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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant has amended the claim to include the limitation: “wherein the AI/ML transport configuration information is configured to be determined by a service level agreement (SLA) […]”. However, the original disclosure only discloses that “the AI/ML transport configuration information is determined by a service level agreement (SLA)” (¶ 29 of the specification as filed).
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, 17-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1 and 14, the applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation: “wherein the SM policy is configured to reconfigure the PDU session transporting AI/ML traffic”. However, the original disclosure only discloses that the session management function (SMF) is configured to reconfigure the PDU session (¶¶ 14, 31, and 32 of the specification as filed).
As to claims 5-7, 10-12, 17, 18, 9, 13, 19, 21, and 22, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 1 discussed above.
As to claims 23, 24, and 19, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 14 discussed above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, 17-19 and 21-24 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.
As to claim 1, the examiner is unclear how a session management policy can be configured to reconfigure a PDU session as claimed. A policy is a set of rules and guidelines for defining how something operates. It is not itself a configurable computer element for carrying out operations such as reconfiguring a PDU session. This is different from the previously claimed language of a session management function.
As to claims 5-7, 10-12, 17, 18, 9, 13, 19, 21, and 22, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 1 discussed above.
As to claim 6, the examiner is unclear on the meaning of the phrase “at least one of a traffic description”. It is unclear how a single element can be defined by “at least one of”. The remainder of the claim is directed to defining the traffic description via the language “the traffic description including one or more of a data network name (DNN), a single network slice selection assistance information (S- NSSAI), an application identifier (ID), or traffic filtering information”, and thus does not solve this problem.
As to claim 12, the examiner is unclear how “the AI/ML transport configuration information” can be “configured to be determined by a service level agreement (SLA)”. If the claimed configuration information is configured to be determined by the SLA, then it does not exist until the SLA determines its structure. Therefore, it is unclear how the configuration information can be configured to do anything prior to the SLA determining the configuration information.
As to claim 14, the examiner is unclear if the phrase “the PCF comprising:” is intended to read “the PCF entity comprising:”, as the applicant amended the PCF to be the PDF entity earlier in the claim.
As to claim 14, the examiner is unclear how a session management policy can be configured to reconfigure a PDU session as claimed. A policy is a set of rules and guidelines for defining how something operates. It is not itself a configurable computer element for carrying out operations such as reconfiguring a PDU session. This is different from the previously claimed language of a session management function.
As to claims 23, 24, and 19, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on, and therefore inclusion of, the rejected subject matter of claim 14 discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is 571-270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 PM ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
7/9/26
Prosecution Insights