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 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.
Claims 1, 5 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-10 and claims 1 and 8-9 of copending Application No. 18/425, 903 and 18/425, 884 respectively (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter with the exception of obvious synonymous structures as illustrated in the table below .
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application
App. No. 18/425,903
App. No. 18/425, 884
Claim 1: A communication control method comprising: determining, at a core network apparatus, a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice; and transmitting, at the core network apparatus, network slice restriction information related to the network slice to a user equipment, wherein the network slice restriction information includes a network slice identifier identifying the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition.
Claim 1: A communication control method comprising: receiving, at a user equipment, network slice restriction information from a base station or a core network apparatus, the network slice restriction information being related to a network slice to be provided with a restrictive condition, wherein the restrictive condition is a condition restricting use of the network slice, and wherein the network slice restriction information comprises an identifier identifying the network slice and information indicating the restrictive condition.
Claim 1: A communication control method comprising: determining, at a base station, a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice; and transmitting, at the base station, restriction information related to the network slice to a core network apparatus, a certain base station other than the base station, or a user equipment.
Claim 4. A user equipment comprising: a receiver configured to receive, from a core network apparatus that determine a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice, network slice restriction information related to the network slice, wherein the network slice restriction information includes a network slice identifier identifying the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition.
Claim 9. A user equipment comprising: a receiver configured to receive network slice restriction information from a base station or a core network apparatus, the network slice restriction information being related to a network slice to be provided with a restrictive condition, wherein the restrictive condition is a condition restricting use of the network slice, and wherein the network slice restriction information comprises an identifier identifying the network slice and information indicating the restrictive condition.
Claim 8. A base station comprising: a circuitry configured to determine a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice; and a transmitter configured to transmit, restriction information related to the network slice to a core network apparatus, a certain base station other than the base station, or a user equipment.
Claim 5. A core network apparatus comprising: a circuitry configured to determine a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice, and a transmitter configured to transmit to a user equipment, network slice restriction information related to the network slice, wherein the network slice restriction information includes a network slice identifier identifying the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition.
Claim 10. A network apparatus comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit network slice restriction information to a user equipment, the network slice restriction information being related to a network slice to be provided with a restrictive condition, wherein the restrictive condition is a condition restricting use of the network slice, and wherein the network slice restriction information comprises an identifier identifying the network slice and information indicating the restrictive condition.
Claim 9. A mobile communication system comprising a base station, wherein the base station is configured to determine a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice, and the base station is configured to transmit, restriction information related to the network slice to a core network apparatus, a certain base station other than the base station, or a user equipment.
Claim 6. A mobile communication system comprising a core network apparatus and a user equipment, wherein the core network apparatus is configured to determine a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice, and the core network apparatus is configured to transmit to the user equipment, network slice restriction information related to the network slice, wherein the network slice restriction information includes a network slice identifier identifying the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 AND 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ianev US Patent Pub No.: 2022/0369207 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ianev’.
Consider Claim 1, and as applied to Claims 4-6 (Structural limitations are illustrated in figures 13-16) Ianev teaches communication control method comprising: determining, at a core network apparatus (e.g., see SMN in at least figure 1), a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice (e.g., “enforces access and service restriction in a Network Slice when the Network Slice parameters boundaries have been reached” – see at least abstract, 0016-0021, and 216-0223 ); and transmitting, at the core network apparatus, network slice restriction information related to the network slice to a user equipment, wherein the network slice restriction information includes a network slice identifier identifying the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition (e.g., see at least figure 1 and 0060 - 8) The SMN 720 answers ).
Consider Claim 2, Ianev teaches the communication control method according to claim 1, the communication control method further comprising determining, at the user equipment, whether to avoid using the network slice, based on the network slice restriction information (i.e., as best understood by the Examiner this would be based on the rejection to use the network slice as outlined in at least figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev US Patent Pub No.: 2022/0369207 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ianev’ in view of Stojanovski et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0007182 A1, hereinafter, ‘Stojanovski’
Consider Claims 3, Ianev teaches NAS messaging but does not specifically teach wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the user equipment comprises transmitting, to the user equipment, a NAS message including the network slice restriction information, and wherein the NAS message is a Registration Accept message or a DEREGISTRATION REQUEST message.
In analogous art, Stojanovski teaches “dedicated NAS signaling after transmission of the registration request (such as in a Registration Accept Message). The UE may use the public key to encrypt parts of the Initial NAS message (Registration Request, Service Request or Deregistration Request).” e.g., see at least 0041.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the user equipment comprises transmitting, to the user equipment, a NAS message including the network slice restriction information, and wherein the NAS message is a Registration Accept message or a DEREGISTRATION REQUEST message for the purpose of facilitating signaling around UE registration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Yang et al. (US 20220217593) Yang teaches a communication control method (para 5: a
communication method and apparatus, to provide a rate limiting manner that can be
applied to a 5G scenario; fig 3-11) comprising: determining, at a base station (para 156: the source base station determine, based on the measurement result, that the UE needs to be handed over to the target base station), a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict
use of a network slice (para 158: the handover request message may include the network slice configuration information, where the information is used to indicate a maximum data rate provided by each of n network slices for the UE; here, the maximum data rate provided by the network slice is considered restriction condition of the network slice); and transmitting, at the base station, restriction information related to the network slice to a core network apparatus, a certain base station other than the base station, or a user equipment (para 155: step 101: a source base station sends a first message to a target base station, where the first message includes
network slice configuration information; fig 3 shows the message sent to target base station, fig 10 shows the message sent to AMF (core network apparatus)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646