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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites the claim feature “(Original)” on line 3 without any obvious relevance to other claim feature. For clarity it’s suggested to remove this claim feature from the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the mobile management (MM) procedure" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-19 are rejected for claiming dependency from rejected claim 12.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the unavailability period" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being Sethi et al (USPN 20240381283), with provisional application 63/457,515 filed 4/6/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Sethi discloses
a method to initiate a mobile management (MM) procedure to activate an unavailability period during an active Non-Access Stratum (NAS) congestion in a wireless communication network, comprising (method performed to activate unavailability period [0079, 0080, 0127], FIG. 2, provisional application paragraph [0076, 0077, 0085, 0099], FIG. 2
detecting that timer T3346 is running or deactivated (detect T3346 timer running [0107, 0128], provisional application paragraph [0096, 0121]
performing the mobile management (MM) procedure to activate an unavailability period by reporting Unavailability information with a value of the unavailability period while the timer T3346 is running (perform 5GMM and send REGISTRATION REQUEST including unavailability period IE while T3346 is running, value of unavailability period greater or equal to NAS back-off duration [0127, 0132, 0144], FIG. 2, provisional application paragraph [0099, 0118]
Regarding claim 12, Sethi discloses
a user equipment (UE), comprising: (WTRU, FIG. 1B #102, comprising [0038], provisional application FIG. 1B
a transceiver, configured to wirelessly communicate with a wireless network (transceiver, FIG. 1B #120 [0039], provisional application FIG. 1B
a processor, coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations comprising: (processor, FIG. 1B #118 [0039], provisional application FIG. 1B
detecting that timer T3346 is running or deactivated (detect T3346 timer running [0107, 0128], provisional application paragraph [0096, 0121]
performing the mobile management (MM) procedure to activate an unavailability period by reporting Unavailability information with a value of the unavailability period while the timer T3346 is running (perform 5GMM and send REGISTRATION REQUEST including unavailability period IE while T3346 is running, value of unavailability period greater or equal to NAS back-off duration [0127, 0132, 0144], FIG. 2, provisional application paragraph [0099, 0118]
Regarding claims 6, 17, Sethi discloses “wherein a network accepts the MM procedure to activate unavailability” registration accept based on determination that the registration request is associated with unavailability information [0006, 0138, 0144-0145], provisional application paragraph [0122, 0123]
Regarding claim 7, Sethi discloses “wherein in the MM procedure, the UE performs a registration request procedure and the network either rejects or accepts procedure to activate the unavailability period when the NAS congestion is active” UE transmits NAS MM signaling message, i.e. requestion request message, and network/AMF either rejects or accepts procedure to activate unavailability period [0006, 0142-0145], FIG. 2, provisional application paragraph [0131, 0117, 0127]
Regarding claims 9, 19, Sethi discloses “user equipment continues the unavailability period until the unavailability period is over” WTRU triggers a registration procedure to resume regular service once the event that makes WTRU unavailable is completed [0085, 0095], provisional application paragraph [0095, 0085]
Regarding claim 10, Sethi discloses “wherein in the MM procedure, the UE performs a de-registration procedure to activate unavailability period” WTRU may trigger a De-registration procedure and provide the unavailability period duration [0096, 0119-0120], provisional application paragraph [0085, 0141]
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.
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.
Claims 2-4, 8, 13-15, 18, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi in view of Kumar et al (USPN 20240340837).
Regarding claim 20, Sethi discloses
an access and mobility management function (AMF), wherein the AMF is configured to perform operations comprising: (AMF operable to perform [0087, 0088], provisional application paragraph [0116-0118, 0122-0129], FIG. 2
detecting 5G mobile management (5GMM) signaling congestion (AMF detects 5GMM signaling congestion [0127], provisional application paragraph [0116-0118, 0122-0129], FIG. 2
performing a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) level congestion control (AMF performs NAS level congestion control [0127], provisional application paragraph [0116-0118, 0122-0129], FIG. 2
rejecting 5GMM signaling requests from a user equipment (UE) under the 5GMM signaling congestion condition (AMF rejects NAS message from WTRU [0128], provisional application paragraph [0116-0118, 0122-0129], FIG. 2, provisional application paragraph [0116-0118, 0122-0129], FIG. 2
wherein the operations further comprise accepting a mobility registration update request when the user equipment (UE) is reporting Unavailability information with a value of the unavailability period, while the NAS level congestion control is active (AMF accepts registration request that includes value of unavailability period greater or equal to NAS back-off duration based on presence of unavailability period IE [0127, 0132, 0144, 0138, 0133] FIG. 2, provisional application paragraph [0116-0118, 0122-0129], FIG. 2
Sethi does not expressly disclose due to discontinuous coverage
Kumar discloses UE transmits signaling indicating UE out-of-coverage period or unavailability period duration while T3346 timer is running [0010, 0165-0168, 0183].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “due to discontinuous coverage” as taught by Kumar into Sethi’s system with the motivation to enable a UE to indicate it’s experiencing discontinuous coverage to the network (Sethi, paragraph [0006, 0082]).
Regarding claims 2, 13, Sethi does not expressly disclose “wherein the unavailability information is consisting of a value or duration of the unavailability period due to a discontinuous coverage”
Kumar discloses UE transmits signaling indicating UE out-of-coverage period or unavailability period duration while T3346 timer is running [0010, 0165-0168, 0183].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the unavailability information is consisting of a value or duration of the unavailability period due to a discontinuous coverage” as taught by Kumar into Sethi’s system with the motivation to enable a UE to indicate it’s experiencing discontinuous coverage to the network (Sethi, paragraph [0006, 0082]).
Regarding claims 3, 14, Sethi discloses unavailability period duration [0082-0089]. Sethi does not expressly disclose “wherein the unavailability information is consisting of one or more of an unavailability type, an unavailability period duration and a start of unavailability period”
Kumar discloses unavailability information includes out-of-coverage period or unavailability period duration while T3346 timer is running [0010, 0165-0168, 0183].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the unavailability information is consisting of one or more of an unavailability type, an unavailability period duration and a start of unavailability period” as taught by Kumar into Sethi’s system with the motivation to enable a UE to indicate it’s experiencing discontinuous coverage to the network (Sethi, paragraph [0006, 0082]).
Regarding claims 4, 15, Sethi does not expressly disclose “wherein the unavailability information is provided to activate the unavailability period by an upper-layer requests or by the user equipment (UE) determining loss of satellite coverage when the timer T3346 is running or is deactivated”
Kumar discloses mobility registration update due to loss of satellite coverage while T3346 is running [0289, 0296, 0256, 0159, 0164], FIG. 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the unavailability information is provided to activate the unavailability period by an upper-layer requests or by the user equipment (UE) determining loss of satellite coverage when the timer T3346 is running or is deactivated” as taught by Kumar into Sethi’s system with the motivation to enable a UE to indicate it’s experiencing discontinuous coverage to the network (Sethi, paragraph [0006, 0082]).
Regarding claims 8, 18, Sethi discloses “when the timer T3346 expires” T3346 timer expiry triggering the UE’s subsequent MM signaling [0128, 0145]
Sethi does not expressly disclose “wherein the user equipment (UE) activates the unavailability period locally, and the user equipment triggers a registration request for unavailability period activation”
Kumar discloses UE locally determines the unavailability condition and transmitting the registration request [0229-0232], FIG. 2 #3
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the user equipment (UE) activates the unavailability period locally, and the user equipment triggers a registration request for unavailability period activation” as taught by Kumar into Kim’s system with the motivation to enable a high priority access UE to initiate signaling for emergency services/emergency services fallback due to NAS congestion control (Kim, paragraph [0438, 0442, 0047, 0449]).
Claims 5, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethi in view of Kim (USPN 20250193727).
Regarding claims 5, 16, Sethi does not expressly disclose wherein a network rejects the MM procedure to activate the unavailability period activation with cause #22”
Kim discloses “rejection message includes value #22: congestion [0434, 0435].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein a network rejects the MM procedure to activate the unavailability period activation with cause #22” as taught by Sethi into Kim’s system with the motivation to enable a high priority access UE to initiate signaling for emergency services/emergency services fallback due to NAS congestion control (Kim, paragraph [0438, 0442, 0047, 0449]).
Regarding claim 11, Sethi does not expressly disclose “user equipment (UE) informs to an upper layer that unavailability period activation is failed due to a request is rejected for congestion or due to the timer T3346 is running”
Kim discloses TSN-related application layer of UE detects urgent/important data, the application layer notifies the NAS layer [0439]. UE receives the rejection message from network stops the MM signaling request procedure and operates the received backoff timer [0436-0438].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “user equipment (UE) informs to an upper layer that unavailability period activation is failed due to a request is rejected for congestion or due to the timer T3346 is running” as taught by Sethi into Kim’s system with the motivation to enable a high priority access UE to initiate signaling for emergency services/emergency services fallback due to NAS congestion control (Kim, paragraph [0438, 0442, 0047, 0449]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edge et al (USPN 20230362704) FIG. 8A
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 THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights