DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,928. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims the patent anticipate the claims in the present application as shown in the table below.
Present Application
USPN 12,143,928
Claims 1 and 3
Claim 1
Claims 7 and 8
Claim 16
Claims 9 and 11
Claim 9
Claims 9 and 12
Claim 12
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the cubes and cylinders in figure 1 are not labeled making the drawings difficult to read. It is not clear what the cubes and cylinders are referring to. The reference numerals 101-103 do not have corresponding text labels in the drawings. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dees et al. (US-PGPUB 2022/0369215).
Regarding claim 1, Dees teaches an apparatus comprising: a memory storing network slice information for a plurality of devices, the network slice information identifying network slices used for each of the plurality of devices [Para 124, network slice information is stored]; and a processor configured to: determine network slices being used by the apparatus [Para 124, determines how the network slices are used by the apparatus]; determine that a network is down, or otherwise unavailable [Para 141, network is unavailable when the device is out of coverage area]; determine the network slices being used for the plurality of devices [Para 124 and 130, determines which network slides are being used and how]; and establish a device-to-device (D2D) communication with a first group of a plurality of devices from the plurality of devices based on at least one network slice used for each of the first group of the plurality of devices matching at least one network slice being used by the apparatus [Abstract, Para 133 and 134, D2D communication is established with relay based on the network slice being used, Fig. 4].
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Dees teaches a network interface configured to receive the network slice information for the plurality of devices via a D2D discovery process with the plurality of devices [Para 142-143].
Regarding claim 4, Dees teaches a network interface configured to transmit information on a current network slice utilized by the apparatus to the plurality of devices via a D2D discovery process with the plurality of devices [Para 142-143].
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Dees teaches virtual networks created on top of a common physical infrastructure [Para 124].
Regarding claim 7, Dees teaches an apparatus comprising: a network interface configured to receive network slice information for a plurality of devices via a D2D discovery process with the plurality of devices, or alternatively receive the network slice information for the plurality of devices via network infrastructure equipment prior to the network being determined as down or otherwise unavailable [Para 142-143]; and a processor configured to: determine network slices being used by the apparatus [Para 124]; determine that a network is down, or otherwise unavailable [Para 141]; determine the network slices being used for the plurality of devices [Para 124 and 130]; and establish a device-to-device (D2D) communication with a first group of a plurality of devices from the plurality of devices based on at least one network slice used for each of the first group of the plurality of devices matching at least one network slice being used by the apparatus [Abstract, Para 133 and 134, Fig. 4]; wherein the network slices being used by the apparatus comprises virtual networks created on top of a common physical infrastructure [Para 124].
Regarding claim 9, Dees teaches a method comprising the steps of: determining network slices being used by an apparatus [Para 124, determines how the network slices are used by the apparatus]; determining that a network is down, or otherwise unavailable [Para 141, network is unavailable when the device is out of coverage area]; determining network slices being used for the plurality of devices [Para 124 and 130, determines which network slides are being used and how]; and establishing a device-to-device (D2D) communication with a first group of a plurality of devices from the plurality of devices based on at least one network slice used for each of the first group of the plurality of device matching at least one network slice being used by the apparatus [Abstract, Para 133 and 134, D2D communication is established with relay based on the network slice being used, Fig. 4].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 8 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ha et al. (USPN 12,634,373) teaches transmitting request message including a session reporting rule (SRR) to a user plane function (UPF), where the SRR includes information on an address. Report request message is received from the UPF based on the information on the address during a period included in the SRR.
Ramachandran et al. (US-PGPUB 2024/0121572) teaches a relay node function activated by a network controller device. An apparatus provides wireless connectivity to wireless communication devices within a target geographical area and receives information about the target geographical area.
Nawrot et al. (US-PGPUB 2024/0015694) teaches receiving a message from a network node. The message includes a request to page a communication device and single-network slice selection assistance information, (S-NSSAI) and/or a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier (ID) associated with the request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDRAHAS PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights