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 .
Art Unit- Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2642.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 11/06/2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment filed on 12/16/2024 and further modified by the amendment filed on 02/10/2026. Claims 23-26 are now pending in the present application.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner and Applicant's representative discussed about the claims 19-26 regarding to the Election Restriction Requirement dated 07/16/2026. Group I are from claims 19-22 and group II are from claims 23-26. Applicant's elect without traverse Invention of group II, claims 23-26 in a telephone call was made to Thomas J. Durling , Reg. No: 31, 349 on July 21,2026 to request an oral election to a restriction requirement which resulted in an election without traverse of the Group II which correspond to claims 23-26 and withdrawn claims 19-22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024, 01/06/2025, 09/08/2025, 10/14/2025, 02/09/2026 and 03/30/2026 are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, has been considered by the Examiner, and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Won et al Patent Application No. :( US 2016/0262068 A1) hereinafter referred as Won.
For claim 23, Won teaches a method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving a non-access stratum (NAS) message (paragraph [0008], lines 2-8), the NAS message indicating at least a first operator defined access category, the first operator defined access category being defined based on a combination of operating system component and an application component (paragraph [0206], lines 1-10 discloses the application-specific congestion control for data communication);
receiving system information comprising one or more access barring parameters associated with at least the first operator defined access category (paragraph [0212]-[0213], lines 1-5);
determining whether an access attempt associated with the first operator defined access category is barred based on at least the one or more access barring parameters (paragraph [0216]-[0217], lines 1-3); and
establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection if the WTRU determines that the access attempt associated with the first operator defined access category is not barred (paragraph [0217]-[0220], lines 1-3).
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:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Won et al Patent Application No. :( US 2016/0262068 A1) hereinafter referred as Won, in view of Zaus et al US Patent No.:( US 6,728,522 B1)
For claim 24, Won disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the one or more access barring parameters comprise a barring parameter and a barring time parameter as recited in claim 24.
Zaus from the same or analogous art teaches the one or more access barring parameters comprise a barring parameter and a barring time parameter (column 28, lines 20-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the one or more access barring parameters comprise a barring parameter and a barring time parameter as taught by Zaus into the providing service in wireless communication system of Won.
The one or more access barring parameters comprise a barring parameter and a barring time parameter can be modify/implemented by combining the one or more access barring parameters comprise a barring parameter and a barring time parameter with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Zaus into the providing service in wireless communication system of Won. As disclosed in Zaus, the motivation for the combination would be to use the barring parameter that will help the resource allocation for a better communication becoming more efficient and reliable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 26 are objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is shown in the following table:
US-8913553
Tiwari
US-20170034746-A1
Karlson
US-20130183971
Tamaki
US-20080139253-A1
Di Girolamo
US-20040162077-A1
Kauranen
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH AREVALO whose telephone number is (571)270-3121. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571)272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH AREVALO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights