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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/17/25, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 6, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14, 16, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that Park in view of Won and Fard do not disclose all the features of the instant claim because Park in view of Won and Fard does not disclose “transmitting a second service request message via non-3GPP access”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park in paragraph 274 discloses a backoff message for request messages to the AMF and discloses in 256 that the UE cannot transmit an MO signal (e.g. a request message) while the back-off timer is running. While it is not explicitly stated that the UE sends a second request message after the timer, it is heavily implied such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably able to interpret the teachings of Park as corresponding to the instant feature. Examiner also notes that Fig. 2 in US 20200367149 A1 and Fig. 7 in US 20190313473 A1 explicitly disclose this feature. Examiner emphasizes that these are not additional references to show obviousness, but rather merely examples to show what is well known in the art.
Also regarding claim 14, applicant also argues that Park in view of Won and Fard do not disclose “in response to initiating a service request procedure based on the UE being in idle mode, the indication, and the T3346 timer being expired.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Park discloses “in response to initiating a service request procedure based on… the T3346 timer being expired” in paragraph 274 and Won discloses “in response to initiating a service request procedure based on the UE being in idle mode, the indication...” in paragraphs 401 and 407, and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them as discussed later in this action. Thus, Park in view of Won do disclose this feature of the instant claim, and Park in view of Won and Fard disclose all the features of the instant claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20 are based on its similarity to claim 14 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claims 14 and 20 and are respectfully disagreed with based on their dependence.
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, 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(s) 14, 16, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20210360569 A1) in view of Won (US 20220078871 A1) and Fard (US 20200389835 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses:
“A method of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising…transmitting, to an access and mobility function (AMF), a first service request message over a 3GPP access; receiving, from the AMF, a service reject message in response to the first service request message over the 3GPP access, the service reject message including first information for a T3346 timer; starting the T3346 timer based on the first information for the T3346 timer” ([para 0272]: “After the UE performs registration through non-3GPP access according to an initial registration procedure, the UE may receive a reject message, including a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), while performing a service request procedure and a mobility registration procedure.” Also see steps 1 and 2 in Fig. 8.)
“identifying that a T3346 timer is expired; and in response to initiating a service request based on… the T3346 timer being expired, transmitting, to an access and mobility function (AMF), a service request message over the non-3GPP access.” ([para 0274]: “Referring to FIG. 8, when the AMF 410 transmits a reject message in response to a service request message of the UE 100, the AMF 410 may transmit the reject message including a new value of the fourth timer, that is, the non-3GPP de-registration timer to be used by the UE 100 as well as a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346).” Wherein the implication of the backoff timer being in response to a service request to an AMF is that the UE will not send a new service request message to the AMF until the back-off timer has expired.)
Park does not explicitly disclose “identifying that the UE is in idle mode over non-3rd generation partnership project (non-3GPP) access; receiving, from lower layers of the non-3GPP access, an indication indicating that an access stratum connection has been established between the UE and a network” within the context that the service request message is sent in response to “the UE being in idle mode, receiving the indication,” nor “wherein the UE is registered with same public land mobile network (PLMN) over both a 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access, the T3346 timer is applied to both the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access.”
However, Won discloses the missing feature “identifying that the UE is in idle mode over non-3rd generation partnership project (non-3GPP) access; receiving, from lower layers of the non-3GPP access, an indication indicating that an access stratum connection has been established between the UE and a network” within the context that the service request message is sent in response to “the UE being in idle mode, receiving the indication.” ([para 0401, 407]: “The UE shall invoke the service request procedure when… f) the UE in 5GMM-IDLE mode over non-3GPP access, receives an indication from the lower layers of non-3GPP access, that the access stratum connection is established between UE and network;” [para 0218]: “In step 610, the NAS layer function of the UE may send the SERVICE REQUEST message to a NAS layer function of the CN. The NAS layer function of the CN may be an access management function (AMF).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Park and Won, to modify the technique as disclosed by Park, to only perform the technique in response to the conditions as outlined by Won. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard means of doing so and thus enhances system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Won to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Park in view of Won do not explicitly disclose “wherein the UE is registered with same public land mobile network (PLMN) over both a 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access, the T3346 timer is applied to both the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access.”
However, Fard discloses the missing feature “wherein the UE is registered with same public land mobile network (PLMN) over both a 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access, the T3346 timer is applied to both the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access.” ([para 0257]: “If the UE is registered in the same PLMN over the 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, and the UE receives the timer T3346 from the AMF, the timer T3346 may apply to both 3GPP access and non-3GPP access.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Park, Won, and Fard to use the T3346 timer as disclosed by Park, for both 3GPP access and non-3GPP access when both are of the same PLMN as disclosed by Fard. The motivation for doing so is that it doesn’t require the transmission of separate timers, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Won and Fard to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Won and Fard disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Park further discloses “wherein the service reject message further includes second information indicating that the network is congested.” ([para 0244]: “The value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346 value) may be transmitted to the UE in a network congestion situation. Specifically, when a congestion situation occurs in a network, the network may apply MM congestion control through the AMF. For the congestion control, the network provides the UE with a reject message, including a cause value (cause #22) indicative of the congestion situation and a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), in response to a mobility management request from the UE.” ; [para 0272]: “After the UE performs registration through non-3GPP access according to an initial registration procedure, the UE may receive a reject message, including a value of the back-off timer (e.g., T3346), while performing a service request procedure and a mobility registration procedure.”)
Claims 20 and 22 are similar to claims 14 and 16 with the differences amounting to that claims 20 and 22 are directed towards a method while claims 14 and 16 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Park in paragraph 316. Thus claims 20 and 22 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 14 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412