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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “200” (see figure 1 and 3).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “S1000” and “S1100” (see page 49 paragraph [0295]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because uses phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure related” (see line 1); “The disclosure provides” (see line 2). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in page 49 paragraph [0295] “FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 illustrate flowcharts (S1000 and S1100)” seems to be improper because it is improperly constricted (see figure 8 and 9); it is suggested to be changed to “FIG. 8 and FIG. 9 illustrate flowcharts (S800 and S900)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20210360569 A1) (hereafter Park) in view of Sethi (US 20240357536 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Park discloses receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a registration request message (abstract figures 7-10 “Registration request message” paragraphs [0068]-[0069] [0134]-[0135] [0264]-[0272] “After the UE performs registration through non-3GPP access according to an initial registration procedure, the UE may receive a reject message, including a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), while performing a service request procedure and a mobility registration procedure”); transmitting, to the UE, a registration reject message based on a congestion, the registration reject message including information on a back-off timer (abstract figures 7-10 “Registration request message” paragraphs [0068]-[0069] [0134]-[0135] [0264]-[0272] “If the AMF performs a back-off operation due to a congestion situation of the AMF, “ … “After the UE performs registration through non-3GPP access according to an initial registration procedure, the UE may receive a reject message, including a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), while performing a service request procedure and a mobility registration procedure”)
PNG
media_image1.png
465
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park doesn’t specifically disclose receiving, from the UE, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running. Sethi discloses receiving, from the UE, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running (figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage” … “The device may send a rejection message, for example, associated with congestion” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration” … “Unavailability period support may be provided while back-off durations are active (e.g., timers are running). While non-access stratum (NAS) back-off durations (e.g., timers, or other back-off timers) are running in the WTRU (e.g., T3346/T3347/T3396, other back-off timers).”) Park and Sethi are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Park the inter vehicle distance disclosed by Sethi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to address unavailability events (Sethi abstract). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Park discloses transmitting, an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a registration request message (abstract figures 7-10 “Registration request message” paragraphs [0068]-[0069] [0134]-[0135] [0264]-[0272] “After the UE performs registration through non-3GPP access according to an initial registration procedure, the UE may receive a reject message, including a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), while performing a service request procedure and a mobility registration procedure”); receiving, from the AMF entity, a registration reject message based on a congestion, the registration reject message including information on a back-off timer and starting the back-off timer based on the registration reject message (abstract figures 7-10 “Registration request message” paragraphs [0068]-[0069] [0134]-[0135] [0264]-[0272] “If the AMF performs a back-off operation due to a congestion situation of the AMF, “ … “After the UE performs registration through non-3GPP access according to an initial registration procedure, the UE may receive a reject message, including a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), while performing a service request procedure and a mobility registration procedure”). Park doesn’t specifically disclose transmitting, to the AMF entity, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running. Sethi discloses transmitting, to the AMF entity, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage” … “The device may send a rejection message, for example, associated with congestion” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration” … “Unavailability period support may be provided while back-off durations are active (e.g., timers are running). While non-access stratum (NAS) back-off durations (e.g., timers, or other back-off timers) are running in the WTRU (e.g., T3346/T3347/T3396, other back-off timers)”) Park and Sethi are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Park the inter vehicle distance disclosed by Sethi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to address unavailability events (Sethi abstract). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Park and Sethi disclose claims 1 and 11, Sethi also discloses the registration update information is based for reporting an unavailability related to the discontinuous coverage (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage”)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Park and Sethi disclose claims 1 and 11, Park also discloses a cause value indicating the congestion (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0244] [00281]-[0284], [0290] “The value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346 value) may be transmitted to the UE in a network congestion situation. Specifically, when a congestion situation occurs in a network, the network may apply MM congestion control through the AMF. For the congestion control, the network provides the UE with a reject message, including a cause value (cause #22) indicative of the congestion situation and a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), in response to a mobility management request from the UE. Upon receiving the cause value and the value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), the UE runs the back-off timer (e.g., T3346). While the timer is running, most of the MM procedure is prohibited” … “As may be seen with reference to FIG. 9, when the AMF 410 transmits a reject message including a cause value, the AMF may set only a value of the fourth timer, that is, the non-3GPP de-registration timer. Furthermore, the AMF 410 may transmit the reject message, including the cause value and a value of the fourth timer, that is, the non-3GPP de-registration timer” … “the AMF 410 may set only a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346) and then transmit a reject message, including the set value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346) and a cause value.”)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Park and Sethi disclose claims 1 and 11, Sethi also discloses a start time of an unavailability period or a duration of the unavailability period associated with the discontinuous coverage, and wherein the start time is different from a previous start time of the unavailability period, and the duration is different from a previous duration of the unavailability period (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The registration request may include a first duration (e.g., unavailability duration associated with a WTRU)” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration.”)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Park and Sethi disclose claims 4 and 14, Sethi also discloses updating a UE context based on the start time or the duration included in the registration update information (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The device may determine whether the WTRU is to send an update message (e.g., after the first duration). The device may send a registration accept message (e.g., to the WTRU).”)
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Park and Sethi disclose claims 4 and 14, Sethi also discloses discarding the previous start time or the previous duration from a UE context, in case that the registration update information does not include the start time or the duration (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The WTRU may be determined to be available, for example, if the update message has been received before the first duration has expired. The device may send a rejection message, for example, associated with congestion. The rejection message may indicate a second duration. The first duration may be less than the second duration”)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Park and Sethi disclose claims 7 and 17, Sethi also discloses the registration update information is based for reporting an unavailability related to the discontinuous coverage (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage”)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Park and Sethi disclose claims 7 and 17, Park also discloses a cause value indicating the congestion (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0244] [00281]-[0284], [0290] “The value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346 value) may be transmitted to the UE in a network congestion situation. Specifically, when a congestion situation occurs in a network, the network may apply MM congestion control through the AMF. For the congestion control, the network provides the UE with a reject message, including a cause value (cause #22) indicative of the congestion situation and a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), in response to a mobility management request from the UE. Upon receiving the cause value and the value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), the UE runs the back-off timer (e.g., T3346). While the timer is running, most of the MM procedure is prohibited” … “As may be seen with reference to FIG. 9, when the AMF 410 transmits a reject message including a cause value, the AMF may set only a value of the fourth timer, that is, the non-3GPP de-registration timer. Furthermore, the AMF 410 may transmit the reject message, including the cause value and a value of the fourth timer, that is, the non-3GPP de-registration timer” … “the AMF 410 may set only a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346) and then transmit a reject message, including the set value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346) and a cause value.”)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Park and Sethi disclose claims 7 and 17, Sethi also discloses a start time of an unavailability period or a duration of the unavailability period associated with the discontinuous coverage, and wherein the start time is different from a previous start time of the unavailability period, and the duration is different from a previous duration of the unavailability period (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The registration request may include a first duration (e.g., unavailability duration associated with a WTRU)” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration.”)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20230254733 A1) (hereafter Park2) in view of Sethi (US 20240357536 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Park2 discloses receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a registration request message (abstract figure 8 paragraphs [0282]. [0292] “In step S800, the method comprises receiving a registration request message from a UE.”); transmitting, to the UE, a registration reject message based on a congestion, the registration reject message including information on a back-off timer (abstract figure 8 paragraphs [0308]-[0313] “The reject message may include a new 5G MM cause value #xx that is not the conventional 5G MM cause value and a value for back-off timer T3346. The new 5G MM cause value #xx may indicate that the current congestion control targets a subscriber of the first PLMN who has flowed into the second PLMN through disaster roaming”). Park2 doesn’t specifically disclose receiving, from the UE, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running. Sethi discloses receiving, from the UE, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running (figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage” … “The device may send a rejection message, for example, associated with congestion” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration” … “Unavailability period support may be provided while back-off durations are active (e.g., timers are running). While non-access stratum (NAS) back-off durations (e.g., timers, or other back-off timers) are running in the WTRU (e.g., T3346/T3347/T3396, other back-off timers).”) Park2 and Sethi are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Park2 the inter vehicle distance disclosed by Sethi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to address unavailability events (Sethi abstract). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Park2 discloses transmitting, an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a registration request message (abstract figure 8 paragraphs [0282]. [0292] “In step S800, the method comprises receiving a registration request message from a UE.”); receiving, from the AMF entity, a registration reject message based on a congestion, the registration reject message including information on a back-off timer and starting the back-off timer based on the registration reject message (abstract figure 8 paragraphs [0308]-[0313] “The reject message may include a new 5G MM cause value #xx that is not the conventional 5G MM cause value and a value for back-off timer T3346. The new 5G MM cause value #xx may indicate that the current congestion control targets a subscriber of the first PLMN who has flowed into the second PLMN through disaster roaming”). Park2 doesn’t specifically disclose transmitting, to the AMF entity, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running. Sethi discloses transmitting, to the AMF entity, registration update information related to a discontinuous coverage, while the back-off timer is running (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage” … “The device may send a rejection message, for example, associated with congestion” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration” … “Unavailability period support may be provided while back-off durations are active (e.g., timers are running). While non-access stratum (NAS) back-off durations (e.g., timers, or other back-off timers) are running in the WTRU (e.g., T3346/T3347/T3396, other back-off timers)”) Park2 and Sethi are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Park2 the inter vehicle distance disclosed by Sethi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to address unavailability events (Sethi abstract). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 1 and 11, Sethi also discloses the registration update information is based for reporting an unavailability related to the discontinuous coverage (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage”)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 1 and 11, Park2 also discloses a cause value indicating the congestion (abstract figure 8 paragraphs [0308]-[0313] “The reject message may include a new 5G MM cause value #xx that is not the conventional 5G MM cause value and a value for back-off timer T3346. The new 5G MM cause value #xx may indicate that the current congestion control targets a subscriber of the first PLMN who has flowed into the second PLMN through disaster roaming”)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 1 and 11, Sethi also discloses a start time of an unavailability period or a duration of the unavailability period associated with the discontinuous coverage, and wherein the start time is different from a previous start time of the unavailability period, and the duration is different from a previous duration of the unavailability period (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The registration request may include a first duration (e.g., unavailability duration associated with a WTRU)” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration.”)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 4 and 14, Sethi also discloses updating a UE context based on the start time or the duration included in the registration update information (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The device may determine whether the WTRU is to send an update message (e.g., after the first duration). The device may send a registration accept message (e.g., to the WTRU).”)
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 4 and 14, Sethi also discloses discarding the previous start time or the previous duration from a UE context, in case that the registration update information does not include the start time or the duration (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The WTRU may be determined to be available, for example, if the update message has been received before the first duration has expired. The device may send a rejection message, for example, associated with congestion. The rejection message may indicate a second duration. The first duration may be less than the second duration”)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 7 and 17, Sethi also discloses the registration update information is based for reporting an unavailability related to the discontinuous coverage (abstract, figure 1 paragraph [0006] [0081]-[0082]. [0092], [0107]-[0109], [0126]-[0145] “Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein related to handling an unavailability period for one or more scenarios, such as when a back-off duration is active” … “The registration accept message may indicate whether the WTRU is to send an update message after the first duration (e.g., based on whether the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage). The registration accept message may indicate to refrain from sending an update message (e.g., after the first duration), for example, if the WTRU is associated with discontinuous coverage”)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 7 and 17, Park2 also discloses a cause value indicating the congestion (abstract figure 8 paragraphs [0308]-[0313] “The reject message may include a new 5G MM cause value #xx that is not the conventional 5G MM cause value and a value for back-off timer T3346. The new 5G MM cause value #xx may indicate that the current congestion control targets a subscriber of the first PLMN who has flowed into the second PLMN through disaster roaming”)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Park2 and Sethi disclose claims 7 and 17, Sethi also discloses a start time of an unavailability period or a duration of the unavailability period associated with the discontinuous coverage, and wherein the start time is different from a previous start time of the unavailability period, and the duration is different from a previous duration of the unavailability period (abstract paragraphs [0004]-[0009] “The registration request may include a first duration (e.g., unavailability duration associated with a WTRU)” … “The device may receive an indication from the network, for example, that indicates congestion. The device may receive an indication that indicates a second duration (e.g., a back-off duration associated with congestion). The second duration may be determined. The first duration may be greater than or equal to the second duration.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lin (US 20210409995 A1) discloses informing upper layer for originating MMTEL video call during network congestion.
Cogalan (US 20240389051 A1) discloses managing network reselection for a high number of users.
Talebi (US 20240129794 A1) discloses network congestion control.
Kuge (US 20230164726 A1) discloses user equipment (UE) and communication method for UE.
Kim (US 20250193727 A1) discloses efficient congestion control for industrial traffic in 3GPP 5GS.
Tiwari (US 20210051566 A1) discloses method and system for managing closed access group feature for user equipment and network.
Aghili (US 20240080791 A1) discloses methods, apparatus, and systems for minimization of service interruptions (MINT).
Won (US 20210258857 A1) discloses methods, apparatuses, and computer program products for managing a devices network capability in private networks.
Sethi (US 20240381283 A1) discloses unavailability period support for MUSIM devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634