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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
A method comprising:
receiving, by a policy control function from a mission critical video (MCVideo) application function, a command comprising an attribute value pair (AVP) comprising an identifier for an MCVideo service; and
sending, by the policy control function to a network function, one or more QoS policies of the MCVideo service.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a policy control function from a mission critical video (MCVideo) application function, a DIAMETER AA-Request (AAR) command comprising an attribute value pair (AVP) comprising an MCVideo-identifier of an MCVideo service; and
sending, by the policy control function to a network function, one or more QoS policies of the MCVideo service.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the command further comprises a quality of service (QoS) parameter indicating a QoS of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the QoS parameter.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the DIAMETER AAR command further comprises a quality of service (QOS) parameter indicating a QoS of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the QoS parameter.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
3. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the command further comprises a priority of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the priority of the MCVideo service.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the DIAMETER AAR command further comprises a priority of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the priority of the MCVideo service.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising enforcing, by the policy control function, the one or more QoS policies on a plurality of packets transmitted via an MCVideo bearer.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising enforcing, by the policy control function, the one or more QoS policies on a plurality of packets transmitted via an MCVideo bearer.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising establishing, for an MCVideo application, an MCVideo bearer for a mission critical video call among a plurality of wireless devices comprising:
a first wireless device; and
a second wireless device.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising establishing, for an MCVideo application, an MCVideo bearer for a mission critical video call among a plurality of wireless devices comprising:
a first wireless device; and
a second wireless device.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
6. The method of claim 1, wherein a session initiation protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority header field triggers the command.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein a session initiation protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority header field triggers the DIAMETER AAR command.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the SIP Resource-Priority header field indicates an emergency priority.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the SIP Resource-Priority header field indicates an emergency priority.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
8. A policy control function device comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the policy control function device to:
receive, from a mission critical video (MCVideo) application function, a command comprising an attribute value pair (AVP) comprising an identifier for an MCVideo service; and
send, to a network function, one or more QoS policies of the MCVideo service.
A policy control function device comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the policy control function device to:
receive, from a mission critical video (MCVideo) application function, a DIAMETER AA-Request (AAR) command comprising an attribute value pair (AVP) comprising an MCVideo-identifier of an MCVideo service; and
send, to a network function, one or more QoS policies of the MCVideo service.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
9. The policy control function device of claim 8, wherein: the command further comprises a quality of service (QoS) parameter indicating a QoS of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the QoS parameter.
12. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein: the DIAMETER AAR command further comprises a quality of service (QOS) parameter indicating a QoS of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the QoS parameter.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
10. The policy control function device of claim 8, wherein: the command further comprises a priority of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the priority of the MCVideo service.
13. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein: the DIAMETER AAR command further comprises a priority of the MCVideo service; and the one or more QoS policies are based on the priority of the MCVideo service.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
11. The policy control function device of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the policy control function device to enforce the one or more QoS policies on a plurality of packets transmitted via an MCVideo bearer.
14. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the policy control function device to enforce the one or more QoS policies on a plurality of packets transmitted via an MCVideo bearer.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
12. The policy control function device of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the policy control function device to establish, for an MCVideo application, an MCVideo bearer for a mission critical video call among a plurality of wireless devices comprising:
a first wireless device; and
a second wireless device.
15.The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the policy control function device to establish, for an MCVideo application, an MCVideo bearer for a mission critical video call among a plurality of wireless devices comprising:
a first wireless device; and
a second wireless device.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
13. The policy control function device of claim 8, wherein a session initiation protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority header field triggers the command
18. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein a session initiation protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority header field triggers the DIAMETER AAR command.
Claim 14 s rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
14. The policy control function device of claim 13, wherein the SIP Resource-Priority header field indicates an emergency priority.
19. The policy control function device of claim 18, wherein the SIP Resource-Priority header field indicates an emergency priority.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a policy control function device, cause the policy control function device to:
receive, from a mission critical video (MCVideo) application function, a command comprising an attribute value pair (AVP) comprising an identifier for an MCVideo service; and
send, to a network function, one or more QoS policies of the MCVideo service.
11. A policy control function device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the policy control function device to:
receive, from a mission critical video (MCVideo) application function, a DIAMETER AA-Request (AAR) command comprising an attribute value pair (AVP) comprising an MCVideo-identifier of an MCVideo service; and
send, to a network function, one or more QoS policies of the MCVideo service.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein:
the command further comprises a quality of service (QoS) parameter indicating a QoS of the MCVideo service; and
the one or more QoS policies are based on the QoS parameter.
12. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein: the DIAMETER AAR command further comprises a quality of service (QOS) parameter indicating a QoS of the MCVideo service; and
the one or more QoS policies are based on the QoS parameter.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein: the command further comprises a priority of the MCVideo service; and
the one or more QoS policies are based on the priority of the MCVideo service.
13. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein: the DIAMETER AAR command further comprises a priority of the MCVideo service; and
the one or more QoS policies are based on the priority of the MCVideo service.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the policy control function device to enforce the one or more QoS policies on a plurality of packets transmitted via an MCVideo bearer.
14. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the policy control function device to enforce the one or more QoS policies on a plurality of packets transmitted via an MCVideo bearer.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the policy control function device to establish, for an MCVideo application, an MCVideo bearer for a mission critical video call among a plurality of wireless devices comprising:
a first wireless device; and
a second wireless device.
15.The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the policy control function device to establish, for an MCVideo application, an MCVideo bearer for a mission critical video call among a plurality of wireless devices comprising:
a first wireless device; and
a second wireless device.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations of the claim are included in claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,196..
Pending Application
US 12,101,196
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein a session initiation protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority header field triggers the command.
18. The policy control function device of claim 11, wherein a session initiation protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority header field triggers the DIAMETER AAR command.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID M ELNOUBI whose telephone number is (571)272-9732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM to 6:00PM ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/SAID M ELNOUBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights