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
a. Claims 1-20 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA :
- claims 1 and 11 are amended
- claims 3-4 and 13-14 are cancelled
b. This is a final action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 02/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 11 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments, see “Huang-Fu3004 is not "the same MA PDU session" collision; it is explicitly old session VS. new session reuse of PSI. Claim 1 requires the network release command and the UE establishment request be for the same MA PDU session. But Huang-Fu3004's core scenario is the opposite: it repeatedly frames the collision as the network releasing an old PDU session while the UE is establishing a new PDU session (reusing the PSI).” on page 7, filed on 02/08/2026, with respect to Gundavelli et al. (US Pub 2022/0124850, hereinafter "Gundavelli") in view of Huang-Fu et al. (US Pub. 2020/0113004, hereinafter "Huang-Fu3004") and further in view of Huang-Fu US Pub 2019/0350042 (hereinafter "Huang-Fu0042"), have been fully considered but are moot, over the limitations of “proceeding with the network-requested PDU session release procedure when a conflict condition is satisfied, wherein the UE aborts the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and wherein the conflict condition is when the PDU session release command message comprises an access type information element (IE) indicating the first access type, or when the PDU session release command message does not carry an access type information element”. Said limitations are newly added to the amended Claims 1 and 11 and have been addressed in instant office action, as shown in section 35 USC 103 rejection below, with newly identified disclosures in previously applied reference Won, in combination with previously applied references Gundavelli and Huang-Fu3004, thus rendering said Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. US Pub 2022/0124850 (hereinafter “Gundavelli”), in view of Huang-Fu et al. US Pub 2020/0113004 (hereinafter “Huang-Fu3004”), and further in view of Won US Pub 2021/0250890 (hereinafter “Won”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended)
Gundavelli discloses a method (“As part of 3GPP specifications, a Multi-Access PDU (MA-PDU) session may be established between a UE and a 5G Core Network. The MA-PDU session includes two user-plane paths, each one using a different radio access network type, such as a 3GPP access and a non-3GPP access (e.g. Wi-Fi®).” [0014]), comprising:
maintaining a multi-access protocol data unit (MA PDU) session by a user equipment (UE) in a 5G system (5GS) (“a Multi-Access PDU (MA-PDU) session may be established between a UE and a 5G Core Network.” [0014]), wherein the MA PDU session has a PDU session ID (PSI) (“MA-PDU session identifier (ID)” [0077]) and user plane resources of the MA PDU session are established (“The MA-PDU session includes two user-plane paths, each one using a different radio access network type, such as a 3GPP access and a non-3GPP access” [0014]) over a first access type (e.g. “non-3GPP access (e.g. Wi-Fi)” [0014]);
transmitting a PDU session establishment request message for a UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure for the MA PDU session (“Upon establishing NAS communications, UE 102 transmits a MA-PDU session establishment request to AMF 142” [0072]), wherein the PDU session establishment request message is sent to the 5GS over a second access type (“The MA-PDU session includes two user-plane paths, each one using a different radio access network type, such as a 3GPP access and a non-3GPP access” [0014]);
Gundavelli does not specifically teach receiving a PDU session release command message for a network-requested PDU session release procedure for the same MA PDU session, wherein a PSI in the received PDU session release command message is the same as the PSI in the transmitted PDU session establishment request message.
In an analogous art, Huang-Fu3004 discloses receiving a PDU session release command message for a network-requested PDU session release procedure for the same MA PDU session (“When UE receives a PDU session release command message from the network, the UE sends a PDU session release complete message back to the network.” [0005]). Gundavelli previously taught that a PDU session can be MA PDU, wherein a PSI in the received PDU session release command message is the same as the PSI in the transmitted PDU session establishment request message (“A method of handling collision between PDU session establishment and PDU session release procedures is proposed. At UE side, a UE first initiates a PDU session establishment procedure to establish a PDU session having a PDU session ID. If UE receives a PDU session release command message on the same PSI, UE should ignore the PDU session release command message, and proceed with the PDU session establishment procedure. At NW side, a network entity initiates a PDU session release procedure to release a PDU session having a PDU session ID. If the network entity receives a PDU session establishment request message from UE on the same PDU session ID, the network entity should locally release the PDU session and proceed with the PDU session establishment procedure.” [0007]);
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gundavelli’s method for extending a multiple access Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session to an enterprise network, to include Huang-Fu3004’s method for handling of collision between PDU session establishment and release procedures, in order to handle conflicting session requests (Huang-Fu3004 [Abstract])
Gundavelli and Huang-Fu3004 do not specifically teach detecting a collision between the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and the network-requested PDU session release procedure ; and proceeding with the network-requested PDU session release procedure when a conflict condition is satisfied, wherein the UE aborts the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and wherein the conflict condition is when the PDU session release command message comprises an access type information element (IE) indicating the first access type, or when the PDU session release command message does not carry an access type information element.
In an analogous art, Won discloses detecting a collision between the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and the network-requested PDU session release procedure (“Collision of UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and network-requested PDU session release procedure.” [0679]); and
proceeding with the network-requested PDU session release procedure when a conflict condition is satisfied (i.e. REGISTRATION ACCEPT), wherein the UE aborts the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and wherein the conflict condition is when the PDU session release command message comprises an access type information element (IE) indicating the first access type (“In some embodiments, if the PDU session status IE is included in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message, the UE can or shall perform a local release of all those PDU sessions associated with the access type the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message is sent over which are in 5GSM state PDU SESSION ACTIVE on the UE side, but are indicated by the AMF as being in 5GSM state PDU SESSION INACTIVE.” [0326] and furthermore “if the PDU session status information element is included in the SERVICE ACCEPT message, then the UE can or shall perform a local release of all those PDU sessions which are active on the UE side associated with the access type the SERVICE ACCEPT message is sent over, but are indicated by the AMF as being inactive.” [0416]), or when the PDU session release command message does not carry an access type information element.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gundavelli’s method for extending a multiple access Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session to an enterprise network, as modified by Huang-Fu3004, to include Won’s method for handling emergency services in private networks, in order to validate PDU session request (Won [0014]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Won’s method for handling emergency services in private networks into Gundavelli’s method for extending a multiple access Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session to an enterprise network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 1,
Gundavelli further discloses wherein the UE-requested PDU session establishment request procedure is to request to establish user plane resources on the second access type (i.e. “non-3GPP access”) for the MA PDU session (“The MA-PDU session includes two user-plane paths, each one using a different radio access network type, such as a 3GPP access and a non-3GPP access” [0014]).
Regarding claim 5
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 1,
Huang-Fu3004 further discloses wherein the network-requested PDU session release procedure involves UE transmitting a PDU session release complete message (“When UE receives a PDU session release command message from the network, the UE sends a PDU session release complete message back to the network.” [0005]) or a 5G session management (5GSM) status message to the 5GS (“Accordingly, for each PDU session, a UE can be in different 5G session management (5GSM) states during the different PDU session procedures.” [0004]).
Regarding claim 6
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 1,
Won further discloses wherein the aborting of the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure involves UE stopping timer T3580, releasing an allocated PTI, and entering PROCEDURE TRANSACTION INATIVE state (“if not de-registered already, attempt initial registration for emergency services. Otherwise, retransmit the PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message and the PDU session information which was transported together with the initial transmission of the PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message and can or shall reset and start timer T3580, if still needed. This retransmission can be repeated up to four times, i.e. on the fifth expiry of timer T3580, the UE can or shall abort the procedure, release the allocated PTI and enter the state PROCEDURE TRANSACTION INACTIVE.” [0674-0675]).
Regarding claim 7
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 1,
Huang-Fu0034 further discloses wherein the UE determines that the conflict condition is not satisfied (“FIG. 4 illustrates a sequence flow between a UE and a network for handling collision between a UE initiated PDU session establishment procedure and a network initiated PDU session release procedure in accordance with embodiments of the current invention.” [0015]).
Won further discloses when the PDU session release command message comprises an access type information element (IE) indicating the second access type (“the AMF may include the T3512 value IE in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message only if the REGISTRATION REQUEST message was sent over the 3GPP access.” [0195]).
Regarding claim 8
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 7,
Huang-Fu3004 further discloses wherein the UE ignores the PDU session release command message when the conflict condition is not satisfied (“FIG. 7 illustrates a third embodiment of handling collision between PDU session establishment and PDU session release procedures. Steps 711 to 732 are the same as steps 411 to 432 of FIG. 4, which illustrate that a collision has occurred between the UE-initiated PDU session establishment procedure and a NW-initiated PDU session release procedure.” [0033]).
Regarding claim 9
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 7,
Huang-Fu3004 further discloses wherein the UE ignores the PDU session release command message when the conflict condition is not satisfied (“FIG. 7 illustrates a third embodiment of handling collision between PDU session establishment and PDU session release procedures. Steps 711 to 732 are the same as steps 411 to 432 of FIG. 4, which illustrate that a collision has occurred between the UE-initiated PDU session establishment procedure and a NW-initiated PDU session release procedure.” [0033]).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended)
Gundavelli discloses A User Equipment (UE) (“FIG. 5 illustrates a hardware block diagram of a computing device 500” [0102]; “user equipment (UE) 102” [0020]), comprising:
a protocol data unit (PDU) session handling circuit (“if computing device 500 is implemented as a network policy manager (e.g., network policy manager 134 of FIG. 1), control logic 520 may be configured as ATSSS-LL policy normalizer logic (e.g., ATSSS-LL policy normalizer logic 136) and correlation logic (e.g., correlation logic 138)” [0110]) that maintains a multi-access PDU (MA PDU) session in a 5G system (5GS), wherein the MA PDU session has a PDU session ID (PSI) and user plane resources of the MA PDU session are established over a first access type;
a transmitter (“UE 102 may also include any combination of hardware (e.g., communications units, receiver(s), transmitter(s)” [0020]) that transmits a PDU session establishment request message for a UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure for the MA PDU session, wherein the PDU session establishment request message is sent to the 5GS over a second access type;
a receiver (“UE 102 may also include any combination of hardware (e.g., communications units, receiver(s), transmitter(s)” [0020]) that receives a PDU session release command message for a network-requested PDU session release procedure for the same MA PDU session, wherein a PSI in the received PDU session release command message is the same as the PSI in the transmitted PDU session establishment request message; and
a control circuit (“control logic 520” in Fig. 5; [0109]) that detects a collision between the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure and the network-requested PDU session release procedure, wherein the UE proceeds with the network-requested PDU session release procedure when a conflict condition is satisfied, and wherein the UE aborts the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure, and wherein the conflict condition is when the PDU session release command message comprises an access type information element (IE) indicating the first access type, or when the PDU session release command message does not carry an access type information element.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 11 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 11 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 12
The UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE-requested PDU session establishment request procedure is to request to establish user plane resources on the second access type for the MA PDU session.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 12 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 2. Therefore apparatus claim 12 corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Regarding claim 15
The UE of Claim 11, wherein the network-requested PDU session release procedure involves UE transmitting a PDU session release complete message or a 5G session management (5GSM) status message to the 5GS.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 15 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 5. Therefore apparatus claim 15 corresponds to method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16
The UE of Claim 11, wherein the aborting of the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure involves UE stopping timer T3580, releasing an allocated PTI, and entering PROCEDURE TRANSACTION INATIVE state.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 16 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 6. Therefore apparatus claim 16 corresponds to method claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Regarding claim 17
The UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE determines that the conflict condition is not satisfied when the PDU session release command message comprises an access type information element (IE) indicating the second access type.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 17 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 7. Therefore apparatus claim 17 corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 18
The UE of Claim 17, wherein the UE ignores the PDU session release command message when the conflict condition is not satisfied.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 8. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 19
The UE of Claim 17, wherein the UE proceeds with the UE- requested PDU session establishment procedure when the conflict condition is not satisfied.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 19 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 9. Therefore apparatus claim 19 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 9 rejection above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli, in view of Huang-Fu3004 and Won, and further in view of Zhu et al. US Pub 2022/0408397, claiming parent priority 2019-12-06 (hereinafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 10
Gundavelli, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, previously discloses the method of Claim 1,
Gundavelli, Huang-Fu3004, and Won, do not specifically teach wherein the UE determines that the conflict condition is not satisfied when the MA PDU session becomes a single-access PDU (SA PDU) session.
In an analogous art, Zhu discloses wherein the UE determines that the conflict condition is not satisfied (“FIG. 4 describes the conflict of SMF Registration/Deregistration to UDM during MA-PDU session establishment procedure, in Home-Routed roaming scenario.” [0069]) when the MA PDU session becomes a single-access PDU (SA PDU) session (“5G system allows a single PDU session to be established over multiple accesses, i.e. via both 3GPP access and Non-3GPP access, of which the PDU session is referred Multi-access PDU (MA PDU) session. For example, in the current version of 3GPP TS 23.501, clause 3.1, the term MA PDU session is defined as a PDU Session that provides a PDU connectivity service, which can use one access network at a time, or simultaneously one 3GPP access network and one non-3GPP access network. By contrast, a single access PDU (SA-PDU) session may be a session that is similar to the currently used PDU sessions in 3GPP networks.” [0031]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gundavelli’s method for extending a multiple access Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session to an enterprise network, as modified by Huang-Fu3004 and Won, to include Zhu’s method for backward compatible multi-access protocol data unit session (PDU) registration and deregistration, in order to validate PDU session request (Zhu [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Zhu’s method for backward compatible multi-access protocol data unit session (PDU) registration and deregistration into Gundavelli’s method for extending a multiple access Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session to an enterprise network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20
The UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE determines that the conflict condition is not satisfied when the MA PDU session becomes a single-access PDU (SA PDU) session.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 20 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 10. Therefore apparatus claim 20 corresponds to method claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411