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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
The use of the following terms are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses: S1, N1, UE, 5GSM, ESM, RATC and EPLMNC.
Acronym
Source
S1
[0005] If a UE is registered in EPS, the UE may initiate PDN connectivity procedure for PDN connection (S1 mode)
N1
[0005] … if a UE is registered in 5GS, the UE may initiate PDU session establishment procedure for PDU session (N1 mode).
UE
[0003] …user equipments (UEs)
5GSM
Term of Art … 5G Session Management
ESM
Term of Art … EPS Session Management
RATC
Term of Art …Re-ATtempt Control
EPLMNC
[0028] … equivalent PLMN (EPLMN)
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 14-15 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Failure to spell out an acronym or abbreviation in the first mention, with the acronym identified in parentheses. The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Style and Graphics Guide.
Claims
Acronym
Source
4 and 14
PDN
[0003] : Packet Data Network (PDN)
5, 9, 15 and 19
PLMN
None found in specification : term of the art assumed Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN)
8 and 18
PDU
[0004] : Protocol Data Unit (PDU)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 10-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. ( US 20230397147 A1, hereafter Kawasaki ) in view of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e.
Consider claim 1. Kawasaki suggests. A method, comprising: ( [0001] communication control method ), performing an intersystem change from the first system to a second system; ( [0030] Evolved Packet System (EPS) that is a 4G system [i.e. first system] … A 5G System (5GS) [i.e. second system] ) receiving a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling message ( [0049] The UE can transmit and/or receive a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) message ), starting a backoff timer by a User Equipment (UE) in a first mobile communication system, wherein the backoff timer is not related to congestion control; ( [0391] UE may configure the back-off timer value for the back-off timer ), and stopping the backoff timer that is started in the first system upon receiving the NAS signaling message in the second system. ( [0391] UE may configure the back-off timer value for the back-off timer ).
However Kawasaki fails to explicitly disclose from the second system indicating that the UE is required to perform a re-registration procedure or a re-attach procedure in the second system;
While in a similar field of endeavor 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e suggests, from the second system indicating that the UE is required to perform a re-registration procedure or a re-attach procedure in the second system; ( Summary of change: When the network sends deregistration request message with “re-registration required”, the UE stops all 5GSM non-congestion back-off timers. )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the reregistration of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e into the back-off timer of Kawasaki to avoid re-registration which may not be necessary.
Consider claim 2. Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the first mobile communication system is an evolved packet system (EPS), and wherein the second mobile communication system is a 5G system (5GS). ( [0030] Evolved Packet System (EPS) that is a 4G system includes the access network_A and the core network_A and may further include the UE and/or the PDN. A 5G System (5GS) that is a 5G system includes the UE, the access network_B, and the core network_B and may further include the DN.).
Consider claim 3. Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the NAS signaling message ( [0049] The UE can transmit and/or receive a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) message ) is a de-registration request message from 5GS. ( [0023] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a UE-initiated de-registration procedure.)
Consider claim 10. While Kawasaki disclose all of the previous limitations they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the UE also stops all non-congestion backoff timers of the second system.
While 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e further suggests, wherein the UE also stops all non-congestion backoff timers of the second system. (Summary of change: the UE stops all 5GSM [i.e. second system] non-congestion back-off timers.)
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the reregistration of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e into the back-off timer of Kawasaki to avoid re-registration which may not be necessary.
Consider claim 11. Kawasaki suggests. A User Equipment (UE), ( [0001] a User Equipment (UE)) an intersystem handling circuit that performs an intersystem change from the first system to a second system; ( [0030] Evolved Packet System (EPS) that is a 4G system [i.e. first system] … A 5G System (5GS) [i.e. second system]), and a receiver that receives a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling message from the second system indicating that, ( [0049] The UE can transmit and/or receive a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) message ), wherein the UE stops the backoff timer that is started in the first system upon receiving the NAS signaling message in the second system. ( [0391] UE may configure the back-off timer value for the back-off timer ).
However Kawasaki fail to explicitly suggest the UE is required to perform a re-registration procedure or a re-attach procedure in the second system,
While in a similar field of endeavor 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e suggests, the UE is required to perform a re-registration procedure or a re-attach procedure in the second system, ( Summary of change: When the network sends deregistration request message with “re-registration required”, the UE stops all 5GSM non-congestion back-off timers. )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the reregistration of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e into Kawasaki to avoid re-registration which may not be necessary.
Consider claim 12. Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the first mobile communication system is an evolved packet system (EPS), and wherein the second mobile communication system is a 5G system (5GS). ( [0030] Evolved Packet System (EPS) that is a 4G system includes the access network_A and the core network_A and may further include the UE and/or the PDN. A 5G System (5GS) that is a 5G system includes the UE, the access network_B, and the core network_B and may further include the DN)
Consider claim 13. Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the NAS signaling message ( [0049] The UE can transmit and/or receive a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) message ) is a de-registration request message from 5GS. ( [0023] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a UE-initiated de-registration procedure.)
Consider claim 20. While Kawasaki disclose all of the previous limitations they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the UE also stops all non-congestion backoff timers of the second system
While 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e further suggests, wherein the UE also stops all non-congestion backoff timers of the second system. ( Summary of change: the UE stops all 5GSM [i.e. second system] non-congestion back-off timers.)
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the reregistration of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e into the back-off timer of Kawasaki to avoid re-registration which may not be necessary.
Claims 4-6, 7-9, 14-16, and 17- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. ( US 20230397147 A1, hereafter Kawasaki ) in view of 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e in further view of Zaus et al. ( US 12192753 B2, hereafter Zaus).
Consider claim 4. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 2 Kawasaki further suggest, wherein the UE is configured with the backoff timer ( [0326] UE may initiate the de-registration procedure, based on expiration of the timer [i.e. backoff timer] ).
However Kawasaki fail to explicitly disclose in EPS during a PDN connectivity procedure.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus suggests in EPS during a PDN connectivity procedure. ( col 9 lines 35-36 a PDN CONNECTIVITY REQUEST message with request type set to “handover” ).
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki into the handover method of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 5. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of The method of Claim 4, they fail to explicitly disclose. wherein the UE receives an indicator in EPS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDN connectivity procedure in N1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN).
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests wherein the UE receives an indicator in EPS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDN connectivity procedure in N1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN). ( col 4 lines 66-67 and col 5 lines 1-4 UE for which the support of voice services is essential for the user, will need to deactivate its 5GS capability (“N1 mode capability”) so that it no longer attempts to camp on an NR cell [i.e. reattempt PDN connectivity] or register with a 5G core network, but rather attempts to register with a 2G, 3G or 4G network [i.e. PDN] which is able to provide voice services to the UE.)
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the PDN connectivity of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 6. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 2 they fail to explicitly disclose , wherein the first mobile communication system is 5G system (5GS), and wherein the second mobile communication system is an evolved packet system (EPS).
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests, wherein the first mobile communication system is 5G system (5GS), and wherein the second mobile communication system is an evolved packet system (EPS). ( col 6 lines 58-59 handover or redirection from NR/E-UTRA connected to 5GC [i.e. first mobile communication system] to EPS [i.e. second mobile communication system] )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the 5G to EPS handover of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 7. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 6, they fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the NAS signaling message is a detach request message from EPS.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests, wherein the NAS signaling message is a detach request message from EPS. ( col 25 lines 16-19 In the RM-DEREGISTERED state, the UE 601 is not registered with the network, and the UE context in AMF 621 holds no valid location or routing information for the UE 601 )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the deregister of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 8. Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the UE is configured with the backoff timer ( [0384-0385] UE to set the back-off timer value equal to a value to be transmitted or indicate to the UE to start the back-off timer configured with the transmitted value.) in 5GS during a PDU session establishment procedure. ( [0356] PDU session establishment request message to the SMF via the 5G AN (gNB) and the AMF (S900) (S902) (S904), and thereby initiates the PDU session establishment procedure )
Consider claim 9. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 8, they fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the UE receives an indicator in 5GS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDU session establishment procedure in S1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN).
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests wherein the UE receives an indicator in 5GS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDU session establishment procedure in S1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN). ( col 10 Table 1 lines 35-36 transfer PDU session from N1 mode to S1 mode not supported )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the mode support of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 14. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 12 Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the UE is configured with the backoff timer ( [0326] UE may initiate the de-registration procedure, based on expiration of the timer [i.e. backoff timer])
However Kawasaki fail to explicitly disclose in EPS during a PDN connectivity procedure.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus suggests in EPS during a PDN connectivity procedure. ( col 9 lines 35-36 a PDN CONNECTIVITY REQUEST message with request type set to “handover” ).
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki into the handover method of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 15. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of Claim 14, they fail to explicitly disclose. wherein the UE receives an indicator in EPS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDN connectivity procedure in N1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN).
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests wherein the UE receives an indicator in EPS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDN connectivity procedure in N1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN). ( col 4 lines 66-67 and col 5 lines 1-4 UE for which the support of voice services is essential for the user, will need to deactivate its 5GS capability (“N1 mode capability”) so that it no longer attempts to camp on an NR cell [i.e. reattempt PDN connectivity] or register with a 5G core network, but rather attempts to register with a 2G, 3G or 4G network [i.e. PDN] which is able to provide voice services to the UE.)
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the PDN connectivity of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 16. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 12 they fail to explicitly disclose , wherein the first mobile communication system is 5G system (5GS), and wherein the second mobile communication system is an evolved packet system (EPS).
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests, wherein the first mobile communication system is 5G system (5GS), and wherein the second mobile communication system is an evolved packet system (EPS). ( col 6 lines 58-59 handover or redirection from NR/E-UTRA connected to 5GC [i.e. first mobile communication system] to EPS [i.e. second mobile communication system] )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the 5G to EPS handover of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 17. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 16, they fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the NAS signaling message is a detach request message from EPS.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests, wherein the NAS signaling message is a detach request message from EPS. ( col 25 lines 16-19 In the RM-DEREGISTERED state, the UE 601 is not registered with the network, and the UE context in AMF 621 holds no valid location or routing information for the UE 601 )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the deregister of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Consider claim 18. Kawasaki further suggests, wherein the UE is configured with the backoff timer ( [0384-0385] UE to set the back-off timer value equal to a value to be transmitted or indicate to the UE to start the back-off timer configured with the transmitted value.) in 5GS during a PDU session establishment procedure. ( [0356] PDU session establishment request message to the SMF via the 5G AN (gNB) and the AMF (S900) (S902) (S904), and thereby initiates the PDU session establishment procedure )
Consider claim 19. While Kawasaki-3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #128-e disclose all of the previous limitations of claim 18, they fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the UE receives an indicator in 5GS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDU session establishment procedure in S1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN).
While in a similar field of endeavor Zaus further suggests wherein the UE receives an indicator in 5GS indicating that the UE is not allowed to reattempt the PDU session establishment procedure in S1 mode or in an equivalent PLMN (EPLMN). ( col 10 Table 1 lines 35-36 transfer PDU session from N1 mode to S1 mode not supported )
Therefore it would have been apparent to one skilled in the art to combine the configuration of backoff timer of Kawasaki with the mode support of Zaus in order to provide optimization and diversification for network registration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN H CASTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-4597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 05:00 PM.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/FRANKLIN HAYES CASTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights