DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
No claims are canceled nor added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
Priority
Applicant's Remarks (on page 6-7), filed 05/18/2026, regarding Priority for this instant application is acknowledged. As per Applicant's Remarks, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are entitled to the August 11, 2022 filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/371,113 and claim 7 is entitled to the July 21, 2023 filing date of this present nonprovisional application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks (on page 7), filed 05/18/2026, regarding Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 have been and are persuasive. The rejection to claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “a first access type, selected from a 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type” in line 5-6 and also recites “a second access type, selected from a 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type and that is different from the first access type” in line 8-9. The Examiner cannot find the support of these claimed limitations in the specification since none of the drawings and its related specification have shown a UE is selected a first access type selected from a 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type as claimed.
In light of the specification, ¶ [0027] recites “In 5GS, since UEs can be simultaneously registered and connected to both 3GPP access type and non-3GPP access type…”
In view of above, UEs can be able to simultaneously connected to both 3GPP access type and non-3GPP access type; but does not recite UEs is selectively selected one access type over another access type. Thus, all of the drawings and its related specification fail to recite the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the written disclosure does not support to newly amended limitations as recited in claims 8-14 since the written disclosure fails to recite the claimed subject matter of newly added limitations. Accordingly, the newly added limitation(s) is/are not supported by the specification.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu et al. (US 2021/0051516 A1) hereinafter “Huang” in view of ZTE “NSAC for number of PDU sessions taking access type into account”, 3GPP C1-220224 hereinafter “ZTE”. The NPL reference, ZTE, was cited in IDS filed 03/02/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a fifth-generation system (5GS) session management (5GSM) message by a user equipment (UE) in a fifth-generation (5G) mobile communication network, wherein the 5GSM message is received over a first access type (see FIG. 14; see ¶ [0126], receiving a 5GSM message from the network node);
determining whether a current backoff (BO) timer is running, and whether the running BO timer is applied for the first access type (see FIG. 14; see ¶ [0056-57] [0062], when the back-off timer is running and applied in all PLMNs and the back-off timer may comprise a congestion back-off timer T3585); and
stopping the running BO timer in response to the 5GSM message when the running BO timer applied for the first access type (see ¶ [0070-71], the UE to determine whether the serving PLMN S-NSSAI of the PDU session of the 5GSM message is the same as S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer, in an event that the result is yes, the UE may be configured to stop the back-off timer).
Although Huang discloses T3585 timer which can be applied to either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access or both access types, but does not explicitly disclose the first access type is a 3GPP access type or a non-3GPP access type.
However, ZTE discloses wherein the first access type is a 3GPP access type or a non-3GPP access type (see Page 10; Section 9.11.4.21, in the current access type (i.e., either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the first access type is a 3GPP access type or a non-3GPP access type as taught by ZTE, in the system of Huang, so that it would provide the purpose of the 5GSM congestion re-attempt indicator information element to indicate whether the back-off timer is applied in the current access type or both 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type (ZTE: see Page 10).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the UE stops the running BO timer when the running BO timer is only applied for the first access type (Huang: see ¶ [0132], when the back-off timer is applied in an RPLMN and ZTE: see Page 10; Section 9.11.4.21, in the current access type (i.e., either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type)).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the UE stops the running BO timer when the running BO timer is applied for both the first access type and a second access type (Huang: see ¶ [0130], when the back-off timer is applied in all PLMNs and ZTE: see Page 10; Section 9.11.4.21, in both 3GPP access type and non-3GPP access type)).
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of Huang and ZTE wherein the UE does not stop the running BO timer when the running BO timer is only applied for a second type that is different from the first access type (ZTE: see Page 10, the UE does not stop the timer T3858 upon PLMN change or inter-system change and applied in either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the UE stops the running BO timer without receiving a BO timer value (Huang: see ¶ [0130], without a back-off timer value).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses further comprising:
maintaining a protocol data unit (PDU) session by the UE, wherein the 5GSM message is related to the PDU session maintained by the UE (Huang: see ¶ [0080], maintaining the PDU session and see ¶ [0125-27], receiving 5GSM message associated with PDU session).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses further comprising:
starting a new BO timer after the running BO timer is stopped (Huang: see ¶ [0043-44], starting a back-off timer with the updated/latest S-NSSAI), wherein the 5GSM message belongs to one of a PDU session establishment reject with a BO timer value and with a 5GSM cause #69 (ZTE: see Page 9, if the 5GSM congestion re-attempt indicator IE set to “The back-off timer is applied in the current access type” is included in the PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REJECT message with the 5GSM cause value #69, then the UE shall apply the timer t3585 for the current access type).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Huang discloses Claim 8 of a method, comprising: and Claim 15 of a User Equipment (UE), comprising: a receiver and a control circuit (see FIG. 10, UE; see ¶ [0075], processor and transceiver),
starting a first backoff (BO) timer by a user equipment (UE) in a fifth-generation (5G) mobile communication network, wherein the first BO timer is a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S_NSSAI) based congestion timer applied for a first access type (see FIG. 6; see ¶ [0052] [0056], the UE may be configured to start a back-off timer and the back-off timer is applied in all PLMNs and the back-off timer may comprise a congestion back-off timer T3585);
Although Huang discloses T3585 timer which can be applied to either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access or both access types, but does not explicitly disclose the first access type is a 3GPP access type or a non-3GPP access type.
However, ZTE discloses a first access type, selected from a 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type (see Page 10; Section 9.11.4.21, in the current access type (i.e., either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the first access type is a 3GPP access type or a non-3GPP access type as taught by ZTE, in the system of Huang, so that it would provide the purpose of the 5GSM congestion re-attempt indicator information element to indicate whether the back-off timer is applied in the current access type or both 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type (ZTE: see Page 10).
The combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses receiving a 5GS session management (5GSM) message by the UE over a second access type, selected from a 3GPP access type and a non-3GPP access type and that is different from the first access type (Huang: see FIG. 14; see ¶ [0126], receiving a 5GSM message from the network node; see ¶ [0006] and ZTE: see Page 10; Section 9.11.4.21, in the current access type (i.e., either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type));
starting a second BO timer based on a second BO timer value carried in the 5GSM message, when the second BO timer is applied to both the first access type and the second access type (ZTE: see Page 2, the UE applies the timer T3585 for both 3GPP access type and non-3GPP access type and the timer T3585 starts and stops per PLMN basis and/or SNPN basis); and
stopping the first BO timer upon determining that the first BO timer is applied for the first access type (Huang: see ¶ [0070-71], the UE to determine whether the serving PLMN S-NSSAI of the PDU session of the 5GSM message is the same as S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer, in an event that the result is yes, the UE may be configured to stop the back-off timer).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the 5GSM message comprises a 5GSM congestion re-attempt indicator (ZTE: see Page 10, see FIG. 9.11.4.21.1, the 5GSM congestion re-attempt indicator IE).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the 5GSM message congestion re-attempt indicator comprises a current access type backoff timer (CATBO) bit (ZTE: see Page 10, see FIG. 9.11.4.21.1, the 5GSM congestion re-attempt indicator IE comprises CATBO bit).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the CATOB bit is set to “the back-off timer is applied in both 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access type and non-3GPP access type” (ZTE: see Page 10, see Table 9.11.4.21.1, CATBO bit set to “the back-off timer is applied in both 3GPP access type and non-3GPP access type”).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the UE does not stop the first BO timer when the second BO timer is only applied for the second access type (ZTE: see Page 10, the UE does not stop the timer T3858 upon PLMN change or inter-system change and applied in either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the UE stops the first BO timer applied for the first access type that is different from the second access type over which the 5GSM message is received (Huang: see ¶ [0132], when the back-off timer is applied in an RPLMN and ZTE: see Page 10; Section 9.11.4.21, in the current access type (i.e., either 3GPP access type or non-3GPP access type)).
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of Huang and ZTE discloses wherein the first BO timer and the second BO timer are both T3585 timer (Huang: see ¶ [0052], the back-off timer may comprises the congestion back-off timer T3585 and see ZTE: Page 2, T3585).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KANG et al. (US 2020/0367149 A1) titled: “Method for Service Processing and User Equipment”
Wang et al. (US 2024/0224159 A1) titled: “Method for Per Access Type Network Slice Admission Control”
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights