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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 08/29/24.
Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 08/29/24 & 02/06/25 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
6. The drawings filed on 08/29/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
7. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggested to change the title to: “ENHANCE PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMNET PROCEDURES FOR ADAPTATION OF TSN REQUIREMENTS”
Double Patenting
8. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
9. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12, 108, 350 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claims 1: Zhang discloses a method in a user plane node (See Col. 16; Claim 1; line 1), the method comprising:
determining port management information comprising a first port number of a logical time sensitive network (TSN) bridge at a side of a terminal device and
configuration information of the logical TSN bridge at a side of the user plane node; and
sending the determined port management information to a session management node (See Col. 16; Claim 1; line 48-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-7 would be allowed if amended or file a terminal disclaimer (TD) against the parent application No. 12, 108, 350 and specification objection
Conclusion
11. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Cui et al. 2022/0132527 A1 (Title: a scheduling restriction method for intra-frequency measurement…) (See Para. 0010, 0013 & 0059).
B. Chou et al. 2022/0110155 A1 (Title: Random access channel (RACH) optimization and automatic) (See FIG. 3, Para. 0033 & 0061).
C. Sahin et al. 2022/0116822 A1 (Title: 5G network having an external multi-path transport protocol) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0067, 0100 & claim 12).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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 Moore can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights