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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the Applicant's submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
Examiner’s Remarks
Claims 5-12 are withdrawn as of July 31, 2025, without traverse.
Claims 1-4 are examined.
This application contains are drawn to an invention nonelected with traverse. A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims and 16-20 or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Applicants are reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention with Applicant’s amendment and response to this non-final office action.
A complete response should be made to the action since the next action is expected to be a final action.
Claim analysis - 35 USC § 112
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 3-4 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tiwari et.al., (US Publication No. 2021/0029579 A1 and Tiwari hereinafter).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Tiwari teaches a method of user equipment (UE), the method comprising: communicating with a communication apparatus (i.e., The AN transmits, to the UE, information indicating that the AMF/Slice is recovering, in response to step 1. The information indicating that the AMF/Slice is recovering may be broadcasted by the AN) Para [0163] and (i.e., a UE receives a first AN signaling message from the AN containing list of S-NSSAI and indicating the UE to release the network resources then the UE will release all the network resources related to the S-NSSAI present in the list but keep the PDU session(s) established. ) Para [0175]; and sending a Registration Request message (i.e., connection is established during the service request procedure, the S-NSSAI for which the service request procedure is initiated is not included in the AN signaling message. Since a AN signaling Request message doesn't contain requested NSSAI during AN signaling establishment procedure therefore the RAN cannot perform RAN overload control procedure related to a congested network slice. If a lot of UE is initiating service request procedure to establish a PDU session then AN cannot reject AN connection establishment and send the message to AMF or SMF then the AMF/SMF gets further congested Para [0035], wherein the Registration Request message (i.e., connection is established during the service request procedure, the S-NSSAI for which the service request procedure is initiated is not included in the AN signaling message. Since a AN signaling Request message doesn't contain requested NSSAI during AN signaling establishment procedure therefore the RAN cannot perform RAN overload control procedure related to a congested network slice. If a lot of UE is initiating service request procedure to establish a PDU session then AN cannot reject AN connection establishment and send the message to AMF or SMF then the AMF/SMF gets further congested Para [0035], includes Requested Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) (i.e., AN message to the UE contains an information element indicating network slice congestion together with list of S-NSSAI and wait time for each S-NSSAI in the list. When the UE receives the AN message containing an information element indicating network slice congestion then the UE determines (considers) that there is congestion in the network slices corresponding to the S-NSSAI(s)) Para [0141], wherein the Requested NSSAI includes first Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (i.e., first Single Network Slicing Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) list that includes one or more S-NSSAIs indicating one or more congested network slices respectively receive, from the UE via the transceiver, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including a second S-NSSAI list that includes one or more S-NSSAIs, and transmit, to the UE via the transceiver, an RRC Release message) Para [0038], and wherein the first S-NSSAI and second S-NSSAI in Pending NSSAI are associated with at least one common Network Slice Simultaneous Registration Group (NSSRG) value (i.e., e network slice(s) the AMF sends a N2 message (NGAP OVERLOAD START) containing a list of S-NSSAI which are congested and optionally, the wait time for each S-NSSAI. The value of the wait time is determined by the local congestion situations in the AMF related to the network slices. If the AMF detects general NAS level congestion, then the network indicates it to the (R)AN node and optionally contains wait time which value is determined by the AMF depending on the network condition in the AMF) Para [0146].
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Tiwari teaches further comprising: receiving the Pending NSSAI from the communication apparatus e network slice(s) the AMF sends a N2 message (NGAP OVERLOAD START) containing a list of S-NSSAI which are congested and optionally, the wait time for each S-NSSAI. The value of the wait time is determined by the local congestion situations in the AMF related to the network slices. If the AMF detects general NAS level congestion, then the network indicates it to the (R)AN node and optionally contains wait time which value is determined by the AMF depending on the network condition in the AMF) Para [0146].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tiwari et al., (US Patent Publication No. 20210029579 A1), “Distinguishing between general NAS level congestion and S-NSSAI related congestion control” (January 28, 2021), discloses receiving a N2 message containing a list of S-NSSAI of the congested network slice from an AMF and means for sending the list of S-NSSAI and a wait timer for each S-NSSAI in the list in first AN signaling message to an UE when receiving, from the UE, second signaling message containing the list of S-NSSAI to establish an AN signaling connection, the S-NSSAI being indicated in the N2 message as congested by the AMF.
Ianev et al., (US Patent No. 11160015 B2), “Isolated network slice selection” (October 26, 2021), discloses transmitting, to a network, a message for registration of the UE. The message comprises information related to one or more network slices that are not compatible with at least one allowed network slice.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights