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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 09/16/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1 – 13 are currently pending in the instant application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4, 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528,659, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “initiating an N2 based handover procedure” between source AMF and target AMF is an inter-AMF handover procedure in 5G network triggered by NG-RAN, and because omission of element “receiving, from a source new generation-radio access network (NG-RAN), a handover required message for initiating an N2 based handover procedure” as in the instant application in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claims 6 – 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 – 10, 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528,659, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “initiating an N2 based handover procedure” between source AMF and target AMF is an inter-AMF handover procedure in 5G network triggered by NG-RAN, and because omission of element “receiving, from a source new generation-radio access network (NG-RAN), a handover required message for initiating an N2 based handover procedure” as in the instant application in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528,659, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “an N2 based handover procedure” between source AMF and target AMF is an inter-AMF handover procedure in 5G network, thus missing “an N2 based handover procedure” as in the instant application in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claims 1 - 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4, 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,349, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “initiating an N2 based handover procedure” between source AMF and target AMF is an inter-AMF handover procedure in 5G network triggered by NG-RAN, and because omission of element “receiving, from a source new generation-radio access network (NG-RAN), a handover required message for initiating an N2 based handover procedure” as in the instant application in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claims 6 – 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 – 10, 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,349, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “initiating an N2 based handover procedure” between source AMF and target AMF is an inter-AMF handover procedure in 5G network triggered by NG-RAN, and because omission of element “receiving, from a source new generation-radio access network (NG-RAN), a handover required message for initiating an N2 based handover procedure” as in the instant application in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,349, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “an N2 based handover procedure” between source AMF and target AMF is an inter-AMF handover procedure in 5G network, thus missing “an N2 based handover procedure” as in the instant application in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 5 – 7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi Fard et al. (hereinafter “Talebi Fard” (Pub # US 2020/0314701 A1) in view of C1-196441 (Preventing UE waiting for completion of NSSAA indefinitely).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Talebi Fard discloses a method performed by a source access and mobility function (AMF) entity (see S-AMF in FIG. 21) in a wireless communication system (see [0012] for 5G system), the method comprising:
receiving, from a source new generation-radio access network (NG-RAN) (see S-NG-RAN in FIG.21), a handover required message for initiating an N2 based handover procedure (see FIG. 21, [0286], [0296] for the source gNB transmits a handover required message to a source AMF for one or more potential target gNB in an N2 handover process relocating an AMF, wherein the handover request message comprises the one or more closed access group identifiers associated with the UE, the closed access group restriction indicator (a CAG-only indication, a CAG-only UE indication, a cell mobility restriction for the UE, and/or the like), the requested NSSAI for the CAG, mapping of (requested) NSSAI for the CAG, allowed NSSAIs per CAG, default configured NSSAI indication for one or more CAGs associated with the wireless device/UE, and/or the like); and
transferring, to a target AMF entity (see T-AMF in FIG. 21), a message including a network slice specific status list for at least one single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) to indicate status of the at least one S-NSSAI during the N2 based handover procedure (see FIG. 21, [0286], [0296] for the S-AMF forwards relocation request message, and/or the handover request message to the T-AMF during N2 handover procedure, the message comprises the requested NSSAI for the CAG, mapping of (requested) NSSAI for the CAG, allowed NSSAIs per CAG, default configured NSSAI indication for one or more CAGs associated with the wireless device/UE, see [0301] - [0303] for the S-AMF sends to the T-AMF, a Namf_Communication_CreateUEContext Request, which comprise N2 Information (e.g., Target ID, Source to Target transparent container, SM N2 information list, PDU Session IDs, Service area restriction, and/or the like), UE context information (e.g., SUPI, Allowed NSSAI for each Access Type if available, Tracing Requirements, the list of PDU Session IDs along with the corresponding SMF information and the corresponding S-NSSAI(s), PCF ID(s), DNN, and/or the like).
Talebi Fard teaches in [0085] that the mapping of requested NSSAI, which may be the mapping of one or more S-NSSAI of the requested NSSAI to the S-NSSAIs of the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN, to ensure that the network is able to verify whether the S-NSSAI(s) in the requested NSSAI are permitted based on the subscribed S-NSSAIs, see [0093] – [0094] for upon completion of NAS security function setup, the AMF initiates NGAP procedure to enable 5G-AN use it for securing procedures with the UE, wherein the 5G-AN may use the security context to protect the messages exchanged with the UE, thus Talebi Fard obvious teaches a network slice specific authentication and authorization (NSSAA) status list for at least one S-NSSAI to indicate that status of the at least one S-NSSAI.
Talebi Fard does not disclose specifically that a NSSAA status of the at least one S-NSSAI is pending.
In an analogous art, C1 discloses a NSSAA status of the at least one S-NSSAI is pending (see C1, section 2 for the AMF determines to trigger the NSSAA, see section 3 for the AMF (i.e., S-AMF) maintains also the pending NSSAA status in UE context information, then the new AMF (i.e., T-AMF) can retrieves NSSAA UE context information from old AMF and start a timer for S-NSSAI that the NSSAA has not been completed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Talebi Fard which including the UE context information sent from S-AMF to T-AMF, and have the AMF (i.e., S-AMF) maintains also the pending NSSAA status in UE context information, then the new AMF (i.e., T-AMF) can retrieves NSSAA UE context information from old AMF (i.e., S-AMF) and start a timer for S-NSSAI that the NSSAA has not been completed, thereby provides the way the new AMF handles the handover process while the NSSAA is pending in the old AMF such that preventing UE waiting for completion of NSSAA indefinitely, as discussed by C1 (see C1).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Talebi Fard in view of C1 disclose wherein the NSSAA status list is used, by the target AMF entity, to determine whether to perform an NSSAA procedure for the at least one S-NSSAI, and wherein in case that the NSSAA procedure is ongoing for at least one S-NSSAI, the NSSAA status list indicates that the NSSAA status of the at least one S-NSSAI is pending (see C1, section 2, section 3 with the same rational as in claims 1 and 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Talebi Fard in view of C1 disclose wherein the NSSAA status list is included in a CreateUEContext request message transferred from the source AMF entity to the target AMF entity, the CreateUEContext request message being used to create a user equipment (UE) context in the target AMF entity (see Talebi Fard, [0302] – [0303] for the S-AMF sends to the T-AMF, a Namf_Communication_ CreateUEContext Request, which comprise N2 Information, and also see C1, section 3 for the NSSAA procedure including UE context information of S-NSSAI).
Regarding claim 11, Talebi Fard discloses a method performed by a target access and mobility function (AMF) entity (see T-AMF in FIG. 21) in a wireless communication system (see [0012] for 5G system), the method comprising:
receiving, from a source AMF entity (see S-AMF in FIG. 21), a message including a network slice specific status list for at least one single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) to indicate status of the at least one S-NSSAI during an N2 based handover procedure status of the at least one S-NSSAI during the N2 based handover procedure (see FIG. 21, [0286], [0296] for the S-AMF forwards relocation request message, and/or the handover request message to the T-AMF during N2 handover procedure, the message comprises the requested NSSAI for the CAG, mapping of (requested) NSSAI for the CAG, allowed NSSAIs per CAG, default configured NSSAI indication for one or more CAGs associated with the wireless device/UE, see [0301] - [0303] for the S-AMF sends to the T-AMF, a Namf_Communication_CreateUEContext Request, which comprise N2 Information (e.g., Target ID, Source to Target transparent container, SM N2 information list, PDU Session IDs, Service area restriction, and/or the like), UE context information (e.g., SUPI, Allowed NSSAI for each Access Type if available, Tracing Requirements, the list of PDU Session IDs along with the corresponding SMF information and the corresponding S-NSSAI(s), PCF ID(s), DNN, and/or the like).
Talebi Fard teaches in [0085] that the mapping of requested NSSAI, which may be the mapping of one or more S-NSSAI of the requested NSSAI to the S-NSSAIs of the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN, to ensure that the network is able to verify whether the S-NSSAI(s) in the requested NSSAI are permitted based on the subscribed S-NSSAIs, see [0093] – [0094] for upon completion of NAS security function setup, the AMF initiates NGAP procedure to enable 5G-AN use it for securing procedures with the UE, wherein the 5G-AN may use the security context to protect the messages exchanged with the UE, thus Talebi Fard obvious teaches a network slice specific authentication and authorization (NSSAA) status list for at least one S-NSSAI to indicate that status of the at least one S-NSSAI.
Talebi Fard does not disclose specifically that determining whether to perform an NSSAA procedure for at least one S-NSSAI based on the NSSAA status list, and wherein in case that the NSSAA procedure is ongoing for at least one S-NSSAI, the NSSAA status list indicates that the NSSAA status of the at least one S-NSSAI is pending.
In an analogous art, C1 discloses determining whether to perform an NSSAA procedure for at least one S-NSSAI based on the NSSAA status list, and wherein in case that the NSSAA procedure is ongoing for at least one S-NSSAI, the NSSAA status list indicates that the NSSAA status of the at least one S-NSSAI is pending (see C1, section 2 for the AMF determines to trigger the NSSAA, see section 3 for the AMF (i.e., S-AMF) maintains also the pending NSSAA status in UE context information, then the new AMF (i.e., T-AMF) can retrieves NSSAA UE context information from old AMF and start a timer for S-NSSAI that the NSSAA has not been completed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Talebi Fard which including the UE context information sent from S-AMF to T-AMF, and have the AMF (i.e., S-AMF) maintains also the pending NSSAA status in UE context information, then the new AMF (i.e., T-AMF) can retrieves NSSAA UE context information from old AMF (i.e., S-AMF) and start a timer for S-NSSAI that the NSSAA has not been completed, thereby provides the way the new AMF handles the handover process while the NSSAA is pending in the old AMF such that preventing UE waiting for completion of NSSAA indefinitely, as discussed by C1 (see C1).
Regarding claim 13, Talebi Fard in view of C1 disclose wherein the NSSAA status list is included in a CreateUEContext request message transferred from the source AMF entity to the target AMF entity, the CreateUEContext request message being used to create a user equipment (UE) context in the target AMF entity (see Talebi Fard, [0302] – [0303] for the S-AMF sends to the T-AMF, a Namf_Communication_ CreateUEContext Request, which comprise N2 Information, and also see C1, section 3 for the NSSAA procedure including UE context information of S-NSSAI).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if overcome Double Patenting rejection above and rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 – 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if overcome Double Patenting rejection above and rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. 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.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights