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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of Patent Application 19089392 on 3/25/2025.
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)(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(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kedalugudde (U.S. Patent App Pub 20230300674)
Regarding claim 1,
Kedalugudde teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a base station from an access and mobility management function (AMF), a first message to configure reporting of user plane congestion associated with a network slice; and (See paragraphs 23, 69, 89, 234 figures 4, 5, 6, and table 1 Kedalugudde teaches first message reporting congestion )
sending, by the base station to a network node, information of the user plane congestion associated with the network slice. (See paragraphs 23, figures 4, 5, 6, and table 1 Kedalugudde teaches congestion info to the node )
Regarding claim 2,
Kedalugudde teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first message comprises measurement assistance information (MAI), comprising: an identifier of the network slice; and a triggering condition for the reporting. (See paragraphs 23, 41, 135, Kedalugudde)
Regarding claim 3,
Kedalugudde teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the sending is based on the triggering condition being met. (See paragraphs 58, 98, fig 7,, Kedalugudde)
Regarding claim 4,
Kedalugudde teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the triggering condition comprises: an event; and a threshold parameter for reporting the user plane resource congestion. (See paragraphs 23, 233, 234, Kedalugudde)
Regarding claim 5,
Kedalugudde teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network node comprises at least one of: the AMF; or a user plane function (UPF).(See paragraphs 23, 41, 135, Kedalugudde)
Claims 8-12 list all the same elements of claims 1-5, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-5 applies equally as well to claims 8-12. Furthermore with regards to the limitation of
8. A base station comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the base station to: (See paragraphs 153-154, fig 11,, Kedalugudde)
Claims 15-19 list all the same elements of claims 1-5, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-5 applies equally as well to claims 15-19. Furthermore with regards to the limitation of 15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a base station, cause the base station to: (See paragraphs 153-154, fig 11,, Kedalugudde)
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) 6-7, 13-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalugudde (U.S. Patent App Pub 20230300674) in view of Ahmad (U.S. Patent App pub 20140022904)
Regarding claim 6,
Kedalugudde teaches the method of claim 1.
Kedalugudde does not explicitly teach but Ahmad teaches further comprising sending, by the base station to the network node, a GPRS tunneling protocol user plane (GTP-U) packet indicating status of a tunnel, wherein the status comprises: the information of the user plane congestion associated with the network slice; and the identifier of the network slice.(See paragraphs 124-125, 45, 49, Ahmad)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Ahmad with Kedalugudde because both deal with user plan congestion. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Ahmad into Kedalugudde is that Ahmad teaches the decrease in user plane quality of service is observed based on the transmitted request, which ensures that the user experience or quality of service at every node in the wireless communication system is improved effectively and the load information exchange procedure is enhanced, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Ahmad)
Regarding claim 7,
Kedalugudde and Ahmad teach the method of claim 6, wherein a header field of the GTP-U packet comprises at least one of: an information element comprising a congestion level information; an identifier of a network slice associated with the congestion level information; or an identifier of a DNN associated with the congestion level information. (See paragraphs 23-25, 233-234, and table 1 Kedalugudde teaches congestion level)
Claims 13-14 list all the same elements of claims 6-7, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 6-7 applies equally as well to claims 13-14. Furthermore with regards to the limitation of
Claims 20 list all the same elements of claims 6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 6 applies equally as well to claims 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Yau, U.S. Patent App 11076281, teaches this invention is a system and method for implementing Network Function (NF) Proxy in an IPX network for 5G core roaming. NF Discover queries from Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN) are manipulated such that the IPX NF Proxy's fully qualified domain name (FQDN) is returned as the FQDN of the Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN) NF. NF Proxy queries the FQDN of a true HPLMN NF through a HPLMN Network Repository Function (NRF) Proxy. Application messages are routed to NF Proxy hosted in the IPX network. NF Proxy performs its proxy function and routes egress messages to the target NF in HPLMN or another location.
2. Won, U.S. Patent App 20210235371, teaches a user equipment operating in a connected mode includes a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer. The first layer generates a request to send a non-initial non-access stratum (NAS) message over a first connection that operates according to a first radio access technology (RAT). The second layer determines whether access to the first connection is barred for the non-initial NAS message. The first layer selects a connection to deliver the non-initial NAS message between the first connection and a second connection that operates according to a second RAT in response to access to the first connection being barred. In some cases, the non-initial NAS message is a mobile originated short message service (SMS) message or an uplink NAS transport message. In some cases, the first layer is an NAS layer and the second layer is a radio resource control layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John FOLLANSBEE can be reached on (571)272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights