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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the final rejection on 08/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art of record Velev et al. (US 2020/0280836), hereinafter Velev, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the arguments presented for prior art of record Ryu et al. (WO 2021/092561), hereinafter Ryu, the examiner agrees with the argument that Ryu does not teach the condition for releasing the 4G PDN connection, however this argument is irrelevant to the claims as presently presented. It is true that Ryu does not teach the reaching the maximum number of 5G PDU sessions as a condition for releasing the selected 4G PDN connection, however the present claim construction does not establish that reaching the maximum number of 5G PDU sessions is a condition for releasing the 4G PDN connection. Thus, this argument is not relevant to the present disclosure
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2021/092561), hereinafter Ryu in further view of Velev et al. (US 2020/0280836), hereinafter Velev and Kawasaki et al. (US 2020/0120738), hereinafter Kawasaki.
Regarding Claim 1, Ryu teaches: A method, comprising: maintaining a number of active 5G protocol data unit (PDU) sessions by a user equipment (UE) in a 5G system (5GS); determining that the number of active 5G PDU sessions has reached a maximum number of 5G PDU sessions of a Public Land Mobile network (PLMN) or a Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) in the 5GS: “The maximum number of PDU session IDs, which is allowed by the protocol, may be 15 PDU sessions. The PLMN’s maximum number of PDU sessions may be determined during a UE requested PDU session establishment procedure. In an example, a wireless device (e.g. UE) may send a PDU session establishment message to an SMF via an AMF, to request an establishment of a new PDU session. The wireless device may receive an indication that PDU session establishment message (e.g., 5GSM message) was not forwarded to the SMF because the PLMN’s maximum number of PDU session has been reached” (Ryu ¶ 0205); determining that a new 5G PDU session is needed based on a request from upper layers: “If the maximum number PDU sessions is reached at the wireless device and the upper layers of the wireless device request connectivity to a data network, the wireless device may not send a PDU session establishment message to establish a new PDU session” (Ryu ¶ 0207).
Ryu does not teach: selecting a 4G Packet Data Network (PDN) connection from one or more 4G PDN connections maintained by the UE, wherein the UE releases the 4G PDN connection, the selected 4G PDN connection is established as a user-plane resource for a 5GS MA PDU session and counted towards the maximum number of 5G PDU session; and establishing the new 5G PDU session after the selected 4G PDN connection is released.
Regarding Claim 1, Velev teaches: selecting a 4G Packet Data Network (PDN) connection from one or more 4G PDN connections maintained by the UE, wherein the UE releases the 4G PDN connection; and establishing the new 5G PDU session after the selected 4G PDN connection is released: “the Service Request may include the list of existing services (e.g. existing PDU Session IDs) to be resumed. For example, such a list of PDU Session IDs can be the informational element ‘PDU Session status’. The handling of the element ‘PDU Session status’ in the AMF can be similar as described above for the Registration Request message. Note that if the UE 205 has established PDN Connection in the EPC 215 (e.g., PDN Connections not released or to be transferred to the 5GC 210), then the UE 205 may indicate to the AMF 230 that the EPC service needs to be suspended. One example of such an indication is the element ‘suspend EPS services’ or “suspend 4G services’, but other names expressing same/similar meanings may be used in other embodiments . . . when resuming 5G services the UE 205 may initiate PDU Sessions establishment procedure. Here, the UE 205 may include a ‘handover’ indication to indicate that the PDU Session is a transfer from a PDN Connection in the EPC 215. The AMF 230 retrieves subscription information from the HSS+UDM 225 and uses the downloaded subscription information to identify which SMF+PGW-C 160 needs to be used for the PDU Session establishment with ‘handover’ indication” (Velev ¶ 0118 and 0120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu with Velev for the purpose of establishing a method for moving between networks for services one network is unable to provide. Velev teaches: “initiating a service in the second core network that is unavailable in the first core network and transferring to the second core network a service used in the first core network” (Velev ¶ 0005).
Velev does not teach: the selected 4G PDN connection is established as a user-plane resource for a 5GS MA PDU session and counted towards the maximum number of 5G PDU session.
Regarding Claim 1, Kawasaki teaches: the selected 4G PDN connection is established as a user-plane resource for a 5GS MA PDU session and counted towards the maximum number of 5G PDU session: “An eleventh behavior in the present embodiment is a behavior in which the UE_A 10 ignores the first timer and the Re-attempt information. Specifically, the eleventh behavior may be a behavior in which in a case that the PDU session establishment request message is rejected because there is no PDN session context of interest in a handover from the non-3GPP, or in a case that the PDU session establishment request message is rejected because the number of bearers established in the PDN connection reaches the maximum allowed number, the UE_A 10 ignores the first timer and the Re-attempt information” (Kawasaki ¶ 0147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosures of Ryu and Velev with Kawasaki for the purpose of managing congestion at a network slice. According to Kawasaki: “According to the present invention, the terminal apparatus and the device in the core network constituting the 5GS can control the RQoS in a terminal apparatus-initiated manner or in a network-initiated manner. The terminal apparatus, the device in the core network, and the device in the data network constituting the 5GS may implement the authentication and/or authorization function by the data network. Furthermore, the terminal apparatus and the device in the core network constituting the 5GS may perform the management process such as the congestion management for each network slice” (Kawasaki ¶ 0016).
Regarding Claim 2, Ryu and Kawasaki teach: The method of Claim 1.
Ryu and Kawasaki do not teach: the selected PDN connection is established as the only user-plane resource for an MA PDU session.
Regarding Claim 2, Velev teaches: the selected PDN connection is established as the only user-plane resource for an MA PDU session: “the wireless communication system 100 includes both a first core network 130 and a second core network 140 and various interworking network functions for to support interworking between the user plane and certain control plane functions in the first core network 130 and the second core network 140” (Velev ¶ 0038) and “Similar to when the UE 205 established PDN Connections in the EPC 215, when resuming 5G services the UE 205 may initiate PDU Sessions establishment procedure. Here, the UE 205 may include a ‘handover’ indication to indicate that the PDU Session is a transfer from a PDN Connection in the EPC 215. The AMF 230 retrieves subscription information from the HSS+UDM 225 and uses the downloaded subscription information to identify which SMF+PGW-C 160 needs to be used for the PDU Session establishment with ‘handover’ indication” (Velev ¶ 0149), or in other words Velev triggering the handover between 4G PDN and 5G PDU is only done in case there is no 5G PDU user plane resource.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu and Kawasaki with Velev for the purpose of establishing a method for moving between networks for services one network is unable to provide. Velev teaches: “initiating a service in the second core network that is unavailable in the first core network and transferring to the second core network a service used in the first core network” (Velev ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 5, Ryu and Kawasaki teach: The method of Claim 1.
Ryu and Kawasaki do not teach: the UE releases the selected PDN connection locally and performs a normal and periodic tracking area update (TAU) with the network.
Regarding Claim 5, Velev teaches: the UE releases the selected PDN connection locally and performs a normal and periodic tracking area update (TAU) with the network: “If a remote unit 105 is in CM-IDLE state in the first core network 130 (e.g., 5GC) then the remote unit 105 may initiate an Attach procedure (or TAU procedure) with the second core network 140 (e.g., EPC) and indicates to the second core network 140 (e.g., EPC) that services in the first core network 130 (e.g., 5GC) should be suspended.” (Velev ¶ 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu and Kawasaki with Velev for the purpose of establishing a method for moving between networks for services one network is unable to provide. Velev teaches: “initiating a service in the second core network that is unavailable in the first core network and transferring to the second core network a service used in the first core network” (Velev ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 7, Ryu teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein the new PDU session is an emergency PDU session or a PDU session to a DNN (Data Network Name): “In an example, when emergency service may be required and an emergency PDU session may not already be established, the UE 100 may initiate the UE 100 requested PDU session establishment procedure with a request type indicating emergency request” (Ryu ¶ 0168).
Regarding Claim 8, Ryu teaches: The method of Claim 1, wherein the UE initiates a UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure over 5G non-3GPP access to establish the new 5G PDU session: “In an example, the request type may indicate initial request if the PDU session establishment is a request to establish the new PDU session and may indicate existing PDU session if the request refers to an existing PDU session between 3GPP access and non-3GPP access or to an existing PDN connection in EPC” (Ryu ¶ 0168).
Regarding Claim 9, Ryu teaches: A User Equipment (UE), comprising: a protocol data unit (PDU) session handling circuit): “it may be possible to implement modules using physical hardware that incorporates discrete or programmable analog, digital and/or quantum hardware. Examples of programmable hardware comprise: computers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs); field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs); and complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs)” (Ryu ¶ 0279) that maintains a number of active 5G PDU sessions in a 5G system (5GS; a control circuit that determines that the number of active 5G PDU sessions has reached a maximum number of 5G PDU sessions of a Public Land Mobile network (PLMN) or a Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) in the 5GS: “The maximum number of PDU session IDs, which is allowed by the protocol, may be 15 PDU sessions. The PLMN’s maximum number of PDU sessions may be determined during a UE requested PDU session establishment procedure. In an example, a wireless device (e.g. UE) may send a PDU session establishment message to an SMF via an AMF, to request an establishment of a new PDU session. The wireless device may receive an indication that PDU session establishment message (e.g., 5GSM message) was not forwarded to the SMF because the PLMN’s maximum number of PDU session has been reached” (Ryu ¶ 0205); a control circuit that determines a new 5G PDU session is needed based on a request from upper layers: “If the maximum number PDU sessions is reached at the wireless device and the upper layers of the wireless device request connectivity to a data network, the wireless device may not send a PDU session establishment message to establish a new PDU session” (Ryu ¶ 0207).
Ryu does not teach: a Packet Data Network (PDN) connection handling circuit that selects a 4G PDN connection from one or more 4G PDN connections maintained by the UE, the selected 4G PDN connection is established as a user-plane resource for a 5GS MA PDU session and counted towards the maximum number of 5G PDU session, wherein the UE initiates to release the selected PDN connection, and wherein the UE establishes the new 5G PDU session after the selected 4G PDN connection is released.
Regarding Claim 9, Velev teaches: a Packet Data Network (PDN) connection handling circuit that selects a 4G PDN connection from one or more 4G PDN connections maintained by the UE, wherein the UE initiates to release the selected PDN connection, and wherein the UE establishes the new 5G PDU session after the selected 4G PDN connection is released: “the Service Request may include the list of existing services (e.g. existing PDU Session IDs) to be resumed. For example, such a list of PDU Session IDs can be the informational element ‘PDU Session status’. The handling of the element ‘PDU Session status’ in the AMF can be similar as described above for the Registration Request message. Note that if the UE 205 has established PDN Connection in the EPC 215 (e.g., PDN Connections not released or to be transferred to the 5GC 210), then the UE 205 may indicate to the AMF 230 that the EPC service needs to be suspended. One example of such an indication is the element ‘suspend EPS services’ or “suspend 4G services’, but other names expressing same/similar meanings may be used in other embodiments . . . when resuming 5G services the UE 205 may initiate PDU Sessions establishment procedure. Here, the UE 205 may include a ‘handover’ indication to indicate that the PDU Session is a transfer from a PDN Connection in the EPC 215. The AMF 230 retrieves subscription information from the HSS+UDM 225 and uses the downloaded subscription information to identify which SMF+PGW-C 160 needs to be used for the PDU Session establishment with ‘handover’ indication” (Velev ¶ 0118 and 0120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu with Velev for the purpose of establishing a method for moving between networks for services one network is unable to provide. Velev teaches: “initiating a service in the second core network that is unavailable in the first core network and transferring to the second core network a service used in the first core network” (Velev ¶ 0005).
Velev does not teach: the selected 4G PDN connection is established as a user-plane resource for a 5GS MA PDU session and counted towards the maximum number of 5G PDU session.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawasaki teaches: the selected 4G PDN connection is established as a user-plane resource for a 5GS MA PDU session and counted towards the maximum number of 5G PDU session: “An eleventh behavior in the present embodiment is a behavior in which the UE_A 10 ignores the first timer and the Re-attempt information. Specifically, the eleventh behavior may be a behavior in which in a case that the PDU session establishment request message is rejected because there is no PDN session context of interest in a handover from the non-3GPP, or in a case that the PDU session establishment request message is rejected because the number of bearers established in the PDN connection reaches the maximum allowed number, the UE_A 10 ignores the first timer and the Re-attempt information” (Kawasaki ¶ 0147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosures of Ryu and Velev with Kawasaki for the purpose of managing congestion at a network slice. According to Kawasaki: “According to the present invention, the terminal apparatus and the device in the core network constituting the 5GS can control the RQoS in a terminal apparatus-initiated manner or in a network-initiated manner. The terminal apparatus, the device in the core network, and the device in the data network constituting the 5GS may implement the authentication and/or authorization function by the data network. Furthermore, the terminal apparatus and the device in the core network constituting the 5GS may perform the management process such as the congestion management for each network slice” (Kawasaki ¶ 0016).
Regarding Claim 10, Ryu and Kawasaki teach: The UE of Claim 9.
Ryu and Kawasaki teach do not teach: the selected PDN connection is established as the only user-plane resource for an MA PDU session.
Regarding Claim 10, Velev teaches: the selected PDN connection is established as the only user-plane resource for an MA PDU session: “the wireless communication system 100 includes both a first core network 130 and a second core network 140 and various interworking network functions for to support interworking between the user plane and certain control plane functions in the first core network 130 and the second core network 140” (Velev ¶ 0038) and “Similar to when the UE 205 established PDN Connections in the EPC 215, when resuming 5G services the UE 205 may initiate PDU Sessions establishment procedure. Here, the UE 205 may include a ‘handover’ indication to indicate that the PDU Session is a transfer from a PDN Connection in the EPC 215. The AMF 230 retrieves subscription information from the HSS+UDM 225 and uses the downloaded subscription information to identify which SMF+PGW-C 160 needs to be used for the PDU Session establishment with ‘handover’ indication” (Velev ¶ 0149), or in other words Velev triggering the handover between 4G PDN and 5G PDU is only done in case there is no 5G PDU user plane resource
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu and Kawasaki with Velev for the purpose of establishing a method for moving between networks for services one network is unable to provide. Velev teaches: “initiating a service in the second core network that is unavailable in the first core network and transferring to the second core network a service used in the first core network” (Velev ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 13, Ryu and Kawasaki teach: The UE of Claim 9.
Ryu and Kawasaki do not teach: the UE releases the selected PDN connection locally and performs a normal and periodic tracking area update (TAU) with the network.
Regarding Claim 13, Velev teaches: the UE releases the selected PDN connection locally and performs a normal and periodic tracking area update (TAU) with the network: “If a remote unit 105 is in CM-IDLE state in the first core network 130 (e.g., 5GC) then the remote unit 105 may initiate an Attach procedure (or TAU procedure) with the second core network 140 (e.g., EPC) and indicates to the second core network 140 (e.g., EPC) that services in the first core network 130 (e.g., 5GC) should be suspended.” (Velev ¶ 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu and Kawasaki with Velev for the purpose of establishing a method for moving between networks for services one network is unable to provide. Velev teaches: “initiating a service in the second core network that is unavailable in the first core network and transferring to the second core network a service used in the first core network” (Velev ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 15, Ryu teaches: The UE of Claim 9, wherein the new PDU session is an emergency PDU session or a PDU session to a DNN (Data Network Name ): “In an example, when emergency service may be required and an emergency PDU session may not already be established, the UE 100 may initiate the UE 100 requested PDU session establishment procedure with a request type indicating emergency request” (Ryu ¶ 0168).
Regarding Claim 16, Ryu teaches: The method of Claim 9, wherein the UE initiates a UE- requested PDU session establishment procedure over 5G non- 3GPP access to establish the new 5G PDU session: “In an example, the request type may indicate initial request if the PDU session establishment is a request to establish the new PDU session and may indicate existing PDU session if the request refers to an existing PDU session between 3GPP access and non-3GPP access or to an existing PDN connection in EPC” (Ryu ¶ 0168).
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0022974), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki teach: The method of Claim 1.
Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki do not teach: the UE releases the selected 4G PDN connection by initiating a UE-requested PDN disconnect procedure by sending a PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message to the network.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches: the UE releases the selected 4G PDN connection by initiating a UE-requested PDN disconnect procedure by sending a PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message to the network: “in response to the packet data arriving on the non-DDS Sub2 at 714, UE 302 tears down the PDN session. In particular, UE 302 transmits a PDN DISCONNECT request to the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) at 716, the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) transmits a Deactivate EPS Bearer Context Request to the non-DDS Sub2 of UE 302 at 718” (Zhang ¶ 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki with Zhang for the purpose of improving signaling efficiencies within a network, especially between 4G and 5G connections. According to Zhang: “several hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections should be supported in order to support large sensor deployments. Consequently, the spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications should be significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard. Furthermore, signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards” (Zhang ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 4, Ryu and Velev teach: The method of Claim 3.
Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki do not teach: the UE receives a DEACTIVATE EPS BEARER CONTEXT message from the network in response to the PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang teaches: the UE receives a DEACTIVATE EPS BEARER CONTEXT message from the network in response to the PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message: “UE 302 transmits a PDN DISCONNECT request to the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) at 716, the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) transmits a Deactivate EPS Bearer Context Request to the non-DDS Sub2 of UE 302 at 718, and UE 302 transmits a Deactivate EPS Bearer Context Accept to the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) at 720” (Zhang ¶ 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki with Zhang for the purpose of improving signaling efficiencies within a network, especially between 4G and 5G connections. According to Zhang: “several hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections should be supported in order to support large sensor deployments. Consequently, the spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications should be significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard. Furthermore, signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards” (Zhang ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 11, Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki teach: The UE of Claim 9.
Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki do not teach: the UE releases the selected 4G PDN connection by initiating a UE-requested PDN disconnect procedure by sending a PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message to the network.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang teaches: the UE releases the selected 4G PDN connection by initiating a UE-requested PDN disconnect procedure by sending a PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message to the network: “in response to the packet data arriving on the non-DDS Sub2 at 714, UE 302 tears down the PDN session. In particular, UE 302 transmits a PDN DISCONNECT request to the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) at 716, the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) transmits a Deactivate EPS Bearer Context Request to the non-DDS Sub2 of UE 302 at 718” (Zhang ¶ 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki with Zhang for the purpose of improving signaling efficiencies within a network, especially between 4G and 5G connections. According to Zhang: “several hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections should be supported in order to support large sensor deployments. Consequently, the spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications should be significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard. Furthermore, signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards” (Zhang ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 12, Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki teach: The UE of Claim 11.
Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki do not teach: the UE receives a DEACTIVATE EPS BEARER CONTEXT message from the network in response to the PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang teaches: the UE receives a DEACTIVATE EPS BEARER CONTEXT message from the network in response to the PDN DISCONNECT REQUEST message: “UE 302 transmits a PDN DISCONNECT request to the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) at 716, the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) transmits a Deactivate EPS Bearer Context Request to the non-DDS Sub2 of UE 302 at 718, and UE 302 transmits a Deactivate EPS Bearer Context Accept to the non-DDS Sub2 cell (e.g., 4G LTE eNB) at 720” (Zhang ¶ 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki with Zhang for the purpose of improving signaling efficiencies within a network, especially between 4G and 5G connections. According to Zhang: “several hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections should be supported in order to support large sensor deployments. Consequently, the spectral efficiency of 5G mobile communications should be significantly enhanced compared to the current 4G standard. Furthermore, signaling efficiencies should be enhanced and latency should be substantially reduced compared to current standards” (Zhang ¶ 0004).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2015/0098321), hereinafter Jeong.
Regarding Claim 6, Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki teach: The method of Claim 5.
Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki do not teach: an EPS bearer context status IE is included in the TAU REQUEST message.
Regarding Claim 6, Jeong teaches: an EPS bearer context status IE is included in the TAU REQUEST message: “the UE 801 inserts information on locally deactivated bearers or information on the remaining active bearers after deactivation in the EPS bearer context status IE of a TAU request” (Jeong ¶ 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki with Jeong for the purpose of adjusting services on a network without further congesting the network. According to Jeong: “Another aspect of the present disclosure is to provide a method and apparatus that can adjust, when the network is congested, services without aggravating network congestion” (Jeong ¶ 0013).
Regarding Claim 13, Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki teach: The UE of Claim 13.
Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki do not teach: an EPS bearer context status IE is included in the TAU REQUEST message.
Regarding Claim 13, Jeong teaches: an EPS bearer context status IE is included in the TAU REQUEST message: “the UE 801 inserts information on locally deactivated bearers or information on the remaining active bearers after deactivation in the EPS bearer context status IE of a TAU request” (Jeong ¶ 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Ryu, Velev, and Kawasaki with Jeong for the purpose of adjusting services on a network without further congesting the network. According to Jeong: “Another aspect of the present disclosure is to provide a method and apparatus that can adjust, when the network is congested, services without aggravating network congestion” (Jeong ¶ 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473