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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4th November 2024, 5th December 2025, 7th January 2026 and 16th June 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
---------- ---------- ----------
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please insert -- Protocol Data Unit -- prior to the first occurrence of the “PDU” term.
Appropriate correction is required.
========== ========== ==========
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
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.
The limitation of claim 1 which cites “a control unit configured to determine… (elaborate)” uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure, material, or acts recited in the claim.
The applicant’s specification mentions “the microprocessor 2031 and the memory (ROM, RAM) 2032 in the electronic control unit 2010” in paragraph 0130 on page 24 and figures 11 and 12 signify that the control unit is a structure.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that the phrase “means for” or “step for” or the generic placeholder is clearly not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, or may present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites 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.
========== ========== ==========
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Foti et al (US 2024/0323708 A1).
Claim 1 (similarly Claim 4). Foti shows network node (figs. 2 – 9 and 10: Central NF) comprising: a reception unit (fig. 10: network interface) configured to, in a case where a PDU session has been established, receive a request for a session establishment for communication with a network node that controls an application ([0064]: when the UE requests establishment of a PDN connection or a PDU session, the SMF+PGW-C checks its internal state for the UE against the S-NSSAI for which the PDN connection or PDU session is requested), the request including information for identifying a user of the network node that controls the application ([0063]: the SMF+PGW-C handles quotas for PDU sessions/PDN connections for S-NSSAIs subject to IWK… the SMF+PGW-C is stateful to quota application for S-NSSAIs subject to IWK); a control unit (fig. 10: processor(s)) configured to determine whether or not to permit the session establishment for the communication with the network node that controls the application, based on whether or not the PDU session is occupied by a different user that is different from the user ([0064]: the quota may have already been applied if the session is being handed over from 5GS to EPS or vice versa… if the state indicates that quota has not been applied, then the SMF+PGW-C performs a quota check for the number of PDU sessions or PDN connections for the S-NSSAI prior to permitting the request for establishment the PDU session or PDN connection); and a transmission unit (fig. 10: network interface) configured to, in a case of permitting the session establishment, transmit an indication of permitting transmission and reception of user plane data related to the application, to a network node that controls an apparatus that handles user plane data ([0064]: if the quota for the number of PDU sessions or PDN connections for the S-NSSAI has not been reached, the request is accepted, and the SMF+PGW-C increments, or causes to be incremented, the number of PDU sessions or PDN connection for the S-NSSAI; [0084]: the UDM/HSS 212 determines that the UE registration request is to be accepted and informs the Central NF 218 of a new UE registration for the S-NSSAI; [0088]: Central NF 218 responds with a message that indicates whether or not the quota has been reached… if the quota has not been reached, the SMF+PGW-C 214 determines that the PDU session establishment request is to be accepted and informs the Central NF 218 of a new PDU session being established for the S-NSSAI… the SMF+PGW-C 214 updates its internal state to reflect that this PDU session of the UE 112 for the S-NSSAI has been counted towards the number of PDU sessions/PDN connections for the S-NSSAI).
Claim 2. Foti shows the network node as claimed in claim 1, wherein the information for identifying a user is managed for each network node that controls the application ([0055]: the UE identity, e.g. Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI) and the S-NSSAI related to the PDU Session or PDN Connection), the reception unit receives the request for the session establishment for the communication with the network node that controls the application including information for identifying the network node that controls the application ([0064]: the SMF+PGW-C checks its internal state for the UE against the S-NSSAI for which the PDN connection or PDU session is requested), and the control unit determines whether or not to permit the session establishment for the communication with the network node that controls the application, based on whether or not the PDU session is occupied by a different network node that controls the application, the different network node being different from the network node that controls the application ([0064]: if the state indicates that quota has not been applied, then the SMF+PGW-C performs a quota check for the number of PDU sessions or PDN connections for the S-NSSAI prior to permitting the request for establishment the PDU session or PDN connection… if the quota for the number of PDU sessions or PDN connections for the S-NSSAI has not been reached, the request is accepted, and the SMF+PGW-C increments, or causes to be incremented, the number of PDU sessions or PDN connection for the S-NSSAI – the “quota” signifies there are different nodes in the application and network).
---------- ---------- ----------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti et al in view of Srivastava et al (US 2023/0156649 A1).
Claim 3. Foti shows the network node as claimed in claim 1; Foti does not expressly describe wherein the information for identifying a user is managed for each group to which the network node that controls the application belongs, the reception unit receives the request for the session establishment for the communication with the network node that controls the application, including information for identifying the group to which the network node that controls the application belongs, and the control unit determines whether or not to permit the session establishment for the communication with the network node that controls the application, based on whether or not the PDU session is occupied by a different group that is different from the group.Srivastava teaches features of: information for identifying a user is managed for each group to which a network node that controls an application belongs ([0038]: an NF Set is a group of interchangeable NF instances of the same type, supporting the same services and the same network slice; [0039]: a logical, end-to-end network slice may have predetermined capabilities, traffic characteristics, and Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and may include the virtualized resources required to service the needs of a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) or group of subscribers, including UPF 120, SMF 118, and PCF 116), receiving a request for a session establishment for the communication with the network node that controls the application, including information for identifying the group to which the network node that controls the application belongs ([0116]: the control plane function may receive, from the UE, a message which indicates a session establishment request for establishing a session in the network slice), and determining whether or not to permit the session establishment for a communication with the network node that controls the application, based on whether or not the PDU session is occupied by a different group that is different from the group ([0116]: the control plane function may obtain a rejection indication from the quota validation procedure in relation to the maximum number of sessions permitted in the network slice).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the features as taught by Srivastava in the network node of Foti to improve slice resource management for reducing negative impacts of slice quotas in mobile networks.
========== ========== ==========
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
1. Wang et al, US 2023/0276352 A1: a method comprising at a user equipment (UE), receiving from an application a network request to access a network slice selected from a plurality of network slices of a network; and in response to the network request, establishing, at the UE, a communication session with the selected network slice based on permission criteria associated with the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xavier Szewai Wong whose telephone number is 571.270.1780. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:30 am - 8:30 pm Mon to Fri.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571.270.1215. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/XAVIER S WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415 5th September 2026
Prosecution Insights