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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 25, 2025 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the references not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected because of the following informalities.
In claim 1 and 9, “carries an information element (IE) indicates” should read “carries an information element (IE) indicating”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “where the UE considers interworking without N26 interface not supported and does not send an ATTACH REQUEST message to EPS”. In claim 1, UE receives the information of interworking without N26 interface supported in REGISTRATION ACCEPT message. Additionally, claim 1 recites that “the first network indicates interworking without N26 interface not supported”. Given these recitations in claim 1, it is not clear which network is UE considering when UE considers in claim 5, and if the consideration is for the second network, then how can UE “considers” interworking without N26 interface is not supported when the received message specifically indicates that interworking without N26 interface is supported. The specification (e.g., para. [0025] of the Application Publication) teaches that ATTACH REQUEST message is needed to be send if “N26 interface is not supported”. This seems contradicting to the feature of claim 5. However, no other teaching supporting claim 5 is found in the specification. In view of this, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are not clear.
Similar issue is noted in claim 13.
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 1-4, 7-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu et al (US11265767B2, hereinafter Huang-Fu) in view of Liu (US11240775B2, hereinafter Liu), and Won (US20210250890A, hereinafter Won).
For claims 1 and 9, Huang-Fu teaches maintaining one or more Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions by a User Equipment (UE) in fifth generation system (5GS), wherein the UE is registered to a first network via a first access type ([Col. 7 lines 52 – 55], establishing a PDU session in 5GS when a UE is registered to one RAT access type, and then registered to another RAT access type), receiving a REGISTRATION ACCEPT message over a second access type from a second network ([Col. 7 lines 29 – 51], establishing a PDU session in 5GS after a UE is registered over both 3GPP and non-3GPP access types, indicating that the UE has received REGISTRATION ACCEPT messages over both access types. UE sends a PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message to gNB. The user plane resource on 3GPP access is then established. Next, UE 401 sends another PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message to AP 403. The user plane resource on non-3GPP access is then established. Since UE 401 is registered to the network over both RAT access types belonging to different PLMNs, the MA PDU session is first established over 3GPP access type and then established over non-3GPP access type in two separate steps), and performing an intersystem change from 5GS to evolved packet system (EPS) ([Abstract lines 9-10], Upon intersystem change from 5GS to EPS over the 3GPP access).
Although teaching establishing session with networks over 3GPP and non-3GPP access types and performing intersystem change, Huang-Fu does not expressly disclose the first network indicates interworking without N26 interface not supported, and triggering a tracking area update (TAU) procedure in EPS.
Liu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses that the first network indicates interworking without N26 interface not supported ([Fig. 4 301] and [Col. 13 line 67- Col. 14 line 3], UE establishes PDU session in a 5GS, the support for interoperations with an N26 interface by the 5GS understood as the support for handover with an N26 interface. [Fig. 11] 1420, send indication to indicate the support for interoperations with an N26 interface), and triggering a tracking area update (TAU) procedure in EPS ([Col. 15 lines 46 – 51], if a terminal device does not recognize indication sent by a network side and used to indicate that the network side supports a handover without an N26 interface, the terminal device sends a TAU request).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus of Huang-Fu, so that a terminal device recognizing indication sent by a network side and used to indicate that the network side supports a handover without an N26 interface sends a TAU request, as taught by Liu. The modification would have implemented an inter-system network handover in the case of flexible registration modes of a terminal device (Liu [Col. 1 lines 35-37]).
Although teaching the UE receiving a REGISTRATION ACCEPT message indicating N26 interface is not supported, Huang-Fu and Liu do not explicitly disclose wherein the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message from the second network carries an information element (IE) indicates interworking without N26 interface supported.
Won is directed to providing methods, apparatuses, and computer program products for handling emergency services in private networks. More specifically, Won teaches wherein the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message from the second network carries an information element (IE) indicates interworking without N26 interface supported ([Para. 0333], if the UE included S1 mode supported indication in the REGISTRATION REQUEST message, the AMF supporting inter-system change with EPS can or shall set the IWK N26 bit to either: [Para. 0334], a) “interworking without N26 not supported” if the AMF supports N26 interface; or [Para. 0335], b) “interworking without N26 supported” if the AMF does not support N26 interface [Para. 0336], in the 5GS network feature support IE in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message [Examiner’s Note: “interworking without N26 not supported” is N26 interface supported. “interworking without N26 supported” is N26 interface not supported]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus of Huang-Fu and Liu, so that indication of N26 interface not supported is carried in the 5GS network feature support IE in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message, as taught by Won. The modification would have allowed a UE to locally release of all protocol data unit (PDU) session(s) except for an emergency PDU session without authorization for the access to the network (Won [Para. 0006]).
For claims 2 and 10, Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won disclose every limitation of claims 1 and 9. Huang-Fu also teaches wherein the first access type is third generation partnership project (3GPP) access, and wherein the second access type is non-3GPP access (Huang-Fu, [Col. 7 lines 29 – 32], establishing a PDU session in 5GS after a UE is registered over both 3GPP and non-3GPP access types to different networks).
For claims 3 and 11, Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won disclose every limitation of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Liu also teaches the UE supports sending an ATTACH REQUEST message to transfer the one or more PDU session from 5GS to EPS (Liu, [Fig. 5 405], Attach request), and wherein the ATTACH REQUEST message carries a PDN CONNECTIVITY REQUEST message (Liu, [Fig. 5 413], PDN connection requested by the UE) with a request type set to handover (Liu, [Col. 15 lines 9-10], the UE sends an attach request carrying a handover ID).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus of Huang-Fu and Won so that the UE supports sending an ATTACH REQUEST message to transfer the one or more PDU session from 5GC to EPS, as taught by Liu. The modification would have implemented an inter-system network handover in the case of flexible registration modes of a terminal device (Liu [Col. 1 lines 35-37]).
For claims 4 and 12, Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won disclose every element of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Liu also teaches wherein the UE ignores the indication from the second network (Liu, [Col. 15 lines 46 – 51], if a terminal device does not recognize indication sent by a network side and used to indicate that the network side supports a handover without an N26 interface, the terminal device sends a TAU request).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus of Huang-Fu and Won so that the UE ignores the indication from the second network, as taught by Liu. The modification would have implemented an inter-system network handover in the case of flexible registration modes of a terminal device (Liu [Col. 1 lines 35-37]).
For claims 7 and 15, Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won disclose every element of claims 1 and 9, respectively. Huang-Fu further teaches wherein the first network and the second network belong to the same public land mobile network (PLMN) (Huang-Fu, [Col. 7 lines 52 – 55], establishing a PDU session in 5GS when a UE is registered to one RAT access type, and then registered to another RAT access type to the same PLMN) or the same standalone non-public network (SNPN).
For claims 8 and 16, Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won teach every element of claims 1 and 9, respectively. Huang-Fu further teaches wherein the first network and the second network belong to different public land mobile networks (PLMNs) (Huang-Fu, [Col. 7 lines 29 – 32], establishing a PDU session in 5GS after a UE is registered over both 3GPP and non-3GPP access types belonging to different PLMNs) or different standalone non-public networks (SNPNs).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu et al (US11265767B2, hereinafter Huang-Fu) in view of Liu (US11240775B2, hereinafter Liu), and Won (US20210250890A, hereinafter Won), and further in view of ETSI TS (124 501 Version 16.5.1).
For claims 6 and 14, Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won disclose every limitation of claim 1 and 9 respectively. Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won do not teach the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message carries a 5GS network feature support information element (IE) with an internetworking (IWK) N26 indication in supporting N26 interface.
ETSI TS (124 501 Version 16.5.1), from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message carries a 5GS network feature support information element (IE) with an internetworking (IWK) N26 indication (ETSI TS [Page 30, lines 37-40], “the UE has received either a 5GS network feature support IE with IWK N26 bit set to "interworking without N26 interface not supported" or an EPS network feature support IE with IWK N26 bit set to "interworking without N26 interface not supported"”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use IWK N26 bit in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message in the network systems of Huang-Fu, Liu, and Won.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the noted 112b rejection is withdrawn, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHU LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-5186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, REBECCA E SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2417 /REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417