DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 13 February 2026, having claims 1-3, 6-8, 14, 19, 22-24, 26-29, and 31 (claims 20-21, 25, and 30 were cancelled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the claims do not overcome the 103 prior art rejection. An additional reference (Ianev et al. WO 2022/270259 A1) is added to the 103 prior art rejection to address the added limitations to the claims. This action is made Final.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 14-19, 23-24, and 27-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “in case that” recited in claims 1-2, 4-8, 14-19, 23-24, and 27-29 must be replaced by the word “when” to render the claims affirmative. The phrase “in case that” is a conditional phrase that implies that the condition may or may not be satisfied. However, the claims are not written in a conditional manner. Therefore, the claim language must be affirmative.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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, 14, 19, 24, and 26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US 2021/0250409 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant) in view of Aghili et al. (US 2024/0137785 A1) and Ianev et al. (WO 2022/270259 A1).
For claims 1 and 14, Huang-Fu discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig 2, UE 201) in a wireless communication system, wherein the UE comprising:
at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver (Fig 2, transceiver 204); and at least one memory (Fig 2, memory 202), communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (Fig 2, processor 203), storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the UE to ([0029] the processor is coupled to the memory and configured to perform the claimed invention): identify whether the UE is registered on a same network for a first access and a second access ([0032] the UE is registered to the same PLMN network (PLMN 1) over a 3GPP access type connection via gNB and over a non-3GPP access type via an access point AP).
For claims 1 and 14, Huang-Fu does not expressly disclose maintain information on a maximum number of managing protocol data unit (PDU) sessions for a first network, in case that the UE is registered on the same network for the first access and the second access, and transmit, to the first network, a PDU session establishment request in case that a number of active PDU sessions is lower than the information on the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first network.
Aghili, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses maintain information on a maximum number of managing protocol data unit (PDU) sessions for a first network (Fig 4, 420, the UE may obtain information regarding the maximum allowed PDU sessions for a destination network; the destination network may be a first or second network), in case that the UE is registered on the same network for the first access and the second access ([0067] the UE is registered with a network via both 3GPP and non-3GPP access), and
transmit, to the first network, a PDU session establishment request in case that a number of active PDU sessions is lower than the information on the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first network (Fig 4, 430, based on the obtained information regarding the maximum allowed PDU sessions, the UE/WTRU sends a PDU session establishment request to the destination network (first or second network) to establish additional PDU sessions which will not exceed the maximum number of allowable PDU sessions). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that UE/WTRU may establish additional active PDU sessions in the communication network of Huang-Fu based on the limit number of PDU sessions for a target (first or second) network based on the teachings of Aghili at the time of the invention.
For claims 1 and 14, Huang-Fu and Aghili do not expressly disclose that the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first PLMN is common for the first and second access.
Ianev, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first PLMN is common for the first and second access (page 20, first paragraph, the NSAC quota control (maximum number of PDU sessions) is the same for the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the PDU sessions quota control method of Ianev in the modified system of Huang-Fu and Aghili at the time of the invention.
For claims 3 and 26, Huang-Fu discloses the first access comprises one of a 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) access or a non-3GPP (N-3GPP) access, and wherein the second access comprises one of the 3GPP access or the N-3GPP access ([0032] the UE is registered to the same PLMN network (PLMN 1) over a 3GPP access type connection via gNB and over a non-3GPP access type via an access point AP), and
wherein the first network comprises one of a first public land mobile network (PLMN), a second PLMN ([0032] the first network (PLMN 1) is a PLMN network), or a first standalone non-public network (SNPN), and wherein a second network comprises one of the first PLMN, second PLMN ([0032] the second network is also PLMN1 when the UE is registered on the same network via both access types, or (Fig 4), the second network is PLMN2 when the UE is registered with a second network that is different from the first network), the first SNPN or a second SNPN.
For claims 19 and 24, Aghili discloses maintaining the information on the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first network and information on a maximum number of PDU sessions for a second network separately, in case that the UE is not registered on the same network for the first access and the second access, and wherein the first network is different from the second network (Fig 2, the WTRU/UE is registered with a first (home network) and [0070] maintains one or more active PDU sessions with the first network; then (Fig 4, steps 410-430) the UE/WTRU registers with a second (destination) network and obtains the maximum allowed PDU sessions for the second network). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that UE would maintain/stores separately the number of PDU sessions allowed for each network at the time of the invention.
6. Claims 6, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US 2021/0250409 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant) in view of Aghili et al. (US 2024/0137785 A1).
For claims 6 and 27, Huang-Fu discloses a first network (Fig 3, PLMN 1 is the first network) in a wireless communication system, the first network comprising: at least one transceiver (Fig 2, network device 211 comprises transceiver 214); at least one processor (Fig 2, processor 213) communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and at least one memory (Fig 2, memory 212), communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination ([0029] the processor is coupled to the transceiver and memory and configured to perform the claimed invention): to cause the first network to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request, in case that the UE is registered on a same network for a first access and a second access ([0033] the UE sends a PDU establishment request to gNB 402 while the UE is registered to the same PLMN network via both 3GPP access and non-3GPP access).
For claims 6 and 27, Huang-Fu does not expressly disclose receive, from a user equipment (UE), a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request, in case that a number of active PDU sessions is lower than information on a maximum number of PDU sessions for the first network, wherein the information on the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first network is maintained, in case that the UE is registered on a same network for a first access and a second access.
Aghili, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses maintain information on a maximum number of managing protocol data unit (PDU) sessions for a first network (Fig 4, 420, the UE may obtain information regarding the maximum allowed PDU sessions for a destination network; the destination network may be a first or second network), in case that the UE is registered on the same network for the first access and the second access ([0067] the UE is registered with a network via both 3GPP and non-3GPP access), and
transmit, to the first network, a PDU session establishment request in case that a number of active PDU sessions is lower than the information on the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first network (Fig 4, 430, based on the obtained information regarding the maximum allowed PDU sessions, the UE/WTRU sends a PDU session establishment request to the destination network (first or second network) to establish additional PDU sessions which will not exceed the maximum number of allowable PDU sessions). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that UE/WTRU may establish additional active PDU sessions in the communication network of Huang-Fu based on the limit number of PDU sessions for a target (first or second) network based on the teachings of Aghili at the time of the invention.
For claims 8 and 29, Aghili discloses the maximum number of PDU sessions for the first PLMN and a maximum number of PDU sessions for a second network are maintained separately, in case that the UE is not registered on the same network for the first access and the second access, and wherein the first network is different from the second network (Fig 2, the WTRU/UE is registered with a first (home network) and [0070] maintains one or more active PDU sessions with the first network; then (Fig 4, steps 410-430) the UE/WTRU registers with a second (destination) network and obtains the maximum allowed PDU sessions for the second network). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that UE would maintain/stores separately the number of PDU sessions allowed for each network at the time of the invention.
For claims 22 and 31, Huang-Fu discloses the first access comprises one of a 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) access or a non-3GPP (N-3GPP) access, and wherein the second access comprises one of the 3GPP access or the N-3GPP access ([0032] the UE is registered to the same PLMN network (PLMN 1) over a 3GPP access type connection via gNB and over a non-3GPP access type via an access point AP).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2, 7, 23, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights