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 .
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (12,696,159) in view of Abedini (12,543,065).
For claims 1, 8, You teaches a method and system (abstract) performed by a network entity (col. 2, lines 50-65) in a communication (col. 2, lines 20-50) system (background, summary and claims), the method comprising:
determining whether to reduce a capacity (col. 7, lines 5-20; update capabilities/parameters) of an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (col. 4, lines 1-20);
in case that the capacity of the AMF entity is determined to be reduced (col. 4, lines 20-40; BRI is determining allocation choices), determining whether to redirect (col. 11, lines 20-40) at least one user equipment (UE)(col. 3, lines 20-45) to another AMF entity, based on subscription information (col. 6, lines 10-60) of the at least one UE for the AMF entity (col. 8, lines 10-55); and
in case that the at least one UE is determined to redirect to the another AMF entity, triggering a procedure to redirect the at least one UE to the another AMF entity (col. 11, line 60 – col. 12, line 25; redirect also rerouting).
You does not expressly disclose that determining a redirect is based on energy related information of the AMF entity. Abedini teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 19, lines 30-50). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Abedini in order to provide improvements to determining the status of neighboring AMFs (as in determining status of neighboring cells)(col. 7, lines 50-65).
For claims 2, 9, You teaches wherein the triggering is further configured to:
transmitting, to a next generation-radio access network (NG-RAN) (col. 6, lines 60-col. 7, line 5), a reroute non access stratum (NAS) request message (col. 4, lines 1-20), and
wherein the reroute NAS request message includes a NAS message received from the at least one UE (col. 6, lines 35-60) redirected to the another AMF entity (col. 11, line 60 – col. 12, line 25; redirect also rerouting).
For claims 4, 11, Abedini teaches that the energy related information of the AMF entity includes energy consumption level (col. 19, line 50 – col. 20, line 15).
For claims 5, 12, You teaches a method and system (abstract) performed by a next generation-radio access network (NG- RAN) (col. 6, lines 60-col. 7, line 5) in a communication (col. 2, lines 20-50) system (background, summary and claims), the method comprising:
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (col. 4, lines 1-20) of the NG-RAN (col. 6, lines 60-col. 7, line 5), a reroute non access stratum (NAS) request message (col. 4, lines 1-20) for redirecting at least one user equipment (UE) (col. 3, lines 20-45) from a first AMF entity (col. 8, lines 10-55) to a second AMF entity (col. 11, line 60 – col. 12, line 25; redirect also rerouting), the reroute NAS request message including a NAS message received from the at least one UE (col. 6, lines 35-60);
based on receiving the reroute NAS request message, selecting the second AMF entity as an AMF entity for a redirection (col. 11, lines 20-40); and
transmitting, to the second AMF entity, the NAS message (col. 11, line 60 – col. 12, line 25; redirect also rerouting).
You does not expressly disclose that determining a redirect is based on energy related information of the AMF entity. Abedini teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 19, lines 30-50). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Abedini in order to provide improvements to determining the status of neighboring AMFs (as in determining status of neighboring cells)(col. 7, lines 50-65).
For claims 7, 14, Abedini teaches that the redirection is determined based on energy related information of the first AMF entity(col. 7, lines 50-65).
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You and Abedini as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12 above, and further in view of Chun et al. (2025/0,227,648).
For claims 3, 10, You and Abedini do not expressly disclose the limitations. Tiwari teaches a method and system (abstract) in the current art (background, summary and claims) that includes indicating, via the reroute NAS request message, the procedure to redirect the at least one UE is based on energy constraint of the AMF entity (Para 75). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Chun in order to provide improvements to the determination of redirection (background).
For claims 6, 13, Chun teaches that the transmitting is further configured to: indicating, the redirection is based on energy constraints of the first AMF entity (Para 75).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights