which is applied to a first network element and comprises: a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores processor-executable programs, and the processor executes the programs to perform the SCTP association redirection method of claim 1.
For double patenting to exist as between the rejected claims and patent claims, it must be determined that the rejected claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. In order to make this determination, it first must be determined whether there are any differences between the rejected claims and the patent claims and, if so, whether those differences render the claims patentably distinct.
The differences between the rejected claims and the patent claims (as shown in the table above) don’t render the claims patentably distinct because the claims of the instant application merely broaden the scope of the claims of the patent. It had been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson,136 USQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Also, for claim 1, the current application claim 1 further discusses “wherein the initial trigger message of the UE traffic flow is transmitted through an SCTP association on which a UE currently sticks” while the patent claim 1 is silent.
However, Zee from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the initial trigger message of the UE traffic flow is transmitted through an SCTP association on which a UE currently sticks (Zee, fig 23-24, paragraph 197-198, S1 UE-ASSOCIATED MOVE REQUEST is transmitted through old SCTP association; old SCTP association is existing SCTP association on which UE currently sticks)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Zee into the patent claim(s), since the patent claim(s) suggests a technique for communicating initial trigger message of UE traffic flow, and Zee suggests the beneficial way of communicating such message through an SCTP association on which UE currently sticks to allow signaling connection to be freely moved between SCTP association without causing any disturbance on the interface in terms of in-order delivery, lost message, or reset of any SCTP association (Zee, paragraph 38-42) in the analogous art of communication.
In summary, as discussed in details above, clearly the differences between the rejected claims and the patent claims don’t render the claims patentably distinct.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 mentions “A processor” however, from the way the claim is written (lack of any hardware part, hardware component for such processor), such processor can be considered as purely software (for example, virtual processor) which is non-statutory subject matter, and not a machine (statutory subject matter).
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2106 describes a “machine” as “Machine – a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863). This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683 (1854).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zee, US 20190208555.
For claim 1. Zee teaches: A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection method, comprising: (Zee, fig 23-24, paragraph 195-206)
determining, by a first network element, whether an initial trigger message of a user equipment (UE) traffic flow transmitted by a second network element is received, (Zee, fig 23-24, paragraph 197-198, destination node receives S1 UE-ASSOCIATED MOVE REQUEST from originating node; fig 39, paragraph 260, network node comprises receiving module and determining module; paragraph 263, receiving module communicates received messages to determining module; paragraph 261, determining module perform the processing functions of the network node)
wherein the initial trigger message of the UE traffic flow is transmitted through an SCTP association on which a UE currently sticks or through a new SCTP association after the second network element redirects the UE to the new SCTP association; (Zee, fig 23-24, paragraph 197-198, S1 UE-ASSOCIATED MOVE REQUEST is transmitted through old SCTP association; old SCTP association is existing SCTP association on which UE currently sticks)
in response to a determination result, performing, by the first network element, an SCTP association redirection on the UE. (Zee, fig 23-24, paragraph 199-200, after receiving S1 UE-ASSOCIATED MOVE REQUEST, destination node stops all outgoing signaling from the UE-associated signaling connections and transmits S1 UE-ASSOCIATED MOVE CONFIRM to the originating node; paragraph 205, after transmitting S1 UE-ASSOCIATED MOVE CONFIRM, the destination node directly inform higher layer that the corresponding UE-associated signaling connection may be resumed, and all the outgoing signals will be directed to new SCTP association)
For claim 18. Zee discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Zee further teaches: A stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) association redirection apparatus, which is applied to a first network element and comprises: a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores processor-executable programs, and the processor executes the programs to perform the method of claim 1. (Zee, fig 36-37, paragraph 246-250, network node comprises one or more processors, memory that stores instructions (such as a computer program, software) executed by the one or more processors to perform functions)
For claim 19. Zee discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Zee further teaches: A non-transitory storage medium, which comprises stored programs, wherein the programs, when executed, perform the method of claim 1. (Zee, fig 36-37, paragraph 246-250, memory that stores instructions (such as a computer program, software) executed by one or more processors to perform functions)
For claim 20. Zee discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Zee further teaches: A processor, which is configured to execute programs, wherein the programs, when executed, perform the method of claim 1. (Zee, fig 36-37, paragraph 246-250, one or more processors, memory that stores instructions (such as a computer program, software) executed by the one or more processors to perform functions)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA B HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1:00 PM - 9:35 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/KHOA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights