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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent REPUBLIC OF INDIA patent application No. IN 202211044606 filed on 08/04/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/19/2024, have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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)(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 1-4 are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP et al. (TSG SA WG2 #151E S2-2205158), hereinafter 3GPP).
Consider Claim 1, 3GPP discloses a method of an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) in a network that provides access to a localized service comprising:
performing registration with a plurality of User Equipments (UEs) for the localized service; and ( section 6.X.3 (1 & 2), the AMF is configured with the maximum number of returning UEs for the given units of time for each of home network. The UE registers to the hosting network for localized service. The AMF stores the home network of the UE (see figure 6.X.3-1)).
controlling a deregistration of part of the plurality of UEs, in a case where the localized service is ended. (Section 6.X.3 (3), after Localized service is terminated, the AMF triggers deregistration in a sequence manner SO that the number of returning UEs does not exceed the configured maximum number of returning UEs. The AMF indicates that localized service is terminated in the Deregistration Request message. The UE returns to the home network (see figure 6.X.3-1)).
Consider Claim 2, 3GPP discloses the method according to claim1,
wherein the controlling the deregistration includes sending a deregistration request message to the part of the plurality of UEs. ( Section 6.X.3 (3), the AMF indicates that
localized service is terminated in the Deregistration Request message. The UE returns to the home network. Section 6.X.4, the AMF is configured with maximum number of returning UEs for the given units of time for each of home network).
Consider Claim 3, 3GPP discloses a method of a User Equipment (UE) comprising:
performing registration with an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) in a network that provides access to a localized service to a plurality of UEs that includes the UE; and ( section 6.X.3 (1 & 2), the AMF is configured with the maximum number of returning UEs for the given units of time for each of home network. The UE registers to the hosting network for localized service. The AMF stores the home network of the UE (see figure 6.X.3-1)).
performing a deregistration with the AMF, in a case where the localized service is ended, wherein the deregistration is performed with part of the plurality of UEs. (Section 6.X.3 (3), after Localized service is terminated, the AMF triggers deregistration in a sequence manner SO that the number of returning UEs does not exceed the configured maximum number of returning UEs. The AMF indicates that localized service is terminated in the Deregistration Request message. The UE returns to the home network (see figure 6.X.3-1)).
Consider Claim 4, 3GPP discloses the method according to claim 3,
wherein the performing the deregistration includes receiving a deregistration request message, and (section 6.X.4, if the AMF indicates that Localized service is terminated in the Deregistration Request message, the UE finishes deregistration procedure and returns to the home network).
wherein the deregistration request message is received by the part of the plurality of UEs. (Section 6.X.4, the AMF is configured with maximum number of returning UEs for the given units of time for each of home network).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by 3GPP et al. (TSG SA WG2 #151E S2-2205158), hereinafter 3GPP) in view of Nooren et al. (US 20220417758 A1, hereinafter Nooren).
Consider Claim 5, 3GPP discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) in a network that provides access to a localized service comprising:
perform registration with a plurality of User Equipments (UEs) for the localized service; and ( section 6.X.3 (1 & 2), the AMF is configured with the maximum number of returning UEs for the given units of time for each of home network. The UE registers to the hosting network for localized service. The AMF stores the home network of the UE (see figure 6.X.3-1)).
control a deregistration of part of the plurality of UEs, in a case where the localized service is ended. (Section 6.X.3 (3), after Localized service is terminated, the AMF triggers deregistration in a sequence manner SO that the number of returning UEs does not exceed the configured maximum number of returning UEs. The AMF indicates that localized service is terminated in the Deregistration Request message. The UE returns to the home network (see figure 6.X.3-1)).
3GPP discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach at least one memory configured to store instructions; and.
However, Nooren teaches at least one memory configured to store instructions; and (paragraph 0170, Instructions for the computer, e.g., executable code, may be stored on a computer readable medium 500. Examples of computer readable mediums include memory devices).
Nooren teaches at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Paragraph 0172, The data processing system 1000 may include at least one processor 1002 coupled to memory elements 1004 through a system bus 1006. data processing system may be implemented as a computer that is suitable for storing and/or executing program code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify by incorporating the Sequential deregistration by hosting network of 3GPP with the control system that enables re-registration of user equipment (UE) on an alternative network of Nooren. The motivation to do so would be to develop a comprehensive study on enhanced support of non-public networks and hosting networks for deregistration and registration in wireless communication. In addition, proposing a network may be a communication network that also provides further functions like storage and processing, where communication and further functions are together called services provided by the network.
Consider Claim 6, 3GPP discloses the AMF according to claim 5,
wherein the performing the deregistration includes receiving a deregistration request message, and (section 6.X.4, if the AMF indicates that Localized service is terminated in the Deregistration Request message, the UE finishes deregistration procedure and returns to the home network).
wherein the deregistration request message is received by the part of the plurality of UEs. (Section 6.X.4, the AMF is configured with maximum number of returning UEs for the given units of time for each of home network).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights