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 .
Examiner finds no 35 USC 101 rejections in the current claim language.
Examiner finds no credible double patenting rejections in the current claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “one or more of zero or more second features” (claim 6, lines 6 – 7; claim 6, line 12; claim 9, lines 6 – 7; claim 9, line 13) is unnecessarily lengthy; this phrase would be clearer as simply “zero or more second features”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "information" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “second information”;
Claim 23 recites the limitation "information" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “second information”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the third network node" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “a third network node”;
Claim 21 recites the limitation "A first network node" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “The first network node”;
Examiner recommends a thorough review of the claim language in order to correct other possible antecedent basis concerns.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 21, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chong et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0016544) (Method and Apparatus for Determining User Plane Function Element).
1. A method at a first network node for determining whether one or more first features are to be used for notification from the first network node to a second network node or not, the notification being subscribed by a non-direct subscription operation (Fig. 2; Fig. 4; paragraph 455 “The NWDAF/AF network element determines, based on the indirect event exposure indication, to execute indirect subscription”; paragraph 452; paragraph 453), the method comprising:
receiving information indicating whether the one or more first features are supported by the second network node or information from which whether the one or more first features are supported by the second network node is able to be derived (Fig. 2; Fig. 4; paragraph 453 “If determining that the UPF network element supports indirect subscription of the event ID, the NRF network element determines an ID of an SMF network element based on the AOI, and optionally, determines a UPF network element instance(s)”; paragraphs 453, 455); and
determining whether the one or more first features are to be used for the notification based on at least the received information (Fig. 2; Fig. 4; paragraph 455 “The NWDAF/AF network element determines, based on the indirect event exposure indication, to execute indirect subscription”; paragraphs 452, 453).
21. A first network node, comprising:
a processor (Fig. 11; paragraph 637);
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 11; paragraph 637) which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1.
23. A method at a second network node for facilitating a first network node in determining whether one or more first features are to be used for notification from the first network node to the second network node or not, the notification being subscribed by a non-direct subscription operation (Figs. 2, 4; paragraph 455 “The NWDAF/AF network element determines, based on the indirect event exposure indication, to execute indirect subscription”; paragraph 452; paragraph 453), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a third network node different from the first network node, information indicating whether the one or more first features are supported by the second network node or information from which whether the one or more first features are supported by the second network node is able to be derived (Fig. 2; Fig. 4; paragraph 453 “If determining that the UPF network element supports indirect subscription of the event ID, the NRF network element determines an ID of an SMF network element based on the AOI, and optionally, determines a UPF network element instance(s)”; paragraphs 453, 455).
28. The method of claim 23, further comprising:
receiving, from the first network node, a fifth message as the notification, with the one or more first features used based on at least the information transmitted to the third network node (Fig. 2; Fig. 4; paragraph 453 “If determining that the UPF network element supports indirect subscription of the event ID, the NRF network element determines an ID of an SMF network element based on the AOI, and optionally, determines a UPF network element instance(s)”; paragraphs 453, 455).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 – 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 24, and 26 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.
For future email communications (including interview agendas), Applicant should file the appropriate PTO form (PTO/SB/439) or file an air interview request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH R COULTER whose telephone number is (571) 272-3879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (EST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at M-H, 7:30am-2:30pm (EST) (571-270-1684). 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.
/KENNETH R COULTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
/KRC/
Prosecution Insights