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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18783380 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Re claim 21: Claim 21 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of A380. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Re claims 22-27: Claims 22-27 are the same as claims 2-7 of A380, respectively.
Re claim 28: Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 21.
Re claims 29-34: Claims 29-34 are rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claims 22-27, respectively.
Re claim 35: Claim 35 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 21 from the perspective of the opposing device.
Re claims 36-40: Claims 36-40 are rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claims 22,23,25-27, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25-30, 32-36, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190357082 A1 herein Kim in view of US 12477401 B1 herein Yu.
Claim 21, Kim discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (0076, Fig. 4) comprising:
a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors (0076, network interface, memory and processor; Fig. 4: 460, 430 and 410) configured to:
send a request for establishing a multi-access (MA) protocol data unit (PDU) session (0047, triggering a request change for a MA PDU session), wherein the request indicates support for at least one steering capability and support for one or more steering modes associated with the at least one steering capability (0047-0049, Fig. 2: S210, ATSSS preference is the same format as the ATSSS rule, which indicates support for steering modes and steering capability);
receive, in response to the request, one or more steering rules including a first rule that includes a load balancing steering mode, of the one or more steering modes (Fig. 3, 0011-0013, receiving steering rules including modes of, active-standby, smallest delay, load balancing and etc.), in association with a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold for the MA PDU session (0051-0056, adaptive rule changes corresponding to adaptive traffic steering behavior);
select the first rule and apply splitting percentages associated with the load balancing steering mode to steer traffic on a first access and a second access of the MA PDU session (0052, steering percentages based on load balancing rule).
Kim may not explicitly disclose change the splitting percentages to steer traffic on the first access and the second access of the MA PDU session in response to any of (i) a measured first value for a-the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session exceeding the first round-trip time threshold and (ii) a measured second value for the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session exceeding the packet loss rate threshold.
Yu discloses change the splitting percentages to steer traffic on the first access and the second access of the MA PDU session (Col 2: 62-67, the load-balancing steering mode, the steering indication information is a specific split percentage of at least one link. The specific split percentage indicates the first device to determine the split percentage of the at least one transmission link) in response to any of (i) a measured first value for a-the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session exceeding the first round-trip time threshold and (ii) a measured second value for the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session exceeding the packet loss rate threshold (Col 16: 1-16, delay and packet loss threshold; Col 22: 59 – Col 23: 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include adjusting steering as taught by Yu so as to s improves transmission efficiency (Col 1: 49-54).
Claim 22, Kim may not explicitly disclose wherein the transceiver, memory, and the one or more processors are configured to change the splitting percentages to adjust a split of the traffic between the first access and a second access of the MA PDU session.
Yu discloses change the splitting percentages to adjust a split of the traffic between the first access and a second access of the MA PDU session threshold (Col 16: 1-16, delay and packet loss threshold; Col 22: 59 – Col 23: 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include adjusting steering as taught by Yu so as to s improves transmission efficiency (Col 1: 49-54).
Claim 23, Kim may not explicitly disclose may not explicitly disclose wherein the transceiver, memory, and the one or more processors are configured to switch, in response to the first access becoming unavailable the steered traffic from the first access to the second access of the MA PDU session.
Yu discloses to switch, in response to the first access becoming unavailable the steered traffic from the first access to the second access of the MA PDU session (Col 16: 1-16, delay and packet loss threshold; Col 22: 59 – Col 23: 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include adjusting steering as taught by Yu so as to s improves transmission efficiency (Col 1: 49-54).
Claim 25, Kim may not explicitly disclose wherein the transceiver, memory, and the one or more processors are configured to measure the first value and the second value for each of the first access the second access.
Yu discloses to measure the first value and the second value for each of the first access the second access (Col 16: 1-16, delay and packet loss threshold for both links, i.e. access, thus measured values; Col 22: 59 – Col 23: 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include adjusting steering as taught by Yu so as to s improves transmission efficiency (Col 1: 49-54).
Claim 26, Kim discloses wherein the one or more steering rules comprise one or more access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) rules (0011-0013).
Claim 27, Kim wherein the first access and the second access are 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses (0003).
Kim may not explicitly disclose wherein the first rule for steering traffic for the MA PDU session, includes the splitting percentages associated with the load balancing steering mode to be applied to steer the traffic on the first access and the second access of the MA PDU session.
Yu discloses wherein the first rule for steering traffic for the MA PDU session, includes the splitting percentages associated with the load balancing steering mode to be applied to steer the traffic on the first access and the second access of the MA PDU session (Col 2: 30-44, determining steering percentages by the device, i.e. terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include adjusting steering as taught by Yu so as to s improves transmission efficiency (Col 1: 49-54).
Claim 28, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 21. Kim discloses a method for use in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Title, Method).
Claim 29, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 22.
Claim 30, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 23.
Claim 31, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 24.
Claim 32, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 25.
Claim 33, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 26. Kim discloses an apparatus (Title, network entity).
Claim 34, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 27.
Claim 35, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 21.
Claim 36, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 22.
Claim 39, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 26.
Claim 40, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 27.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200236727 A1 - Apparatuses, methods, and systems are disclosed for establishing a multi-access data connection. One apparatus includes a processor and a transceiver that communicates with one or more network functions in a mobile communication network. The processor receives a first session management request (via an AMF) containing: a second session management request sent by a UE, a first indication that the UE requests a single-access data connection and a second indication that the UE allows the network to upgrade the data connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached on (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468