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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
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 of this title, 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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al. (US 12137430) in view of Kumar et al. (US 11206606).
Regarding claim 1, Youn teaches receiving, by a non-3GPP interwork function (N3IWF) of an overlay network from a wireless device, a non-access stratum (NAS) message (Fig. 20, step 2002a); and sending, by the N3IWF to an access and mobility management (AMF) of the overlay network (Fig. 20, step 2002a), a second message ((674) col. 65 line 57, In step S2002a, the UE may transmit a PDU session establishment request message, a service request message, or a registration request message to the AMF through the N3IWF).
However, Yoon does not expressly teach indicating an access type of non-3GPP access over 3GPP access. Kumar teaches Fig. 21, (117) col. 19 line 8, AMF 200 has received service request (in response to non 3gpp paging) over 3GPP, and Kumar further teaches (166) col. 27 line 4, an indication to register again for the non-3GPP access network with the AMF entity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Kumar in order to create an N2 interface between a N3IWF and the AMF entity ((166) col. 27 line 7).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches wherein the first message comprises an extended access type indication (166) col. 27 line 4, an indication to register again for the non-3GPP access network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Kumar in order to create an N2 interface between a N3IWF and the AMF entity ((166) col. 27 line 7).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar teaches wherein the second message comprises the extended access type indication (166) col. 27 line 4, an indication to register again for the non-3GPP access network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Kumar in order to create an N2 interface between a N3IWF and the AMF entity ((166) col. 27 line 7).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon teaches receiving, by the N3IWF from a first user plane function (UPF) of the overlay network, data packets for the wireless device (Fig. 20, (670) col. 65 line 25, PDU session is established between a UE, N3IWF, RAN, AMF, SMF, UPF, …).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eunsook Choi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights