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 filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim's procedure of FIG. 2 modifies an already established MA PDU session. Applicant argues that the PDU session modification request at S21O does not correspond to a request for establishing a MA PDU session as recited in claims 21 and 28.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant reads step S21O in isolation. A reference is relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2123(1)). Kim discloses establishing a multi-access PDU session for an ATSSS function (0018). Kim discloses the MA PDU session is created by MA PDU session establishment procedures (0046, 5200). Kim discloses the UE receives the ATSSS rule from the network at the time of establishing the MA PDU session (0049). The UE's request carries an ATSSS preference in the same format as that ATSSS rule (0049). Therefore, Kim discloses send a request for establishing a multi-access (MA) protocol data unit (PDU) session, as mapped in the rejection.
Applicant argues that Kim's ATSSS preference represents the steering configuration desired by the UE. Applicant argues that the ATSSS preference is not an indication of support for any UE capability. Applicant concludes that Kim does not disclose, or otherwise make obvious, that 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.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and claim terms are given their plain meaning (MPEP 2111; MPEP 2111.01(I)). Claims 21 and 28 require only that the request indicates support for a steering capability and for steering modes associated with it. The claims do not require that the indication be separate from a requested configuration. Kim's ATSSS preference has the same format as the ATSSS rule (0049). That format includes an ATSSS mode and an ATSSS function (0068). The ATSSS mode is one of an active-standby mode, a smallest delay mode, a load balancing mode, and a priority-based mode (0071). The ATSSS function is a steering function, such as MPTCP or ATSSS-LL, and ATSSS-LL is implemented in the UE (0073). AUE that requests a rule using a particular steering function and steering mode indicates that it supports that function and that mode. A desired configuration and an indication of support are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, Kim discloses 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.
Applicant argues that Kim's changed ATSSS rule at S271 may include a load-balancing ATSSS mode, but a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold are not provided in the ATSSS rule in association with the ATSSS mode. Applicant concludes that Kim does not disclose, or otherwise make obvious, the contents of the first rule.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim is not relied upon to teach the first rule in association with a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold for the MA PDU session. The rejection states that Kim may not explicitly disclose that element. Kim is relied upon for a received first rule that includes a load balancing steering mode (0059, 5271; 0071). Yu is relied upon for the round-trip time threshold and the packet loss rate threshold (Col. 26: 44-49; Col. 24: 21-28; Col. 23: 6-10; Col. 17: 54-58). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the combination of Kim and Yu discloses the contents of the first rule.
Applicant argues that Yu's first and second steering modes may be a load-balancing steering mode in which split percentages are determined, but Yu does not disclose that a round-trip time threshold or a packet loss rate threshold is used in conjunction with the load-balancing steering mode to change the split percentages.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yu discloses the first device receives a second steering mode, which may be a load-balancing steering mode, together with steering indication information (Col. 2: 45-52). The steering indication information indicates the first device to select one or more other transmission links when a link selected based on the second steering mode does not meet a transmission requirement (Col. 2: 52-57). In the load-balancing steering mode, the steering indication information is a split percentage of at least one link (Col. 2: 62-67; Col. 18: 3-9). The transmission requirement is checked against the delay and the packet loss rate of the link (Col. 23: 38-47, Col. 23: 60-63). A link is unavailable when its delay or packet loss rate does not meet the availability threshold (Col. 23: 6-12). Moving the service flow off that link changes the share of the flow carried on each link. Therefore, Yu discloses the delay and packet loss rate thresholds used with the load-balancing steering mode to change the split of the traffic. Applicant argues that Yu teaches round-trip time and packet loss rate only in conjunction with the smallest delay mode, that is, link switching, and not with the load-balancing steering mode.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The smallest delay passage relied upon by Applicant is introduced with "For example" (Col. 17: 54-58). Yu's broader disclosure applies the steering indication information to any second steering mode, which is a smallest delay steering mode, a load-balancing steering mode, a priority-based steering mode, or an active-standby steering mode (Col. 2: 45-57). Yu measures delay as the round-trip time (Col. 17: 57; Col. 25: 60-62). Therefore, Yu's use of round-trip time and packet loss rate is not limited to the smallest delay mode.
Applicant argues that Yu, at Col. 22, line 59 to Col. 23, line 16, uses a packet loss rate threshold or a delay threshold only to determine that a link is unavailable and to use a different link. Applicant argues that Yu does not disclose that the thresholds are provided to the terminal device in association with the first indication information at S405. Applicant concludes that neither Kim nor Yu discloses or suggests that the network provides the UE with a load balancing steering mode in association with a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold, and changes the splitting percentages using either threshold.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim discloses the network sends the UE a rule that includes the ATSSS mode and the traffic distribution ratio (0059; 0068; 0072). Yu discloses the SMF sends the steering indication information and the second steering mode to the terminal device (Col. 26: 44-49; Col. 21: 50-55). Yu discloses QoS-related steering indication information, under which the terminal device checks the selected path against the QoS requirement of the service flow (Col. 24: 21-28). Yu discloses that requirement as an availability threshold of a delay less than 1 ms and a packet loss rate less than 10% (Col. 23: 6-10). The thresholds are therefore tied to the steering indication information and the steering mode that the SMF sends to the terminal device-.When a link does not meet the threshold, the terminal device uses another link for the service flow (Col. 23: 3-12). Moving the service flow from one link to another changes the share of the traffic carried on each access. Therefore, Kim in view of Yu discloses a load balancing steering mode in association with a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold, and changing the splitting percentages when either threshold is exceeded.
Applicant argues that the motivation to modify Kim to include adjusting steering as taught by Yu so as to improve transmission efficiency relies on impermissible hindsight provided by the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The motivation comes from Yu, not from Applicant's disclosure. Yu states that selecting the transmission link that meets the current link status implements efficient transmission of the service flow (Col. 24: 34-40). Yu states that selecting the link based on the current link status improves transmission quality and ensures the QoS of the service flow (Col. 23: 13-16). Therefore, the combination does not rely on impermissible hindsight.
Applicant argues that claim 35 distinguishes over Kim in view of Yu for reasons similar to those of claims 25 and 28, and that dependent claims 22-23, 25-27, 29-30, 32-34, 36, and 39-40 distinguish for the same reasons as claims 21, 28, or 35.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant relies on the same arguments presented for claims 21 and 28. Those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above. Therefore, the rejection of claims 21-23, 25-30, 32-36, 39, and 40 is maintained.
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 21, Kim discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (0037, UE), the WTRU comprising:
a transceiver, memory, and one or more processors configured to (0076, the UE may be implemented as a computer system; 0077, processor, memory, and network interface that may transmit or receive signals; 0078, processor executes instructions stored in the memory):
send a request for establishing a multi-access (MA) protocol data unit (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 (0018, establishing a multi-access PDU session for an ATSSS function; 0046, MA PDU session created by MA PDU session establishment procedures, S200; 0049, UE transmits a request including an ATSSS preference, the same format as the ATSSS rule received from the network at the time of establishing the MA PDU session; 0068, 0071, 0073, the ATSSS rule includes an ATSSS mode, e.g. a load balancing mode, and an ATSSS function, e.g. MPTCP or ATSSS-LL implemented in the UE; thus the request indicates support for a steering function and its steering modes);
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 (0047, core network accepts or changes the ATSSS rule requested by the UE and transmits the determined ATSSS rule to the UE; 0059, PDU session modification command including the changed ATSSS rule transmitted to the UE, S271; 0071, ATSSS mode indicates one of an active-standby mode, a smallest delay mode, a load balancing mode, and a priority-based mode);
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 (0060, UE applies the received changed ATSSS rule; 0071, load balancing mode, two accesses are used according to a divided ratio; 0072, access technology and sharing ratio indicates the traffic distribution ratio corresponding to the access type).
Kim may not explicitly disclose in association with a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold for the MA PDU session; and 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 the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session exceeding the 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 in association with a round-trip time threshold and a packet loss rate threshold for the MA PDU session (Col. 16: 28-33, message requesting to establish a multi-access (MA) PDU session; Col. 26: 44-49, SMF sends the steering indication information and the second steering mode to the terminal device; Col. 24: 21-28, QoS-related steering indication information, terminal device determines whether the transmission path can meet the QoS requirement of the service flow; Col. 23: 6-10, availability threshold of a link, a delay less than 1 ms and a packet loss rate less than 10%; Col. 17: 54-58, delay, for example a round-trip time (RTT); thus delay (RTT) and packet loss rate thresholds associated with the steering mode for the PDU session); and
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 the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session exceeding the 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. 2: 45-57, first device receives a second steering mode, e.g. a load-balancing steering mode, and selects one or more other transmission links when a link selected based on the second steering mode does not meet a transmission requirement; Col. 18: 3-9, load-balancing steering mode, split percentage of at least one link; Col. 23: 38-47, terminal device obtains the delay value and the link packet loss rate of at least one link; Col. 23: 6-12, when a delay or a packet loss rate of a link does not meet the availability threshold, the link is unavailable; thus the split of the service flow between the links is changed).Th1Therefore, 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 the steering of the service flow between links when a link's delay or packet loss rate does not meet a threshold, as taught by Yu, so as to improve transmission efficiency (Col. 24: 34-40).
Claim 22, Kim in view of Yu discloses the WTRU of claim 21.
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 the 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 the second access of the MA PDU session (Col. 2: 52-57, selects one or more other transmission links for the service flow when a link selected based on the second steering mode does not meet a transmission requirement; Col. 16: 1-7, when a packet loss rate of the link is greater than a packet loss rate threshold, two links are used for the transmission of the service flow). 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 the steering of the service flow between links when a link's delay or packet loss rate does not meet a threshold, as taught by Yu, so as to improve transmission efficiency (Col. 24: 34-40).
Claim 23, Kim in view of Yu discloses the WTRU of claim 21.
Kim discloses 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 (0071, active-standby mode, when one access is active and then unavailable, other access that is in standby is operated).
Claim 25, Kim in view of Yu discloses the WTRU of claim 21.
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 and the second access.
Yu discloses measure the first value and the second value for each of the first access and the second access (Col. 23: 38-47, terminal device obtains a status parameter of at least one link, including the delay value and the link packet loss rate; Col. 22: 65 - Col. 23: 1, a packet loss rate of a link 1 is 5%, and a packet loss rate of a link 2 is 10%). 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 the steering of the service flow between links when a link's delay or packet loss rate does not meet a threshold, as taught by Yu, so as to improve transmission efficiency {Col. 24: 34-40).
Claim 26, Kim in view of Yu discloses the WTRU of claim 21.
Kim discloses wherein the one or more steering rules comprise one or more access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) rules (0003, access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS); 0047, core network transmits the determined ATSSS rule to the UE).
Claim 27, Kim in view of Yu discloses the WTRU of claim 21.
Kim 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 (0068, ATSSS rule includes an ATSSS mode and an access technology and sharing rate; 0071, load balancing mode, two accesses are used according to a divided ratio; 0072, traffic distribution ratio corresponding to the access type), and wherein the first access and the second access are 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses (0038, 3GPP access network and non-3GPP access network).
Claim 28, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 21.
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 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.
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.
Kim discloses an apparatus (0025, Network entity) comprising:
a transceiver (0077, network interface transmits or receives signals with other entities over the network), memory (0077, memory), and one or more processors configured to (0078, processor executes instructions stored in the memory):
receive traffic sent via the first access and the second access according to splitting percentages associated with the load balancing steering mode of the first rule for the MA PDU session (0040, UPF accommodates the 3GPP and non-3GPP access networks so traffic of the UE can be transmitted and received; 0064, SMF transmits an N4 rule mapped to the changed ATSSS rule to the UPF; 0071, load balancing mode, two accesses are used according to a divided ratio).
Kim may not explicitly disclose receive traffic sent via the first access and the second access according to a change to the splitting percentages associated with the load balancing steering mode of the first rule for the MA PDU session in response to any of (i) a measured first value for the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session at the WTRU exceeding the RTT threshold and (ii) a measured second value for the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session at the WTRU exceeding the PLR threshold.
Yu discloses receive traffic sent via the first access and the second access according to a change to the splitting percentages associated with the load balancing steering mode of the first rule for the MA PDU session in response to any of (i) a measured first value for the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session at the WTRU exceeding the RTT threshold and (ii) a measured second value for the first access or the second access of the MA PDU session at the WTRU exceeding the PLR threshold (Col. 21: 60-67, terminal device selects a transmission link for an uplink data packet of the service flow; Col. 2: 45-57, other transmission links are selected when a link selected based on the second steering mode, e.g. a load-balancing steering mode, does not meet a transmission requirement; Col. 23: 6-12, a link is unavailable when its delay or packet loss rate does not meet the availability threshold; thus the uplink traffic is received according to the changed split). 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 the steering of the service flow between links when a link's delay or packet loss rate does not meet a threshold, as taught by Yu, so as to improve transmission efficiency (Col. 24: 34-40).
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
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 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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
Prosecution Insights