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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/02/2026. Claims 2 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are presented for examination.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of claim amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANGID et al. (US 2020/0252992 A1), in view of 3GPP TS 24.301 V17.8.0 (2022-10), LIU (US 2014/0241264 A1).
As to claim 1, JANGID discloses the invention as claimed, including a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, 102), comprising:
initiating a mobile originated (MO) procedure for modifying an Evolved Packet System (EPS) bearer (i.e., video bearer) to release all traffic flows associated with the EPS bearer (Fig. 6; ¶0012, “if the user of the UE initiates a VoLTE audio call. The network assigns the dedicated bearer for the audio which includes packet filters for the audio. The UE upgrades the audio call to the video call”; ¶0035, “if the UE transmit the bearer resource modification request message to the network in order to release all the resources in the bearer, the network would normally respond by initiating a deactivation procedure for the bearer”; ¶0045; ¶0065, “when the UE 102 initiated modification for the video bearer is rejected by a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network. When the UE 102 initiates modification to delete the video bearer, then the video call will indicate release of the video bearer”);
receiving a request to initiate a mobile terminated (MT) procedure for modifying the EPS bearer (Fig. 1, 104; ¶0011, “the network transmits a bearer resource modification request message for the audio bearer (includes new set of packet filters for the audio) to the UE”; ¶0012, “the network transmits the bearer resource modification request for the video bearer which includes new set of packet filters for the video”; ¶0013, “If the network transmits the bearer resource modification reject message to the UE, the packet filter of Application “A” Bearer is deleted at the UE”; ¶0026, “when a User Equipment (UE) receives a bearer resource modification reject message from a network”; ¶0039, “when the UE receives the bearer resource modification reject message from the network”; ¶0049, “when the UE 102 receives the bearer resource modification reject message from the network 104”);
in response to receiving the request, aborting the MO procedure (¶0011, “If the network rejects the bearer resource modification request, the video bearer will not receive any data and video will be stuck since the packets filters for the video bearer has been deleted at the UE side", ¶0012, "The UE informs the same to the network through the bearer resource modification request with the OP CODE set as DELETE for the audio bearer. The packet filter of the audio bearer is deleted at the UE. The deleted audio bearer information is not updated to the network as the network transmits the bearer resource modification reject message to the UE. Since the packet filters are deleted, the audio bearer will not receive any data and audio will be mute"); and
locally deactivating the EPS bearer is performed in response to determining that the EPS bearer needs to be released (Fig. 1, 106; ¶0010, “transmit the Bearer Resource Modification Request to the network in order to release all the resources in the bearer, the network would normally respond by initiating a deactivation procedure for the context, but the network transmits Bearer Resource Modification Reject with cause value #31”; ¶0015, “implemented by a User Equipment (UE) to deactivate an Evolved Packet System (EPS) bearer context locally when a bearer resource modification reject message is received from a Network”; ¶0026, “deactivating an Evolved Packet System (EPS) bearer context locally when a User Equipment (UE) receives a bearer resource modification reject message from a network”; ¶0035, “if the UE transmit the bearer resource modification request message to the network in order to release all the resources in the bearer, the network would normally respond by initiating a deactivation procedure for the bearer”; ¶0039, “At step 106, the method 100 includes deactivating the EPS bearer context locally”; ¶0043; ¶0050, “Based on the bearer resource modification reject message, the UE 102 locally releases (206) the bearer context information and triggers the TAU procedure”; ¶0053, “Based on the bearer resource modification reject message along with the cause value, the UE 102 locally releases (306) the bearer context information. The network 104 locally releases (308) the bearer context information”; ¶0055-¶0057-¶0063).
Although JANGID discloses receiving a request to initiate a mobile terminated (MT) procedure for modifying the EPS bearer (Fig. 1, 104; ¶0011-¶0013; ¶0026; ¶0039; ¶0049), JANGID does not specifically disclose receiving, during the MO procedure, a request to initiate a mobile terminated (MT) procedure for modifying the EPS bearer.
However, 3GPP discloses receiving, during the MO procedure, a request to initiate a mobile terminated (MT) procedure for modifying the EPS bearer (Section 6.4.3: EPS bearer context modification procedure: “The purpose of the EPS bearer context modification procedure is to modify an EPS bearer context with a specific QoS and TFT, or re-negotiate header compression configuration associated to an EPS bearer context. The EPS bearer context modification procedure is initiated by the network, but it may also be initiated as part of the UE requested bearer resource allocation procedure or the UE requested bearer resource modification procedure”; Section 6.5.4: UE requested bearer resource modification procedure; Section 6.5.4.2: UE requested bearer resource modification procedure initiation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of JANGID to include receiving, during the MO procedure, a request to initiate a mobile terminated (MT) procedure for modifying the EPS bearer, as taught by 3GPP because it would allow the network to update data settings and prevent connection drops or service interruptions (3GPP, Section 6.4.3; Section 6.5.4; Section 6.5.4.2).
Although JANGID discloses wherein the locally deactivating the EPS bearer is performed in response to determining that the EPS bearer needs to be released (Fig. 1, 106; ¶0010, “transmit the Bearer Resource Modification Request to the network in order to release all the resources in the bearer, the network would normally respond by initiating a deactivation procedure for the context, but the network transmits Bearer Resource Modification Reject with cause value #31”; ¶0015, “implemented by a User Equipment (UE) to deactivate an Evolved Packet System (EPS) bearer context locally when a bearer resource modification reject message is received from a Network”; ¶0026, “deactivating an Evolved Packet System (EPS) bearer context locally when a User Equipment (UE) receives a bearer resource modification reject message from a network”; ¶0039, “At step 106, the method 100 includes deactivating the EPS bearer context locally”; ¶0043), JANGID does not specifically disclose determining whether the EPS bearer needs to be released.
However, LIU discloses determining whether the EPS bearer needs to be released (¶0070, “At S405, the control node (e.g., MME 200) may determine whether the request is for release of a default bearer context of the last remaining active PDN connection at the control node. If the request is not for release of a default bearer context of the last remaining active PDN connection, then at S410, MME 200 accepts the modification request and at S415 initiates the EPS bearer context deactivation procedure”; ¶0071, “determine that the release request is for the default EPS bearer context if the modification request includes the identity of the default bearer context of PDN connection 201. In one example embodiment, the identity may be included as PDN201_ctx1 in the request at MME 200”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of JANGID to include determining whether the EPS bearer needs to be released, as taught by LIU because it would enhance network efficiency by freeing up radio and core resources when a specific service ends (LIU; ¶0070-¶0071).
As to claim 3, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the EPS bearer needs to be released comprises determining the EPS bearer has an empty traffic flow template (TFT) (¶0050, “As shown in the FIG. 2, the UE 102 transmits (202) the bearer resource modification request message to the network 104. In an embodiment, the bearer resource modification request message includes the Op Code containing the DELETE TFT”).
As to claim 4, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: proceeding with the MT procedure (Fig. 1, 104; ¶0011, “the network transmits a bearer resource modification request message for the audio bearer (includes new set of packet filters for the audio) to the UE”; ¶0012, “the network transmits the bearer resource modification request for the video bearer which includes new set of packet filters for the video”; ¶0013, “If the network transmits the bearer resource modification reject message to the UE, the packet filter of Application “A” Bearer is deleted at the UE”; ¶0026, “when a User Equipment (UE) receives a bearer resource modification reject message from a network”; ¶0039, “when the UE receives the bearer resource modification reject message from the network”; ¶0049, “when the UE 102 receives the bearer resource modification reject message from the network 104”).
As to claim 5, JANGID discloses the method of wherein proceeding with the MT procedure is performed in response to determining that the EPS bearer does not need to be released, the method further comprising: entering into an active context state (¶0009, ““Evolved Packet System (EPS) Status” message from the network results in the bearer still being active on the UE side…Since the bearer is still active in the UE side, the IMS client in UE continues to transmit data related to the bearer”).
As to claim 6, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: sending a modify EPS bearer context accept message or a modify EPS bearer context reject message (¶0010, “transmits Bearer Resource Modification Reject with cause value #31”; ¶0011, “the network transmits a bearer resource modification request message for the audio bearer (includes new set of packet filters for the audio) to the UE”; ¶0012, “the network transmits the bearer resource modification request for the video bearer which includes new set of packet filters for the video”; ¶0013, “If the network transmits the bearer resource modification reject message to the UE, the packet filter of Application “A” Bearer is deleted at the UE”; ¶0026, “when a User Equipment (UE) receives a bearer resource modification reject message from a network”; ¶0039, “when the UE receives the bearer resource modification reject message from the network”; ¶0049, “when the UE 102 receives the bearer resource modification reject message from the network 104”).
As to claim 7, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, wherein initiating the MO procedure comprises sending a bearer resource modification request message (Fig. 6; ¶0012, “if the user of the UE initiates a VoLTE audio call. The network assigns the dedicated bearer for the audio which includes packet filters for the audio. The UE upgrades the audio call to the video call”; ¶0035, “if the UE transmit the bearer resource modification request message to the network in order to release all the resources in the bearer, the network would normally respond by initiating a deactivation procedure for the bearer”; ¶0045; ¶0065, “when the UE 102 initiated modification for the video bearer is rejected by a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network. When the UE 102 initiates modification to delete the video bearer, then the video call will indicate release of the video bearer”).
As to claim 8, JANGID discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the bearer resource modification request message includes an EPS bearer identity of the EPS bearer (¶0009, “In response to the bearer resource modification request, the failure of the “Bearer Resource Modification” via “Bearer Resource Modification Reject” or “Evolved Packet System (EPS) Status” message from the network results in the bearer still being active on the UE side”).
As to claim 9, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the MO procedure is initiated in response to a semantic or syntactical error (¶0009, “In response to the bearer resource modification request, the failure of the “Bearer Resource Modification” via “Bearer Resource Modification Reject” or “Evolved Packet System (EPS) Status” message from the network results in the bearer still being active on the UE side”).
As to claim 10, JANGID discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the semantic or syntactical error represents a precedence conflict between packet filters (¶0011, “if a user of the UE initiates a Voice over Long Term Evolution (VoLTE) audio call, the network assigns the dedicated bearer for the audio which includes packet filters for the audio. Then UE upgrades the audio call to a video call. After upgrading the audio call to the video call, the network assigns dedicated bearer for the video which includes the packet filter for the video”; ¶0012, “the packets received as part of bearer resource modification request for the video bearer has conflict (i.e., packet filter mismatch) with existing packet filters assigned for the audio bearer”).
As to claim 11, JANGID discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the precedence conflict occurs when two or more packet filters among all traffic flow templates (TFTs) of the EPS bearer associated with a packet data network (PDN) connection have identical packet filter precedence values (¶0044, “The method 100 handles the TFT conflict scenarios during the voice call and the audio call"; ¶0045, “the packets received as part of bearer resource modification request message for the audio bearer has conflict (i.e., packet filter mismatch) with existing packet filters assigned for the video bearer. In such case, as per 3GPP specification, the UE accepts newly received packet filters and deletes the existing packet filters of the video bearer”).
As to claim 12, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a modify EPS bearer context request message (¶0016, “transmitting a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request message with EPS bearer context status to a network to synchronize the EPS bearer context with the network”; ¶0018, “transmitting a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request message with EPS bearer context status to the MME to synchronize the EPS bearer context with the MME”; ¶0033, “transmitting a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request message with the EPS bearer context status to the MME to synchronize the EPS bearer context with the MME”; ¶0071, “locally deactivates an evolved packet system (EPS) bearer context information in response to the bearer resource modification request message”).
As to claim 13, JANGID discloses the method of claim 12, wherein a procedure transaction identity (PTI) information element (IE) in the modify EPS bearer context request message indicates that no PTI is assigned (JANGID discloses 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specification (3GPP TS 24.301) at paragraphs ¶0007-¶0013. The 3GPP TS 24.301 describes the use of the Procedure Transaction Identity (PTI) and the "no PTI assigned" value to distinguish between network-initiated and UE-requested procedures. More specifically, as disclosed in 3GPP TS 24.301, the LTE Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) signaling protocol utilizes a Procedure Transaction Identity (PTI) to manage session transactions. The specification defines a specific value, 'no procedure transaction identity assigned', which is included in network-to-UE messages (i.e., modify EPS bearer context request) to indicate that the procedure is network-initiated rather than a response to a specific request from the User Equipment (UE).").
As to claim 14, JANGID discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to locally deactivating the EPS bearer, sending a tracking area update (TAU) request to a core network to synchronize an EPS bearer context status, wherein the TAU request indicates the EPS bearer is inactive (¶0016, “transmitting a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request message with EPS bearer context status to a network to synchronize the EPS bearer context with the network”; ¶0018, “transmitting a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request message with EPS bearer context status to the MME to synchronize the EPS bearer context with the MME”; ¶0033, “transmitting a Tracking Area Update (TAU) request message with the EPS bearer context status to the MME to synchronize the EPS bearer context with the MME”).
As to claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, JANGID discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 7), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 7; ¶0039; ¶0068; claim 4).
As to claims 17-18, they are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 7 above.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 9 above.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1 above. In addition, JANGID discloses a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code for wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 7; ¶0039; ¶0068; claim 4).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-15 and 17-20 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.
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 JUNGWON CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3960. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/JUNGWON CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights