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 .
1. Claim 1 is pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/27/2024 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for determining” and a “means for initiating in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by El et al, US 2009/0049180 hereafter El.
As for claim 1, EI discloses:
An access and mobility management function node (EI, FIG. 2, [0056], the SIP gateway apparatus 10 includes a CPU 11, a channel control unit 12, a channel interface unit 13, a session control unit 14, a session monitoring unit 15, a session restoration unit 16, and a memory 100. For example, the memory 100 includes a session status table (a session status storage area) 110, a session resource table (a session resource storage area) 120, a session importance table (a session importance storage area) 130, and a session restoration table (a session restoration storage area) 140), comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
means for determining (EI, FIG. 2, [0056], The Gateway 10 comprising the memory 100 and the CPU 11), a user with lowest priority among users in User Equipment (EI, FIG. 3, S115, FIG. 5, FIG. 10, S507, [0014], [0017], [0030], [0063]-[0065], [0080], [0101], Determine the user/terminal with the lowest priority among the plurality of users), UE, simultaneously used by the users in a case where the number of users of the UE exceeds a threshold (EI, FIG. 3, FIG. 10, S503, [0077], [0099], The simultaneous maximum number of sessions/users); and
means for initiating (EI, FIG. 2, [0056], The Gateway 10 comprising the memory 100 and the CPU 11), a release procedure for a PDU session of the user with lowest priority (EI, FIG. 5, FIG. 10, S509, S511, [0014], [0017], [0030]-[0031], [0036], [0064], [0080]-[0081], [0102], Interrupt/release the session identified to have the lowest degree/priority associated the terminal/user), wherein
the threshold indicates a max allowed number of users for the UE (EI, FIG. 3, S105, S107, FIG. 4, FIG. 10, S503, [0077]-[0078], [0099], Determining the maximum number of sessions is reached).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Huang-Fu et al., US 2020/016295 [0029] In the embodiment of FIG. 4, if the number of the authorized QoS rules, the number of packet filters, or the number of the authorized QoS flow descriptions associated with the PDU session have reached the maximum number of supported by the UE upon receipt of the PDU session establishment accept message in step 412, then UE may initiate a PDU session release procedure by sending a PDU session release request message with 5GSM cause #26 “insufficient resources”.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 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, IAN MOORE can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights