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 .
The amendment filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1-15, and 18 in the amendment. Claims 17, 19, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-16, and 18 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 and 18 filed on 07/09/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner attempted to reach Applicant’s Attorney to forward prosecution. Applicant’s Attorney is encouraged to contact the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-10 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
Regarding claim 8, claim limitation recites “the AI/ML operation” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the AI/ML operation” is referring to “an AI/ML operation” in claim 1, line 10, or to “AI/ML operation” in claim 8, line 4, or to different/distinct AI/ML operation.
Regarding claim 9, claim limitation recites “the AI/ML operation” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the AI/ML operation” is referring to “an AI/ML operation” in claim 1, line 10, or to “AI/ML operation” in claim 8, line 4, or to different/distinct AI/ML operation.
Regarding claim 9, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in lines 5-6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in lines 2-3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation recites “the multiple UEs” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the multiple UEs” is referring to “multiple UE” in claim 2, line 8, or “multiple UEs” in claim 2, line 9, or “multiple UEs” in claim 4, lines 2-3, or to different/distinct multiple UEs.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 11-16, and 18 are allowed.
Claims 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watfa et al. (US 2012/0002545 A1). The MME is informed to perform congestion control for at least one WTRU, or based on any operation and maintenance configuration or policy, the MME, upon reception of a NAS uplink transport message, should not simply discard the message but may also respond to the WTRU via a new or existing NAS message, and inform the WTRU that there is congestion at the MSC/VLR, and provide the necessary backoff timer value to the WTRU ([0085]).
Shu et al. (US 2018/0007720 A1). Receive, in a process of performing congestion control or overload control, a non-access stratum NAS request message sent by the UE ([0018]); receive an accept message that is corresponding to the NAS request message and that is sent by the mobility management network element, where the accept message is sent by the mobility management network element according to the service type indication when the mobility management network element performs congestion control or overload control ([0032]).
Xu et al. (US 2024/0236765 A1). Terminal device notifies an application server of the congestion based on the access stratum control message ([0185]).
Zhao et al. (US 2023/0397044 A1). SMF network element may send the second congestion control parameter information to the terminal device by using a non-access stratum message.
Methenni et al. (US 2025/0254512 A1). The SMF may forward the message to the AMF, which may send the message to the WTRU through a NAS message; the WTRU may receive the acknowledgement and PDU session modification request from the network; the AF may provide the UDM with information to enable random selection of WTRUs providing their consent to participate in particular service enhancement; the UDM may control traffic peaks by limiting the amount of traffic for a particular service operation, such as Federated Learning for AI/ML applications.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 H 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.
Kaylee Huang
08/06/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights