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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 3/5/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by US 2023/0379765 (Deng et al.).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Deng teaches a wireless device (Remote UE, fig 1), comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see fig 6 and paragraphs 303-319), cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising:
sending, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) of an overlay network, a first non-access stratum (NAS) message comprising a request to receive information of one or more underlay networks (see paragraphs 295 and 300, ProSe Policy Provisioning Request message sent to AMF via NAS, ProSe connection~underlay network); and
receiving, from the AMF, a second NAS message comprising the information of the one or more underlay networks (see paragraphs 299 and 300, AMF forwards QoS policy information having allowed N3IWF address information needed to facilitate the ProSe connection to Remote UE).
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Deng further teaches wherein the second NAS message comprises an identifier of a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) of the overlay network (see paragraphs 206, 299 and figure 1B, N3IWF is part of the network that facilitates the ProSe connection provided by the Relay UE).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Deng further teaches wherein the operations further comprise sending, to the N3IWF via a base station of the underlay network, data packets via an internet protocol security (IPsec) tunnel over the underlay network (see paragraph 206 and figure 1B, Relay UE~base station of underlay network).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Deng further teaches wherein the operations further comprise sending, to a base station of the overlay network, a registration request message (see paragraph 295).
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, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0180118 (Gupta et al.) in view US 2023/0379765 (Deng et al.).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Gupta teaches a wireless device (UE 101, figs 1 and 2), comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see figure 1), cause the wireless device to perform operations comprising:
sending, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) of an overlay network, a first non-access stratum (NAS) message comprising a request to receive information of one or more underlay networks (see paragraphs 7-8, 43 and 60, registration request initiates the AMF sending N3IWF identifiers which would be used to access a non-3GPP network [~information on underlay networks]),
wherein the overlay network comprises the first AMF (see figures 1 and 2); and
receiving, from the AMF, a second NAS message comprising the information of the one or more underlay networks (see paragraphs 46-47 and 62, after the registration request AMF sends N3IWF identifiers via NAS message).
What is explicitly lacking from Gupta is wherein the overlay network comprises the first AMF and the one or more underlay networks comprise a second AMF.
In analogous art, Deng teaches an underlay network (non-3GPP PC5 connection to N3IWF, fig 1a and 1b) connected to an overlay (direct 3GPP connection to RAN) to provide wireless services to a UE. Each of the underlay and overlay networks have their own AMFs (Remote UE AMF, Relay UE AMF, see Deng, figures 1a and 1b and paragraphs 204-206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Gupta so as to enhance the quality of service provided by the underlay network.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Gupta further teaches wherein the second NAS message comprises an identifier of a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) of the overlay network (see paragraphs 46-47 and 62, after the registration request AMF sends N3IWF identifiers via NAS message).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Deng further teaches wherein the operations further comprise sending, to the N3IWF via a base station of the underlay network, data packets via an internet protocol security (IPsec) tunnel over the underlay network (see paragraph 206 and figure 1B, Relay UE~base station of underlay network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Gupta so as to enhance the quality of service provided by the underlay network.
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Gupta further teaches wherein the operations further comprise sending, to a base station of the overlay network, a registration request message (see paragraph 43).
Claims, 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Deng as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and in further view of US 2021/0014742 (Wang et al.).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, what is lacking from Deng is wherein the operations further comprise sending, to the N3IWF via the underlay network, a message indicating an access switch from the base station of the underlay network to a base station of the overlay network.
In analogous art, Wang teaches a UE that is already connected to an underlay network (Non-3GPP access) requesting, through the N3IWF, an access switch from the underlay network to an overlay network (3GPP access) (see Wang, figures 4 and 5A and paragraphs 101 and 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to apply this teaching to Deng, so as to permit the UE to receive optimal service.
Claims, 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Deng as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, what is lacking from Deng is wherein the operations further comprise determining, based on a received power from a cell of the overlay network, that the cell of the overlay network is available.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was Well Known at the effective filing date of the claimed invention for UEs to measure the received power from wireless networks to see if said wireless networks were in fact available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Deng, so as to ensure that the UE is aware of the available wireless networks around it.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Deng as applied to claims, 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 2023/0156650 (Salkintzis et al.).
As to claims 7 and 14, what is lacking from Deng is wherein the first NAS message is sent over a signaling IPsec security association (SA) and via user plane of the underlay network.
In analogous art, Salkintzis teaches a UE having an IPsec association with an underlay network (as defined by a Non-3GPP connection and N3IWF), and further requesting and receiving information on available underlay networks (as defined with other N3IWFs that support the requested slice over the Non-3GPP connection) from an AMF via NAS signaling (see paragraphs 65 and 68-73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Deng, so as to ensure that the UE can securely receive the underlay services it has requested.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0080836 (Vahidi Mazinani et al.).
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights