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 .
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 1, 2, 12, 13, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9, 12 of copending Application No. 18/397,464. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the mapping below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
As to claim 1, application ‘464 teaches a method (‘464, Claim 1) comprising:
transmitting, by a wireless communication device, to an access management function (AMF) of a core network, a request for a session to be established with a wireless communication node, the session requested to include a dedicated internet protocol (IP) flow for a low queuing latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) protocol (‘464, Claim 1); and
receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from a session management function (SMF) of the core network, a response to the request (‘464, Claim 1), the response indicating that the L4S protocol is supported by the wireless communication node (‘464, Claim 1)
As to claim 2, application ‘464 teaches wherein the request is sent at a first time instance and the wireless communication node is a first wireless communication node, the method further comprising: initiating, by the wireless communication device responsive to a mobility event at a second time instance, a handover from the first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node; and receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from the SMF, an indication indicating the L4S protocol is not supported by the second wireless communication node (‘464, Claim 4).
As to claim 12, application ‘464 teaches a wireless communication device (‘464, Claim 9) comprising: a transceiver; and one or more processors configured (‘464, Claim 9) to:
transmit, by the wireless communication device, to an access management function (AMF) of a core network, a request for a session to be established with a wireless communication node, the session requested to include a dedicated internet protocol (IP) flow for a low queuing latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) protocol (‘464, Claim 9); and
receive, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from a session management function (SMF) of the core network, a response to the request ((‘464, Claim 9)), the response indicating that the L4S protocol is supported by the wireless communication node (‘464, Claim 9).
As to claim 13, application ‘464 teaches wherein the request is sent at a first time instance and the wireless communication node is a first wireless communication node, the method further comprising: initiating, by the wireless communication device responsive to a mobility event at a second time instance, a handover from the first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node; and receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from the SMF, an indication indicating the L4S protocol is not supported by the second wireless communication node (‘464, Claim 12).
As to claim 20, application ‘464 teaches a wireless transceiver (‘464, Claim 9) configured to:
transmit, by a wireless communication device, to an access management function (AMF) of a core network, a request for a session to be established with a wireless communication node, the session requested to include a dedicated internet protocol (IP) flow for a low queuing latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) protocol (‘464, Claim 9) and
receive, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from a session management function (SMF) of the core network, a response to the request (‘464, Claim 9) the response indicating that the L4S protocol is supported by the wireless communication node (‘464, Claim 9)
Claims 3-10, 14-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/397,464 in view of Dao et al (Pub No: 2020/0145876).
As to claim 3, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises an idle mode mobility event in which the session preexists with the first wireless communication node.
However, Dao teaches the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises an idle mode mobility event in which the session preexists with the first wireless communication node (Dao, [0216], the UE was in the IDLE state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 4, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the second wireless communication node reestablishes the session with the wireless communication device
However, Dao teaches wherein the second wireless communication node reestablishes the session with the wireless communication device (Dao, [0157], the new PDU session is established due to handover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 5, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility event comprises a connected mode mobility event
However, Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises a connected mode mobility event (Dao, [0200], the UE requests RRC connection reconfiguration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 6, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the handover is performed via at least one of an N2 interface
However, Dao teaches wherein the handover is performed via at least one of an N2 interface (Dao, [0192][0153], the handover is performed using N2 messaging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 7, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the handover comprises a modification to the session between the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node the modification corresponding to the second wireless communication node not supporting the L4S protocol
However, Dao teaches wherein the handover comprises a modification to the session between the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0155][0157][0159][0209], the UE sends a request based on mobility of moving to a new area and handover to a different AMF and network), the modification corresponding to the second wireless communication node not supporting the L4S protocol (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 8, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the indication comprises a session management (SM) non-access stratum (NAS) modification initiated by the SMF to indicate that the L4S protocol is not supported under the second wireless communication node
However, Dao teaches wherein the indication comprises a session management (SM) non-access stratum (NAS) modification initiated by the SMF (Dao, [0178], NAS SM messaging by the SMF to indicate rejection (non-support)), to indicate that the L4S protocol is not supported under the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 9, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the SMF determines a support status of the L4S protocol for the wireless communication node, based on configuration information received via the AMF from the wireless communication node
However, Dao teaches wherein the SMF determines a support status of the L4S protocol for the wireless communication node, based on configuration information received via the AMF from the wireless communication node (Dao, [0160]-[0162], AMF determines accept reject for the session based on parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 10, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the response comprises a session management (SM) non- access stratum (NAS) message
However, Dao teaches wherein the response comprises a session management (SM) non- access stratum (NAS) message Dao, [0178], NAS SM messaging by the SMF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 14, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility event comprises an idle mode mobility event in which the session preexists with the first wireless communication node
However, Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises an idle mode mobility event in which the session preexists with the first wireless communication node (Dao, [0216], the UE was in the IDLE state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 15, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the second wireless communication node reestablishes the session with the wireless communication device
However, Dao teaches wherein the second wireless communication node reestablishes the session with the wireless communication device (Dao, [0157], the new PDU session is established due to handover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 16, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility event comprises a connected mode mobility event
However, Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises a connected mode mobility event (Dao, [0200], the UE requests RRC connection reconfiguration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 17, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the handover is performed via at least one of an N2 interface.
However, Dao teaches wherein the handover is performed via at least one of an N2 interface (Dao, [0192][0153], the handover is performed using N2 messaging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 18, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the handover comprises a modification to the session between the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node the modification corresponding to the second wireless communication node not supporting the L4S protocol
However, Dao teaches wherein the handover comprises a modification to the session between the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0155][0157][0159][0209], the UE sends a request based on mobility of moving to a new area and handover to a different AMF and network), the modification corresponding to the second wireless communication node not supporting the L4S protocol (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 19, application ‘464 teaches the limitations of the dependent claim.
Application ’464 does not explicitly teach wherein the indication comprises a session management (SM) non-access stratum (NAS) modification initiated by the SMF to indicate that the L4S protocol is not supported under the second wireless communication node
However, Dao teaches wherein the indication comprises a session management (SM) non-access stratum (NAS) modification initiated by the SMF (Dao, [0178], NAS SM messaging by the SMF to indicate rejection (non-support)), to indicate that the L4S protocol is not supported under the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover, mobility event and session request/response” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ericsson (WO 2024/013545).
As to claim 1, Ericsson teaches a method (Ericsson, [0034], a method) comprising:
transmitting, by a wireless communication device, to an access management function (AMF) of a core network, a request for a session to be established with a wireless communication node, the session requested to include a dedicated internet protocol (IP) flow for a low queuing latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) protocol (Ericsson, [0034], an end user sends a request for data flow to an AMF, the data flow for a L4S protocol [0061] AMF allocation is for IP flow); and
receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from a session management function (SMF) of the core network, a response to the request (Ericsson, [0069][0071][0072] Fig 1, receiving a response to the request from the SMF to the end user), the response indicating that the L4S protocol is supported by the wireless communication node (Ericsson, [0039], [0069], the response indicates support for the QoS requested and dedicated queues for the QoS request, in this case the L4S performance enhancement).
As to claim 12, Ericsson teaches a wireless communication device (Ericsson, [0034], an end user) comprising: a transceiver; and one or more processors configured (Ericsson, [0152], transceiver and processors) to:
transmit, by the wireless communication device, to an access management function (AMF) of a core network, a request for a session to be established with a wireless communication node, the session requested to include a dedicated internet protocol (IP) flow for a low queuing latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) protocol (Ericsson, [0034], an end user sends a request for data flow to an AMF, the data flow for a L4S protocol [0061] AMF allocation is for IP flow); and
receive, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from a session management function (SMF) of the core network, a response to the request (Ericsson, [0069][0071][0072] Fig 1, receiving a response to the request from the SMF to the end user), the response indicating that the L4S protocol is supported by the wireless communication node (Ericsson, [0039], [0069], the response indicates support for the QoS requested and dedicated queues for the QoS request, in this case the L4S performance enhancement).
As to claim 20, Ericsson teaches a wireless transceiver (Ericsson, [0034], an end user) configured to:
transmit, by a wireless communication device, to an access management function (AMF) of a core network, a request for a session to be established with a wireless communication node, the session requested to include a dedicated internet protocol (IP) flow for a low queuing latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) protocol (Ericsson, [0034], an end user sends a request for data flow to an AMF, the data flow for a L4S protocol [0061] AMF allocation is for IP flow); and
receive, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from a session management function (SMF) of the core network, a response to the request (Ericsson, [0069][0071][0072] Fig 1, receiving a response to the request from the SMF to the end user), the response indicating that the L4S protocol is supported by the wireless communication node (Ericsson, [0039], [0069], the response indicates support for the QoS requested and dedicated queues for the QoS request, in this case the L4S performance enhancement).
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 2-10, 13-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson as applied to claims above, and further in view of Dao et al (Pub No: 2020/0145876).
As to claim 2, Ericsson teaches wherein the request is sent at a first time instance and the wireless communication node is a first wireless communication node, and receiving a response and L4S capability (Ericsson, [0034],[0039],[0069], a first request is received (time 1) and the first network).
Ericsson does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: initiating, by the wireless communication device responsive to a mobility event at a second time instance, a handover from the first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node; and receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from the SMF, an indication indicating the L4S protocol is not supported by the second wireless communication node.
However, Dao teaches the method further comprising: initiating, by the wireless communication device responsive to a mobility event at a second time instance, a handover from the first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node (Dao, [0155][0157][0159][0209], the UE sends a request based on mobility of moving to a new area and handover to a different AMF and network); and receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from the SMF, an indication indicating the request is not supported by the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover and rejecting of a session” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises an idle mode mobility event in which the session preexists with the first wireless communication node (Dao, [0216], the UE was in the IDLE state).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the second wireless communication node reestablishes the session with the wireless communication device (Dao, [0157], the new PDU session is established due to handover).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises a connected mode mobility event (Dao, [0200], the UE requests RRC connection reconfiguration).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the handover is performed via at least one of an N2 interface (Dao, [0192][0153], the handover is performed using N2 messaging).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the handover comprises a modification to the session between the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0155][0157][0159][0209], the UE sends a request based on mobility of moving to a new area and handover to a different AMF and network), the modification corresponding to the second wireless communication node not supporting the L4S protocol (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
As to claim 8, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the indication comprises a session management (SM) non-access stratum (NAS) modification initiated by the SMF (Dao, [0178], NAS SM messaging by the SMF to indicate rejection (non-support)), to indicate that the L4S protocol is not supported under the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
As to claim 9, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the SMF determines a support status of the L4S protocol for the wireless communication node, based on configuration information received via the AMF from the wireless communication node (Dao, [0160]-[0162], AMF determines accept reject for the session based on parameters).
As to claim 10, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the response comprises a session management (SM) non- access stratum (NAS) message Dao, [0178], NAS SM messaging by the SMF).
As to claim 13, Ericsson teaches wherein the request is sent at a first time instance and the wireless communication node is a first wireless communication node, and receiving a response and L4S capability (Ericsson, [0034],[0039],[0069], a first request is received (time 1) and the first network).
Ericsson does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: initiating, by the wireless communication device responsive to a mobility event at a second time instance, a handover from the first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node; and receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from the SMF, an indication indicating the L4S protocol is not supported by the second wireless communication node.
However, Dao teaches the method further comprising: initiating, by the wireless communication device responsive to a mobility event at a second time instance, a handover from the first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node (Dao, [0155][0157][0159][0209], the UE sends a request based on mobility of moving to a new area and handover to a different AMF and network); and receiving, by the wireless communication device, via the AMF from the SMF, an indication indicating the request is not supported by the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “handover and rejecting of a session” as taught by Dao in the system of Ericsson, so that it would reduce the delay of packets for critical flows (Dao, [0004]-[0006]).
As to claim 14, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises an idle mode mobility event in which the session preexists with the first wireless communication node (Dao, [0216], the UE was in the IDLE state).
As to claim 15, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the second wireless communication node reestablishes the session with the wireless communication device (Dao, [0157], the new PDU session is established due to handover).
As to claim 16, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the mobility event comprises a connected mode mobility event (Dao, [0200], the UE requests RRC connection reconfiguration).
As to claim 17, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the handover is performed via at least one of an N2 interface (Dao, [0192][0153], the handover is performed using N2 messaging).
As to claim 18, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the handover comprises a modification to the session between the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0155][0157][0159][0209], the UE sends a request based on mobility of moving to a new area and handover to a different AMF and network), the modification corresponding to the second wireless communication node not supporting the L4S protocol (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
As to claim 19, the combination of Ericsson and Dao teaches wherein the indication comprises a session management (SM) non-access stratum (NAS) modification initiated by the SMF (Dao, [0178], NAS SM messaging by the SMF to indicate rejection (non-support)), to indicate that the L4S protocol is not supported under the second wireless communication node (Dao, [0160][0159][0209], receiving a reject from the AMF via the SMF that the session is not supported).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Samsung (WO 2024/096657) Fig 1 Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM -5:00 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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469