DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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, 11, and 15 are amended.
No claims are cancelled nor added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application no. 63/371,113 filed on Aug. 11, 2022). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/371,113, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The claimed limitation(s) in this instant application “the 5GSM message belongs to one of a PDU session establishment reject with a BO timer value and a 5GSM cause #69, a PDU session establishment request with the BO timer value and with a 5GMM (5GS mobility management) cause #69, a PDU session modification reject with the BO timer value and with a 5GSM cause #69, and a PDU session modification request with the BO timer value and with a 5GMM cause #69, and wherein the new BO timer is started in accordance with the BO timer value provided by the network” recited in claim 7 does not have support in the disclosure of the prior-field application. The Examiner cannot find the support of the claimed subject matter in the prior-filed application, therefore, claim 7 is not entitled to the benefit of the identified provisional application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks (on page 7), filed 11/11/2025, regarding Claim Objections have been fully considered and claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 have been amended. The Objections to claims 1, 8, 11, and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's Remarks (on page 7-8), filed 11/11/2025, regarding Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 have been and claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. The rejection to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the Applicant has argued that, “There is no teaching of “determining… whether the running BO timer is applied for the first access type; and stop the running BO timer when the running BO timer applied for the first access type.”… The cited paragraph and the entirety of Huang does NOT teach anything about 3GPP vs. non-3GPP access or any determination abut which access type a running timer applies to.” (see Remarks on page 9).
In response to the Applicant's arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because upon careful reconsideration, claim 1 simply recites “a first access type” and does not recites a specific access type as argued. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that PLMN is one of an access type. Based on this analysis, Huang teaches the back-off timer is applied in all PLMNs (i.e., access types) and the back-off timer may comprise a congestion back-off timer T3585 (see ¶ [0056]). The back-off timer T3585 is well known in the art that T3585 can be applied for both 3GPP access type and non-3GPP access type. Huang also teaches that 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 (see ¶ [0070]). In other words, the UE may stop the back-off timer in an event that the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI of PDU session of the 5GSM message is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI associated with the back-off timer (see ¶ [0071]) and the S-NSSAI value of a PDU session can be updated (e.g., when the UE moves to a different PLMN), thus the S-NSSAI of a serving PLMN associated with a PDU session may be changed during the PDU session lifetime (e.g., after inter-PLMN change) (see ¶ [0006]). Thus, Huang teaches that stopping the back-off timer (T3585) is when the mapped PLMN of the 5GSM message is the same as the mapped PLMN (i.e., current PLMN). If the prior art, Huang, is capable of performing the same intended functionality, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the argument(s) is/are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 3GPP vs. non 3GPP access) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This Office action is made Final.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 7, there are multiple recitations of the term “cause #69” in the claim. The term “cause #69” raise ambiguity as no specific meaning in the claim. The term “cause #69” should be specified with respect to their meaning. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret as best understood.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang-Fu et al. (US 2021/0051516 A1) hereinafter “Huang”.
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).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses wherein the UE stops the running BO timer when the running BO timer is only applied for the first access type (see ¶ [0132], when the back-off timer is applied in an RPLMN).
Regarding claim 3, Huang 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 (see ¶ [0130], when the back-off timer is applied in all PLMNs).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses wherein the UE stops the running BO timer without receiving a BO timer value (see ¶ [0130], without a back-off timer value).
Regarding claim 6, Huang 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 (see ¶ [0080], maintaining the PDU session and see ¶ [0125-27], receiving 5GSM message associated with PDU session).
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 4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 4, Huang does not disclose wherein the UE does not stop the running BO timer.
However, ZTE discloses 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).
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 wherein the UE does not stop the running BO timer as taught by ZTE, in the system of Huang, so that it would provide the UE is allowed to initiate a PDU session establishment procedure for emergency services (ZTE: see Page 9).
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses starting a new BO timer after the running BO timer is stopped (see ¶ [0043-44], starting a back-off timer with the updated/latest S-NSSAI), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the 5GSM message belongs to one of a PDU session establishment reject with a BO timer value and with a 5GSM cause #69.
However, ZTE discloses wherein the 5GSM message belongs to one of a PDU session establishment reject with a BO timer value and with a 5GSM cause #69 (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).
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 wherein the 5GSM message belongs to one of a PDU session establishment reject with a BO timer value and with a 5GSM cause #69 as taught by ZTE, in the system of Huang, so that it would provide the UE is allowed to initiate a PDU session establishment procedure for emergency services (ZTE: see Page 9).
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);
receiving a 5GS session management (5GSM) message by the UE over a second access type (see FIG. 14; see ¶ [0126], receiving a 5GSM message from the network node; see ¶ [0006]); and
stopping the first BO timer upon determining that the first BO timer is 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).
Huang does not explicitly disclose starting a second BO timer based on a second BO timer value carried in the 5GSM message, wherein the second BO timer is applied to both the first access type and the second access type.
However, ZTE discloses 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 (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).
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 starting a second BO timer based on a second BO timer value carried in the 5GSM message, wherein the second BO timer is applied to both the first access type and the second access type as taught by ZTE, in the system of Huang, so that it would provide the UE is allowed to initiate a PDU session establishment procedure for emergency services (ZTE: see Page 9).
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).
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).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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