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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,6-8,13-15, and 20 are amended.
Claims 5,12, and 19 are cancelled.
Clams 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 1/28/2026 was disapproved. Please see the Terminal Disclaimer review decision dated 2/25/2026 that states: The applicant cited on the TD should be cited exactly as cited on the ADS form, in its entirety. Please resubmit then td. No fee required.
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-disclaimer.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #1
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,738 (referred to as P738). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 1 and 5 of P738. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 2 of P738.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 3 of P738.
Re claim 4: Claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P738.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P738.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 7 of P738.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #2
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,924,687 (referred to as P687). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 1 and 5 of P687. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 2 of P687.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 3 of P687.
Re claim 4: Claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P687.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P687.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 7 of P687.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #3
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,477,694 (referred to as P694) in view of Narath (US 20210219179) and Bakker (US 20130310043).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claim 1 of P694. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
P694 does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0063,0119]).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022]).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 2 of P694.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 3 of P694.
Re claim 4: Claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P694.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P694.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 7 of P694.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #4
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,492 (referred to as P492) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claim 1 of P492. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
P492 does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0063,0119]).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022]).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #5
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,895,536 (referred to as P536) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claim 1 of P536. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
P536 does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0063,0119]).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022]).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #6
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,621 (referred to P621) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claim 1 of P621. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
P621 does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0063,0119]).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022]).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #7
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,851 (referred to P851) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claim 1 of P851. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
P851 does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0063,0119]).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022]).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #8
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,641 (referred to as P641) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 1 and 5 of P851. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P641.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P641.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P641.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 10: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 11: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #9
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,237 (referred to as P237) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 1 and 5 of P237. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P237.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P237.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #10
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,093 (referred to as P093) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 1 and 5 of P093. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P093.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P093.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #11
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/210,724 (referred to as A724) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 1,2, and 5 of A724. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P093.
Re claim 7: Claim 7 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of P093.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #12
Claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4,21, and 27 of copending Application No. 18/583,625 (referred to as A625) in view of Narath (US 20210219179).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claims 21 and 27 of A625. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A625 does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0063,0119]).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022]).
Re claim 2: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0031, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 3: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0120, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 4: Narath discloses the limitation in paragraph 0104, as also shown in the rejection below.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20210105652) in view of Narath (US 20210219179) and Bakker (US 20130310043).
Re claim 1:
Jeong discloses a memory that stores computer instructions; and a processor that executes the computer instructions to perform actions (Fig.12), the actions including:
maintaining one or more load thresholds for each user plane function (UPF) of one or more UPFs in a cellular telecommunication network (Para.[0098] A threshold value for each UPF may be stored in the SMF 132, may be stored in the corresponding UPF, or may be stored in both), wherein:
the one or more UPFs serve as anchor points between user equipment (UE) in the cellular telecommunication network and a data network (DN) (Fig.2 ref. 210 Slice Anchor UPF, ref. 140 DN and ref. 110 NG-RAN and Fig. 3 ref. 120 UE);
each UPF of the one or more UPFs is a virtual network function responsible for interconnecting packet data unit (PDU) sessions between the user equipment (UE) and the DN by anchoring the PDU sessions on individual UPFs (Fig.3 ref. 120 UE, ref. 210 Slice Anchor UPF, ref. 320 PDU Session Establishment, ref. 337 Per UE or DNN traffic shaping and Para.[0044] The UPF 133 may be connected to a data network (DN) 140 that is connected via the Internet, so as to provide a path for data transmission/reception between the UE 120 and the DN 140. Therefore, the UPF 133 may route data, which should be transferred via the Internet among packets transmitted by the UE 120, to an Internet data network and Para.[0007] a virtualized network function (NF, hereinafter, a “network element” can be interchangeably used) and Para.[0106] a UPF instance may be an NF); and
the one or more load thresholds for each UPF depend on a respective capacity of each UPF to have PDU sessions anchored thereon (Para.[0098] As such, the UPF, which is in the overload state or the state close to overload, among the UPFs may use a preconfigured threshold value. For example, a data bit rate that can be processed by one UPF is L, wherein a threshold value may be configured to be, for example, 90% of L or 95% of L); and
selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor a PDU session of a new UE newly appearing on the cellular telecommunication network based on the one or more load thresholds, (Para.[0097] In operation 604, the SMF 132 may receive a session establishment request or a session update request for the UE. And Para.[0101] As a result of identification in operation 606, if one or more UPFs are in the overload state or the state close to overload (Yes in operation 606), the SMF 132 may select, in operation 608, a UPF to process a session from among all UPFs belonging to the network slice, excluding the one or more UPFs).
As shown above, Jeong discloses a UE sending a session establishment request (Para.[0097]). Jeong does not explicitly disclose the UE is a new UE newly appearing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the system of Jeong applies for newly appearing UEs because a newly appearing UE will send a session establishment request.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0119] live prediction may be based on a weighted average of all the relevant models and Para.[0063] For selecting a UPF instance for the packet data session for the UE, SMF 118 may perform a comparative assessment of load information factors from different sets of load information factors associated with the UPF instances. Each set of load information factors of a UPF instance may include one or more current load information factors and one or more predicted load information factors. In preferred implementations, the comparative assessment may include the one or more current load information factors, the one or more predicted load information factors, and further include the one or more predicted load contribution factors indicative of the predicted load contribution for the packet data session to be established for the UE (step 320 of FIG. 3). In the present case, SMF 118 may select UPF 120 for the packet data session for the UE).
Jeong and Narath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a NWDAF predicting load as taught by Narath in order to solve inefficient UPF resource utilization (Narath Para.[0004]) and save battery power at a UE (Narath Para.[0121]).
Jeong in view of Narath does not explicitly disclose by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022] So-called token counters (TC), i.e. weighting factors for scheduling of mobile devices, can be used for the purpose of system load monitoring ).
Jeong and Bakker are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include token-based weighted scheduling as taught by Bakker in order to increase total cell capacity (Bakker Para.[0029]).
Re claim 2:
As discussed above, Jeong in view of Narath and Bakker meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: using the network data analytics to predict load on a UPF of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network; and selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session based on the predicted load of the new UE on a UPF.
Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: using the network data analytics to predict load on a UPF of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network; and selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session based on the predicted load of the new UE on a UPF (Para.[0031] In yet another illustrative example, a network node operative as a control plane entity for session management (e.g. an SMF) may send to a data analytics function (e.g. a NWDAF) a message indicating a request for one or more predicted load contribution factors associated with the UE. The request may include one or more session-related parameters of a packet data session to be established for the UE. The network node may receive from the data analytics function a message including the one or more predicted load contribution factors associated with the UE. The one or more predicted load contribution factors may be indicative of a predicted load contribution of the UE at the user plane function instance. In some implementations, the network node may select one of the plurality of user plane function instances for the packet data session of the UE based on a comparative assessment of load information factors which include one or more predicted load information factors, and further include the one or more predicted load contribution factors indicative of the predicted load contribution of the UE).
Jeong and Narath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a NWDAF predicting load as taught by Narath in order to solve inefficient UPF resource utilization (Narath Para.[0004]) and save battery power at a UE (Narath Para.[0121]).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Jeong in view of Narath and Bakker meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein the network data analytics is provided via a network data analytics function (NWDAF) of a 5th generation (5G) mobile network of which the cellular telecommunication network is comprised.
Narath discloses wherein the network data analytics is provided via a network data analytics function (NWDAF) of a 5th generation (5G) mobile network of which the cellular telecommunication network is comprised (Para.[0120] Accordingly, a new framework has emerged that may be integrated into 5G solutions, relating to UPF, SMF, and PCF designs. In some implementations, the proposed functionality of at the NWDAF may be built as a Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) processing extension to the SMF).
Jeong and Narath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a NWDAF predicting load as taught by Narath in order to solve inefficient UPF resource utilization (Narath Para.[0004]) and save battery power at a UE (Narath Para.[0121]).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Jeong in view of Narath and Bakker meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein the using the network data analytics to predict load on a UPF of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network includes: using artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) algorithms to perform predictive analysis of load on a UPF of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network based on historical activity of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network.
Narath discloses wherein the using the network data analytics to predict load on a UPF of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network includes: using artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) algorithms to perform predictive analysis of load on a UPF of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network based on historical activity of the new UE appearing on the cellular telecommunication network (Para.[0104] In some implementations, NWDAF 138 may be configured with model building process 420 which may include a model building block and a model engine—predicted load factor function. In the present example to be described, the model building block may build a subscriber usage prediction (e.g. an average bitrate and a duration for a subscriber) based on historical usage data fed into the model engine. The historical usage data may be taken or derived from CDRs from previous sessions of one or more UEs (e.g. previous CDRs from previous session of the current UE). In some implementations, this may be a one-time process; in other implementations, model 422 may be initially generated and (regularly) regenerated with new, more current CDR data. Once the building of model 422 is complete, model 422 may receive input from SMF 118 and predict an average bitrate of a subscriber. The predicted load factor function may convert a predicted average bitrate to a predicted load contribution of the UPF).
Jeong and Narath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a NWDAF using machine learning as taught by Narath in order to solve inefficient UPF resource utilization (Narath Para.[0004]) and save battery power at a UE (Narath Para.[0121]).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Jeong in view of Narath and Bakker meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, weighting selection of the a particular UPF to not overload other UPFs of the one or more UPFs as compared to the particular UPF in response to a current load of the particular UPF being currently in a particular load-region as compared to other UPFs of the one or more UPFs and the predicted load being at a particular level.
Narath discloses the system of claim 1, weighting selection of the a particular UPF to not overload other UPFs of the one or more UPFs as compared to the particular UPF in response to a current load of the particular UPF being currently in a particular load-region as compared to other UPFs of the one or more UPFs and the predicted load being at a particular level (Para.[0119] live prediction may be based on a weighted average of all the relevant models and Para.[0063] For selecting a UPF instance for the packet data session for the UE, SMF 118 may perform a comparative assessment of load information factors from different sets of load information factors associated with the UPF instances. Each set of load information factors of a UPF instance may include one or more current load information factors and one or more predicted load information factors. In preferred implementations, the comparative assessment may include the one or more current load information factors, the one or more predicted load information factors, and further include the one or more predicted load contribution factors indicative of the predicted load contribution for the packet data session to be established for the UE (step 320 of FIG. 3). In the present case, SMF 118 may select UPF 120 for the packet data session for the UE).
Jeong and Narath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a NWDAF predicting load as taught by Narath in order to solve inefficient UPF resource utilization (Narath Para.[0004]) and save battery power at a UE (Narath Para.[0121]).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Jeong in view of Narath and Bakker meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the weighting selection of whether a particular UPF based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE includes: weighting selection of the particular UPF in the one or more UPFs to not overload the particular UPF beyond a threshold amount compared to other UPFs in the one or more UPFs based on the predicted load by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling or probability-based weighted scheduling based on the predicted load.
Narath discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the weighting selection of whether a particular UPF based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE includes: weighting selection of the particular UPF in the one or more UPFs to not overload the particular UPF beyond a threshold amount compared to other UPFs in the one or more UPFs based on the predicted load (Para.[0119] live prediction may be based on a weighted average of all the relevant models and Para.[0063] For selecting a UPF instance for the packet data session for the UE, SMF 118 may perform a comparative assessment of load information factors from different sets of load information factors associated with the UPF instances. Each set of load information factors of a UPF instance may include one or more current load information factors and one or more predicted load information factors. In preferred implementations, the comparative assessment may include the one or more current load information factors, the one or more predicted load information factors, and further include the one or more predicted load contribution factors indicative of the predicted load contribution for the packet data session to be established for the UE (step 320 of FIG. 3). In the present case, SMF 118 may select UPF 120 for the packet data session for the UE).
Jeong and Narath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include a NWDAF predicting load as taught by Narath in order to solve inefficient UPF resource utilization (Narath Para.[0004]) and save battery power at a UE (Narath Para.[0121]).
Jeong in view of Narath does not explicitly disclose by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling or probability-based weighted scheduling based on the predicted load.
Bakker discloses disclose by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling or probability-based weighted scheduling based on the predicted load (Para.[0022] So-called token counters (TC), i.e. weighting factors for scheduling of mobile devices, can be used for the purpose of system load monitoring – Examiner Notes Narath discloses predicted load).
Jeong and Bakker are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong to include token-based weighted scheduling as taught by Bakker in order to increase total cell capacity (Bakker Para.[0029]).
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 s rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends the office action did not address the alternative of credit/token-based weighted scheduling.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The office action showed in the rejection of claim 5: Narath discloses wherein selecting a UPF of the one or more UPFs on which to anchor the PDU session includes: weighting selection of a particular UPF of the one or more UPFs based on predicted load on a UPF of the new UE (Para.[0119] live prediction may be based on a weighted average of all the relevant models and Para.[0063] For selecting a UPF instance for the packet data session for the UE, SMF 118 may perform a comparative assessment of load information factors from different sets of load information factors associated with the UPF instances. Each set of load information factors of a UPF instance may include one or more current load information factors and one or more predicted load information factors. In preferred implementations, the comparative assessment may include the one or more current load information factors, the one or more predicted load information factors, and further include the one or more predicted load contribution factors indicative of the predicted load contribution for the packet data session to be established for the UE (step 320 of FIG. 3). In the present case, SMF 118 may select UPF 120 for the packet data session for the UE).
Bakker discloses by using credit/token-based weighted scheduling (Para.[0022] So-called token counters (TC), i.e. weighting factors for scheduling of mobile devices, can be used for the purpose of system load monitoring ).
Nathan discloses weighting selection of a UPF based on predicted load on a UPF. Bakker discloses using credit/token based weighted scheduling. Therefore, the limitation of credit/token-based weighted scheduling was addressed. The alternative of probability-based weighted scheduling has not been addressed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471