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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objections Withdrawn
Objection to Figures 1A, 1B, and 1.
Objection to Claim 19.
Objection to Claim 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues neither 3GPP nor Kim disclose the amended limitation that requires a registration request which includes both an initial registration and path switching capability info [Remarks pg. 12-18]. Examiner concedes Applicant’s argument with respect to 3GPP and has removed that reference from the below rejection. Additionally, upon further searching, Examiner found Salkintzis (US 20250294493 A1), which unlike Applicant’s amended limitations, separates the initial registration and path switching messages [par. 0079, 100]. However, original reference Kim clearly indicates a request for registration to the AMF, where the UE transmits “at least one of” (i.e., both) initial registration and N3GPP path switching [par. 0149, 176, fig. 4B no. 5a]. Consequently, since Kim discloses the amended limitations as claimed, the claims remain rejected.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over their respective claims of copending Application No. 18/085548 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, claim 16 of the instant application is similar to claim 1 of the reference application, but from the opposite perspective (i.e., UE vs. network interface device). A similar analysis can be performed for the other independent claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20230319757 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a communications method [fig. 3A-C, 4A-D, 5A-D], the method comprising:
operating a network interface device [fig. 3A no. 310, 320] to receive a first message from a first User Equipment (UE) [fig. 3A no. 10], said first message including an initial registration request message that includes a message type indicator indicating an initial registration request message type and path switching capability information indicating whether the first UE supports path switching of Multi-Access Protocol Data Unit (MA PDU) sessions between non-3GPP (N3GPP) access paths (Registration request includes path switching indication, as well as initial registration, where access path switching is between different types of non-3GPP access using N3IWF and TNGF (i.e., between non-3GPP) [par. 0107-108, 0135, 138-139, fig. 3A no. 2, 4A no. 2, 3a, par. 0149, 176, fig. 4B no. 5a]);
operating the network interface device, in response to receiving the first message, to make an initial Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) selection to select a first AMF to serve as a hosting AMF for the first UE [fig. 3A no. 3, fig. 4A no. 20, 120]; and
operating the network interface device to communicate the initial registration request message to the first AMF [fig. 3A no. 4, fig. 4A no. 2, 3a].
Regarding claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Kim further discloses a communications system [fig. 1-2, 6-15] comprising: a network interface device [fig. 8 no. 310, fig. 9 no. 320] including: a first receiver [fig. 8 no. 311, fig. 9 no. 321]; a first transmitter [fig. 8 no. 311, fig. 9 no. 321]; and a first processor [fig. 8 no. 312, fig. 9 no. 322].
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Kim discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses further comprising:
operating the first AMF to determine if the hosting AMF can support a level of path switching capability the first UE supports as indicated by the path switching capability information included in said initial registration request message [fig. 3A no. 6, par. 0111-113].
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses further comprising: said first AMF including: a second processor (More components, including at least one (i.e., second) processor [fig. 8, par. 0212, 214]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Kim discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said initial registration request message is included in said first message as part of a payload of said first message, the content of said initial registration message not being fully accessible to the network interface device but being accessible to one or more AMFs to which the initial registration message is communicated (The message passes thru the Source Access Network (i.e., network interface device) but is not communicated to it (i.e., “not fully accessible”) [par. 0149, 176, fig. 4A no. 20, 310, fig. 4B no. 5a]); and
wherein said network interface device does not consider the path switching capability of the first UE when making the initial AMF selection (The AMF, not the network interface device, makes this determination [fig. 3A no. 6, par. 0111-113]).
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.
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.
Claims 4-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, and further in view of Li (US 20220322202 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kim discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kim discloses wherein the path switching capability information included in the initial registration request message indicates that the first UE supports path switching of MA PDU sessions between non-3GPP access paths [fig. 4A-D, 5A-D]; wherein the first AMF does not support path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths [fig. 4A-D, 5A-D]; wherein operating the first AMF to determine if the hosting AMF can support a level of path switching capability the first UE supports as indicated by the path switching capability information included in said initial registration request message includes determining that the first AMF can not support the level of path switching capability the first UE supports [fig. 4A-D, 5A-D], as discussed above, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: operating the first AMF to select a second AMF which can support the level of path switching capability the first UE supports to serve as the host for the first UE. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Li.
In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses:
wherein the method further comprises: operating the first AMF to select a second AMF which can support the level of path switching capability the first UE supports to serve as the host for the first UE [par. 0180, fig. 24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of relocating the AMF for particular reasons (e.g., not supported) [Li par. 0180].
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Kim and Li disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Li further discloses further comprising:
operating the first AMF to send the initial registration request message path switching capability information indicating that the first UE supports path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths to the second AMF [par. 0181, fig. 24].
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kim and Li disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim and Li further disclose further comprising:
operating the second AMF [Li, as discussed above] to receive the initial registration request message corresponding to the first UE [Kim, as discussed above]; and
operating the second AMF [Li, as discussed above] to send a registration accept message to the network interface device indicating that the second AMF accepts the initial registration request made by the first UE [Kim fig. 3B no. 10].
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses further comprising: said second AMF including: a second receiver [fig. 35F no. 120]: a third transmitter [fig. 35F no. 120]: and a third processor [fig. 35F no. 118].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kim and Li disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim and Li further disclose further comprising:
operating the second AMF [Li, as discussed above] to select a Session Management Function (SMF) which supports path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths to be used to support first UE communications [Kim fig. 3B no. 7-8, fig. 4A no. 3c].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Li as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lu (WO 2021093182 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim and Li disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Kim and Li disclose further comprising: operating the network interface device to send a registration accept message to the first UE [Kim fig. 4D no. 10] … of the second AMF and information indicating that the AMF supports path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths; and operating the second AMF to receive an initiate MA PDU session establishment message from the first UE, as discussed above, Kim and Li do not explicitly disclose including the globally unique AMF identifier (GUAMI). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lu.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu discloses:
including the globally unique AMF identifier (GUAMI) [pg. 7 no. 8, fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Li with Lu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of performing AMF relocation [Lu pg. 3 “Detailed Description” par. 1].
Claims 16-25 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lu.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a method of operating a first user equipment (UE) device [fig. 3A-C, 4A-D, 5A-D], the method comprising:
operating the first UE device [fig. 3A no. 10] to send to a first network interface device [fig. 3A no. 310, 320], a first message, said first message including an initial registration request message that includes a message type indicator indicating an initial registration request message type and path switching capability information indicating whether the first UE device supports path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths (Registration request includes path switching indication, as well as initial registration, where access path switching is between different types of non-3GPP access using N3IWF and TNGF (i.e., between non-3GPP) [par. 0107-108, 0135, 138-139, fig. 3A no. 2, 4A no. 2, 3a, par. 149, 176, fig. 4B no. 5a]); and
operating the first UE device to receive a registration accept message from the first network interface device, said registration accept message [fig. 3B no. 11, fig. 4D no. 10, fig. 5C no. 10].
Although Kim discloses MA PDU sessions, as discussed above, Kim does not explicitly disclose said registration accept message including a GUAMI of an AMF identifying an AMF selected to support first UE device communications sessions. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lu.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu discloses:
including a GUAMI of an AMF identifying an AMF selected to support first UE device communications sessions [pg. 7 no. 8, fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Lu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of performing AMF relocation [Lu pg. 7 no. 8, fig. 3].
Regarding claim 26, it is substantially similar to claim 16, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Kim further discloses a first user equipment (UE) device [fig. 6 no. 10] comprising: a wireless transmitter [fig. 6 no. 11]; a wireless receiver [fig. 6 no. 11]; and a processor [fig. 6 no. 12].
Regarding claim 17, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said first network interface device is a 3GPP Next Generation-Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) device [fig. 4A no. 20].
Regarding claim 18, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said first network interface device is a non 3GPP Interworking Function (N3IWF) [fig. 4A no. 310].
Regarding claim 19, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said first network interface device is a Trusted Network Gateway Function (TNGF) [fig. 4B no. 320].
Regarding claims 20 and 27, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said registration accept message includes AMF path switching capability information indicating the path switching support capability of the identified AMF [fig. 4D no. 10].
Regarding claims 21 and 28, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said AMF path switching capability information is communicated via a mandatory field of said registration accept message [fig. 4D no. 10, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the “Path Switching Support Indicator” is a “mandatory” field].
Regarding claim 22, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the path switching capability information in the registration accept message indicates that the identified AMF does not support path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths [par. 0145-146, 179, 198].
Regarding claims 23 and 29, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the path switching capability information in the registration accept message indicates that the identified AMF supports path switching of MA PDU sessions between N3GPP access paths [par. 0145-146, 179, 198].
Regarding claims 24 and 30, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses further comprising:
operating the first UE device to participate in a first MA PDU session, said participating in a first MA PDU session including communications via a first path, said first path including a first N3GPP access device [fig. 4A-D, 5A-D];
operating the first UE device to perform a path switch of the first MA PDU session from the first path to a second path, said second path including a second N3GPP access device [fig. 4A-D, 5A-D]; and
operating the first UE device to continue participating in the first MA PDU session, said continuing participating in the first MA PDU session including communications via the second path [fig. 4A-D, 5A-D].
Regarding claim 25, Kim and Lu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Kim further discloses:
wherein said identified AMF supports the path switching between the first and second paths [fig. 4A no. 3b, fig. 5B no. 5b].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465