CTNF 18/723,480 CTNF 83530 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 3, please amend ‘signalling’ to read “signaling” to accommodate the typical spelling of the term . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Construction Claims 1-3 recite contingent limitations when stating ‘in a case that…”. Regarding claim 3, please note that per MPEP 2111.04(II), the method as claimed only has patentable weight to the limitations in the preamble, as all other limitations of the claim are based on contingencies which are not required to be performed in the BRI of the method claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, a prior art rejection has been provided for the contingent limitations in claim 3, although the contingent limitations in claim 3 are not required to be met. Further, for the system of claims 1-2, the contingent limitations have been addressed in accordance with MPEP 21113.04(II). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 Step 1: Yes. The claim is a machine Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim limitations “deletes pending Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) for the SNPN” represents a Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion), specifically this limitation represents the organization and removal of specified data, which can practically be performed by the human mind. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. -The additional elements of the UE, controller and storage unit represent applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations invoke a generic computer/electronic devices merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. -The additional claim limitations of “in a case that the UE deregisters with a current Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN) using explicit signalling or enters a 5GMM-DEREGISTERED state for the SNPN, and in a case that the UE is not registered with the SNPN over another access type,”. These claims represent mere data gathering and are insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Please note that in each of these limitations, the actual scope of the limitation is only asking that it be determined if the condition is met, effectively a status check of yes or no, and that the actual scope of the limitation is not required to actually perform any of the processing around deregistering. Thus, these two limitations only represent a conditional status check prior to the deleting process. -The limitations regarding “a current Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN)” and “Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) for the SNPN” represent the general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network registration/mobility) ( MPEP 2106.05(h) ). - When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any additional meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Step 2B: No. the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. In the evaluating of the per- solution activity from Step 2A, Prong 2; the determination if the status is met is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities based on this process simply incorporating the observation of data communicated over a network which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (network communication/mobility) using a generic/generalized computer/device. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1. Claim 2, as in claim 1 again recites the abstract function of deleting data, tying this judicial exception again to a particular technological environment or field of use (network registration/mobility) ( MPEP 2106.05(h) ) in the recitation of the NSSAI and SNPN designations for the data; and the additional element of the controller and storage unit which represent applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). As with the evaluation of claim 1, the claim fails to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 recites similar limitations to those of claim 1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is a process claim Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim limitations “deletes pending Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) for the SNPN” represents a Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion), specifically this limitation represents the organization and removal of specified data, which can practically be performed by the human mind. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. -The additional elements of the UE represent applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations invoke a generic computer/electronic devices merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. -The additional claim limitations of “in a case that the UE deregisters with a current Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN) using explicit signalling or enters a 5GMM-DEREGISTERED state for the SNPN, and in a case that the UE is not registered with the SNPN over another access type,”. These claims represent mere data gathering and are insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Please note that in each of these limitations, the actual scope of the limitation is only asking that it be determined if the condition is met, effectively a status check of yes or no, and that the actual scope of the limitation is not required to actually perform any of the processing around deregistering. Thus, these two limitations only represent a conditional status check prior to the deleting process. -The limitations regarding “a current Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN)” and “Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) for the SNPN” represent the general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network registration/mobility) ( MPEP 2106.05(h) ). - When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any additional meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Step 2B: No. the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. In the evaluating of the per-solution activity from Step 2A, Prong 2; the determination if the status is met is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities based on this process simply incorporating the observation of data communicated over a network which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (network communication/mobility) using a generic/generalized computer/device. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘a storage unit’ in claim 1. Interpreted as a ‘unit’ (means) for storage. Support for this interpretation is found at least at paragraphs 49 and 565. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (herein after 3G)(NPL “Non-access-stratum (NAS) protocol for 5G systems (5GS)”, see IDS) in view Kim (US Pub 20220240174) . Re claim 1, 3G discloses a User Equipment (UE) (Page 85, Section 4.6.2.2-NSSAI storage-‘the UE’) comprising: a storage unit (Page 85, Section 4.6.2.2 - NSSAI storage - ‘stored in a non-volatile memory in the ME’), wherein in a case that the UE deregisters (Page 88 section 1 ‘enters ‘5GMM-deregistered’; Page 350 –‘deregistration accept’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7) with a current Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN) (Page 107-108, section 4.14.2; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7) using explicit signalling (Page 88 section 1 ‘enters ‘5GMM-deregistered’; Page 350 –‘deregistration accept’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7) or enters a 5GMM-DEREGISTERED state for the SNPN (Page 88 section 1 ‘enters ‘5GMM-deregistered’ on current network; Page 350 –‘deregistration accept’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7), and in a case that the UE is not registered with the SNPN over another access type (Page 88 following section 3-‘and the UE is no registered with the current PLMN over another access’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7), the UE deletes pending Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) for the SNPN from the storage unit (Page 88 section 3-‘and the rejected NSSAI to the failed or revoked NSSAA shall be deleted’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7 – ‘the UE shall delete…’); however 3G fails to explicitly disclose wherein the UE comprises a controller and the controller relates to the memory data processing in the UE. This design is however disclosed by Kim. Kim discloses wherein the UE comprises a controller (Fig 3 el 120 and 130; Par 85, 266, 269-270) and the controller relates to the memory data (Fig 3 el 120 and 130; Par 85, 266, 269-270) processing in the UE (Fig 3 el 120 and 130; Par 85, 266, 269-270). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of 3G in order to incorporate the component designs of Kim based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, in this instance the use of a processors and controller components to interact and control operations of a memory or storage in the device provided excepted functionality by providing the benefits of the ability to perform the details processing within the device design for the specified embodiment within the communication environment. Re claim 2, the combined disclosure of 3G and Kim as a whole discloses The UE according to claim 1, Kim further discloses wherein the controller further deletes pending NSSAI (Par 230-234, 254, 262-264) of an equivalent SNPN(s) (Par 230-234, 254, 262-264) for the current SNPN from the storage unit (Par 233-234, 254, 262-264) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by 3GPP (herein after 3G)(NPL “Non-access-stratum (NAS) protocol for 5G systems (5GS)”, see IDS) . Re claim 3, Kim discloses a communication control method performed by a User Equipment (UE), the communication control method comprising: in a case that the UE deregisters (Page 88 section 1 ‘enters ‘5GMM-deregistered’; Page 350 –‘deregistration accept’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7) with a current Stand-alone Non-Public Network (SNPN) (Page 107-108, section 4.14.2; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7) using explicit signalling (Page 88 section 1 ‘enters ‘5GMM-deregistered’; Page 350 –‘deregistration accept’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7) or enters a 5GMM-DEREGISTERED state for the SNPN (Page 88 section 1 ‘enters ‘5GMM-deregistered’ on current network; Page 350 –‘deregistration accept’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7), and in a case that the UE is not registered with the SNPN over another access type (Page 88 following section 3-‘and the UE is no registered with the current PLMN over another access’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7), deleting pending Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) for the SNPN from the UE (Page 88 section 3-‘and the rejected NSSAI to the failed or revoked NSSAA shall be deleted’; Pages 352-353 #6 and #7 – ‘the UE shall delete…’). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm. 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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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. /MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 2 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 3 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 4 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 5 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 6 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 7 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 8 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 9 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 10 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 11 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 12 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 13 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 14 Art Unit: 2631 Application/Control Number: 18/723,480 Page 15 Art Unit: 2631
Prosecution Insights