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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-10 are elected without traverse, see reason under Election/Restrictions section.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, direct to storing at least one flag in a first state at a first time, H04W4/00.
II. Claims 11-18, direct to sending, at a first time, a first policy control set-up request for setting up a policy association for at least one user equipment, H04L41/0894.
III. Claim 19, direct to subscribing for information relating to at least one user equipment, H04W4/60.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II, and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
The combination in claims 1-10 has utility such as in services specially adapted for wireless communication networks.
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed in claims 11-18 because sending, at a first time, a first policy control set-up request for setting up a policy association for at least one user equipment in the claimed subcombination are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination in claims 11-18 has separate utility such as in policy-based network configuration management.
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed in claim 19 because subscribing for information relating to at least one user equipment in the claimed subcombination are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination in claim 19 has separate utility such as in subscription-based services.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups/inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
Applicant’s election of group/invention I in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Also, the applicant has forfeited the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, because the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out all errors to be relied upon in the petition in a timely filed traverse (MPEP 818.01(c)). That is because the applicant merely provides a generic statement, on page 1 of the reply filed on 02/27/2026, “Applicant hereby provisionally elects with traverse to prosecute the claims of Group I (Claims 1-10) and expressly reserves the right to file divisional applications or take such other appropriate measures deemed necessary to protect the inventions in the remaining claims.” The aforementioned applicant’s statement is a conclusionary statement that does not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, because the applicant does not provide any type of evidence that supports his assertion that the subject matter of claims 1-19 is interrelated to the extent that a search and examination of the subject matter of those claims would not be overly burdensome. The aforementioned applicant’s broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Since the election with traverse is accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction, the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) has become an election without traverse. In addition, since the applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election is being treated as an election without traverse and is being indicated to the applicant.
According to MPEP 818.01:
Election in reply to a requirement for restriction may be made either with or without an accompanying traverse of the requirement. A complete reply to a restriction requirement must include an election even if applicant traverses the requirement.
A traverse is a request for reconsideration of a requirement to restrict that must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse.
According to MPEP 818.01(a):
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
According to MPEP 818.01(c):
To preserve the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, all errors to be relied upon in the petition must be distinctly and specifically pointed out in a timely filed traverse by the applicant. If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The formal drawings received on 09/13/2024 have been entered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210136674) in view of Guo (US 20260032443).
1. Lee teaches:
An apparatus comprising – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (A method and an apparatus for effectively providing a service in a wireless communication system.)
at least one processor; and – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The one or more programs recorded on the computer-readable recording medium are configured to be executable by one or more processors in a device.)
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The one or more programs recorded on the computer-readable recording medium are configured to be executable by one or more processors in a device.)
wherein the at least one flag is associated with at least one user equipment and – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (Indication whether to enable/disable quota on maximum number of UEs.)
receiving, at a second time which is after the first time, a request from a network exposure function indicating that the at least one flag should be updated to a second state, – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI stored in the PCF 123 in operation 220 is set to enable. The PCF 123 supporting the slice policy associated with the S-NSSAI may be the same as or different from a PCF managing a UE policy, an AM policy, or an SM policy. The NEF 129 may receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212.)
wherein a purpose of the policy association is to satisfy service requirements of a service which has been or will be provisioned at the at least one user equipment; and – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (When the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI A stored in the PCF 123 is changed to enable in operation 514, the PCF 123 may set the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs to enable and transmit the indication and the slice policy information associated with the S-NSSAI A to the second NF 500 in operations 518 and 520. In this case, the second NF 500 may be the AMF 121. The second NF 500 (the AMF 121) may apply the UE number control during the UE registration procedure, based on the indication received from the PCF 123.)
in response to receiving the request, updating the flag to the second state. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The indication for the slice policy information received in operation 512 is set to enable, the PCF 123 may determine that the slice policy association establishment for the S-NSSAI is required.)
Lee does not explicitly teach:
storing at least one flag in a first state at a first time, the first state indicates that no policy association is required for the at least one user equipment; wherein the second state indicates that a policy association is required for the at least one user equipment.
However, Guo teaches:
storing at least one flag in a first state at a first time, – in paragraphs [0005]-[0429] (When the security algorithm is a null algorithm, it indicates that the security policy is “not required.”)
the first state indicates that no policy association is required for the at least one user equipment; – in paragraphs [0005]-[0429] (When the security algorithm is a null algorithm, it indicates that the security policy is “not required.”)
wherein the second state indicates that a policy association is required for the at least one user equipment, – in paragraphs [0005]-[0429] (When the security algorithm is a non-null algorithm, it indicates that the security policy is “required”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Guo to include storing at least one flag in a first state at a first time, the first state indicates that no policy association is required for the at least one user equipment; wherein the second state indicates that a policy association is required for the at least one user equipment, as taught by Lee, in paragraphs [0002]-[0062], to provide a technique for managing a network slice in a wireless communication system.
2. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: storing a transaction identifier which is specific to the request. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The AF may add, to the AF request message, at least one value from among AF ID indicating the AF, S-NSSAI indicating a slice, the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI, the maximum number of sessions, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of sessions, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum data rates, and the usage monitoring control condition.)
3. An apparatus according to claim 2, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving multiple requests and multiple corresponding transaction identifiers. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (the AF may add, to the AF request message, at least one value from among AF ID indicating the AF, S-NSSAI indicating a slice, the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI, the maximum number of sessions, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of sessions, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum data rates, and the usage monitoring control condition.)
5. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: causing one or more other entities to update the flag to the second state, the one or more other entities comprising at least one of the following: a Unified Data Repository; or an Access and Mobility Management Function. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (When the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI A stored in the PCF 123 is changed to enable in operation 514, the PCF 123 may set the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs to enable and transmit the indication and the slice policy information associated with the S-NSSAI A to the second NF 500 in operations 518 and 520. In this case, the second NF 500 may be the AMF 121. The second NF 500 (the AMF 121) may apply the UE number control during the UE registration procedure, based on the indication received from the PCF 123. The UDM 124 may be an NF that stores and manages information about a subscriber. The AMF 121 may be an NF of managing access of the UE 100 to a wireless network and mobility of the UE 100.)
6. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the policy association comprises at least one of the following: a user equipment behaviour policy; an access management policy; or a session management policy. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The 5GC 120 may include network functions (NFs), such as an access and mobility management function (AMF) 121, a session management function (SMF) 122, a policy control function (PCF) 123.)
7. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the service which has been or will be provisioned at the at least one user equipment is provisioned by an application function. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (the AF may add, to the AF request message, at least one value from among AF ID indicating the AF, S-NSSAI indicating a slice, the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI, the maximum number of sessions, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of sessions, the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum data rates, and the usage monitoring control condition.)
8. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one flag comprises a first flag, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: storing a second flag, wherein the second flag is configured to be updated between the first state and the second state in response to an instruction from an operation and maintenance node. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (When the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs associated with the S-NSSAI A stored in the PCF 123 is changed to enable in operation 514, the PCF 123 may set the indication whether to enable/disable the quota on the maximum number of UEs to enable and transmit the indication and the slice policy information associated with the S-NSSAI A to the second NF 500 in operations 518 and 520. In this case, the second NF 500 may be the AMF 121. The second NF 500 (the AMF 121) may apply the UE number control during the UE registration procedure, based on the indication received from the PCF 123.)
10. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Lee teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a unified data management node. – in paragraphs [0010]-[0356] (The 5GC 120 may include network functions (NFs), such as an access and mobility management function (AMF) 121, a session management function (SMF) 122, a policy control function (PCF) 123, unified data management (UDM) 124.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210136674) in view of Guo (US 20260032443), and further in view of Ham (US 20160135063).
4. An apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Lee and Guo does not explicitly teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: starting a timer in response to updating the flag to the second state, and reverting the flag to the first state upon expiry of the timer.
However, Ham teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: starting a timer in response to updating the flag to the second state, and reverting the flag to the first state upon expiry of the timer. – in paragraphs [0016]-[0057] (If the flag timer expires before the Modify Bearer Response message is received from the P-GW 90, the control unit 520 may form the flag reset signal for setting the DDN flag value to 0 and control to transmit the DDN message stored in the storage unit 510 from the FP board 81 to the CP board 82.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee and Guo with Ham to include wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: starting a timer in response to updating the flag to the second state, and reverting the flag to the first state upon expiry of the timer, as taught by Ham, in paragraphs [0003]-[0016], to accommodate the increased data traffic in a variety of ways while considering loads and influences of systems.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210136674) in view of Guo (US 20260032443), and further in view of Liang (US 20150223129).
9. An apparatus according to claim 8, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Lee and Guo does not explicitly teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: exposing both the first and second flags to a service consumer; or exposing only one of the first or second flags to a service consumer.
However, Liang teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: exposing both the first and second flags to a service consumer; or exposing only one of the first or second flags to a service consumer. – in paragraphs [0012]-[0154] (The subscription information supported by the UE indicates the UE is allowed to access the SIPTO@LN service, e.g., a flag indicating SIPTO@LN in the subscription information of the UE has a value indicating SIPTO Allowed including SIPTO@LN or indicating SIPTO@LN Allowed only)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee and Guo with Liang to include wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: exposing both the first and second flags to a service consumer; or exposing only one of the first or second flags to a service consumer, as taught by Liang, in paragraphs [0001]-[0017], to provide a technique for enhancing the service experience of the users and optimizing network resources usage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M..
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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.
/MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights