DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent US Pat. 12232016 B2, and claim 1 of U.S. Patent US Pat. 10660016 B2. Although the conflicting claims are similar, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope are identical as listed as following.
Application 19/016933
US Pat. 12232016 B2
Claims 1, 8, 14:a network node, comprising: a communication interface; and one or more processors coupled to the communication interface, the one or more processors configured to:
receive, from a wireless device through the communication interface, a registration request indicating one or more requested network slices;
send, to a network slice selection function (NSSF) through the communication interface, a slice selection request indicating the one or more requested network slices;
receive, from the NSSF through the communication interface:an indication of a first allowed network slice of the one or more requested network slices;an indication of a second allowed network slice of the one or more requested network slices; and
a time-based network slice coexistence rule indicating a time duration during which the first allowed network slice and the second allowed network slice are concurrently usable;send, to the wireless device through the communication interface, at a first time, within the time duration, a slice selection response indicating acceptance of the first allowed network slice and the second allowed network slice;enforce, at a second time, not within the time duration, the time-based network slice coexistence rule, wherein the one or more processor is configured to:initiate a network slice handover, modification, or deletion of a first allowed slice; or initiate a packet data unit (PDU) session establishment, modification, or deletion of a PDU session of the wireless device. (and similar limitations)
Claims 1, 8, 15:
a method comprising:
receiving, by an access and mobility management function (AMF) from a wireless device, a registration request indicating one or more requested network slices;
sending, by the AMF to a network slice selection function (NSSF), a slice selection request indicating the one or more requested network slices;
receiving, by the AMF from the NSSF: an indication of a first allowed network slice of the one or more requested network slices; an indication of a second allowed network slice of the one or more requested network slices; and
a time-based network slice coexistence rule indicating a time duration during which the first allowed network slice and the second allowed network slice are concurrently usable; sending, by the AMF to the wireless device, at a first time, not within the time duration, a slice selection response indicating acceptance of the first allowed network slice and the second allowed network slice; enforcing, by the AMF, at a second time, not within the time duration, the time-based network slice coexistence rule, wherein the enforcing comprises one or more of: initiating a network slice handover, modification, or deletion of the first allowed slice; or initiating a packet data unit (PDU) session establishment, modification, or deletion of a PDU session of the wireless device. (and similar limitations)
US 10660016 B2
Claim 1. A method comprising: sending, to a network node, a first request message for at least one network slice information for a wireless device; receiving, from the network node, one or more location based network slice coexistence rules for one or more locations of the wireless device, wherein the one or more location based network slice coexistence rules is for allowed network slice information that is a subset of the at least one network slice information; receiving, from the wireless device being at a first location, a second request message for a first network slice for the wireless device; determining to accept the first network slice based on the first location and the one or more location based network slice coexistence rules; and sending, to the wireless device, a first response message indicating acceptance of the first network slice.
Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Since one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention would have been made obvious to use a AMF unit as a support device to perform the similar data transfer/retrieval process to improve efficiency; thus, the claims are similar in scope which requires a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome this rejection.
All dependent claims based on the rejected base claim are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without reciting significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, independent claim 14 recites an apparatus configured to receive a registration request indicating one or more requested network slices, send a slice selection request, receive indications of allowed network slices and a time-based coexistence rule, send a slice selection response, and enforce the rule by initiating handover, modification, or deletion actions. These limitations, when considered as a whole, describe the collection of information, analysis of that information using a rule, and transmission of results. Such operations constitute mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, including evaluation, decision-making, and rule application, as identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claim is nominally directed to an “apparatus for a network node,” the claim fails to positively recite any specific hardware elements and instead relies on purely functional language such as “configured to receive,” “send,” “enforce,” and “initiate.” The only structural component recited is a “communication interface,” which is described at a high level of generality and performs only generic data transmission functions. The claim merely implements the abstract idea in a generic networking environment without any improvement to computer functionality, without any particular machine implementation, and without transforming any article to a different state or thing. The enforcement of a time-based coexistence rule and the initiation of network operations are themselves part of the abstract idea and do not impose a meaningful limit on it. As such, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited “network node” and “communication interface” are generic and conventional components performing their ordinary functions of receiving and transmitting data. The claim does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional arrangement, or technical improvement to networking technology. Instead, the claim merely applies the abstract idea using well-understood, routine, and conventional components. The use of such generic components to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter, as explained in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.
Accordingly, claims 14–19 are directed to an abstract idea and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 14–19 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Please incorporate the term(s): processor, memory, and other hardware into the claim language to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220248318 A1; US 20220264444 A1; US 20200245381 A1
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409