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 .
The office action is in response to remarks filed 04/30/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 37-39 are pending. Claims 13-36 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024, 09/20/2023 and 09/19/2023are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, Applicant has amended the claims to recite “the registering by the UE with the incoming IMS session comprising: responsive to the SIP registration request, establishing…” However, the step of registering cannot “comprise” “the responsive step” because responsive has to happen outside the registering step. Therefore, it is unclear how the responsive step can be comprised in the registering step. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 37-39 are rejected as depending from the rejected base claims.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0037281 A1), Badar (US 2019/0349209 A1) and Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1).
Regarding claims 1, Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) discloses a method of operation in a wireless communication system, comprising:
registering by a user equipment (UE) over a cellular communications access network using a session initiation protocol (SIP) registration request with an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session (see page 7, lines 19-28, VoLTE registration includes SIP handshake which includes SIP registration);
triggering by the UE, over an untrusted non-3GPP access network, another IMS registration request (see page 9, lines 22-25, discloses VoWifi registration involving establishing IMS bearer);
transferring by a network node the incoming IMS session with the first QoS established for the incoming IMS session to the untrusted access network being accessed by the UE (see page 14, lines 3-12).
Cuevas does not explicitly disclose but Lee discloses triggering by the UE, over an untrusted non-3GPP access network, another IMS registration request along with requesting an IP address of the UE, the request comprising an internet service provider (ISP) identifier of the untrusted access network (see para. 0106-0110, reregistration message to transfer an IMS session from cellular to WLAN, the registration message include PANI, i.e. network access information of untrusted access network, see para. 0064, 0086, discloses assignment of IP address to UE and including in registration message). Lee further also discloses registering by a user equipment (UE) over a cellular communications access network using a session initiation protocol (SIP) registration request with an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session (see fig. 7-8, 705, 710, see para. 0057, 0070, 0085-0086, 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include triggering another IMS registration request as described by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow communicating the connectivity information such that the session can be handed over.
Cuevas fails to disclose but Badar (US 2019/0349209 A1) discloses reporting, by the IMS, details of calls availed by the UE through the untrusted access network to a remote server (para. 000054, fig. 4, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include reporting details of the call as described by Badar.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow accurately creating billing records based on usage.
Cuevas fails to explicitly disclose but Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1) discloses responsive to the SIP registration request, establishing, by the UE, a first Quality of Service (QoS) flow for the incoming IMS session, the first QoS flow associated with a first Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to the UE for the cellular communications access network by the IMS (see para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include establishing a QoS flow for incoming IMS session responsive to SIP registration request as described by Huang-Fu.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow setting up QoS flow for session.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0037281 A1), Badar (US 2019/0349209 A1) and Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma (US 2021/0058435 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cuevas fails to disclose but Sharma discloses the method, wherein the registering by the UE with the incoming IMS session further comprises: confirming subscription to a notification of access change by the network node on behalf of the UE based on a subscription request received from the IMS subsequent to the establishment of the first QoS flow for the incoming IMS session having QoS requirements (see para. 0045, discloses subscribing by IMS, P-CSCF, for policy changes such as RAT changes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include confirming subscription to a notification of access change as described by Sharma.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow recognizing a change and allowing corresponding activities, such as charging function to be implemented correctly.
Regarding claim 3, Cuevas discloses the method wherein the triggering by the UE another IMS registration request comprises: receiving a second IP address assigned to the UE for said the untrusted access network by an interworking function within the network (see page 9, lines 13-18); and triggering by the UE, over the untrusted non-3GPP access network, UN-WLAN, access network, a second IMS registration request with the second IP address of the UE (see page 9, lines 22-25).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0037281 A1), Badar (US 2019/0349209 A1), Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1) and Sharma (US 2021/0058435 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2013/0039337 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Cuevas fails to disclose but Hwang (US 2013/0039337 A1) discloses the method further comprising: in response to the received second IP address of the UE and the ISP identifier, generating by the network node the access change notification for the IMS for initiating establishment of a second QoS bearer or QoS flow for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network, the second QoS bearer or QoS flow for the incoming IMS session being associated with the second IP address assigned to the UE for the untrusted access network (see fig. 5, step S515-S518, discloses after IP address allocation sending access change notification via eNB to IMS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include generating by the network node the access change notification as described by Hwang.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow migrating the call from one network to another.
Regarding claim 5, Cuevas discloses the method wherein transferring the incoming IMS session to the untrusted access network comprises: transferring the incoming IMS session from the first IP address of the UE associated with the first QoS bearer or QoS flow established for the incoming IMS session over the cellular communications access network to the second IP address of the UE associated with the second QoS bearer or QoS flow established for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network (see fig. 3-4, page 9, lines 8-18, discloses transferring the IMS session from LTE IP address to WiFi IP address).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cuevas and Badar discloses the method, wherein the reporting by the IMS comprises: locating the remote server by the IMS based on the ISP identifier through an internet gateway, said the remote server corresponding to an internet service provider associated with the untrusted access network (para. 0067-0068, discloses receiving various information including access network and visited network information, contacting the server and providing session information); and reporting details related to one or more mobile originated (MO) or mobile terminated (MT) calls availed by the UE through the untrusted access network to the remote server (see Id.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0037281 A1), Badar (US 2019/0349209 A1), Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1), Sharma (US 2021/0058435 A1) and Hwang (US 2013/0039337 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Foti (WO 2019/197872 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Cuevas fails to disclose but Foti (WO 2019/197872 A1) discloses the method wherein initiating establishment of the second QoS bearer or QoS flow for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network comprises sending, over the cellular communications access network the SIP message that initiates establishment of the second QoS bearer or QoS flow for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network (see page 2, lines 16-page 3, line 19, see also page 27, lines 9-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include sending the SIP message that initiates establishment of the second QoS bearer.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow notifying the IMS network of the capability of dual network connection.
Claims 8-10, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0037281 A1), Sharma (US 2021/0058435 A1) and Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cuevas discloses the method of operation of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
registering by a UE over a cellular communications access network using a session initiation protocol (SIP) registration request with an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session (see page 7, lines 19-28, VoLTE registration includes SIP handshake which includes SIP registration);
triggering by the UE, over an untrusted non-3GPP access network, UN-WLAN, access network, another IMS registration request (see page 9, lines 22-25, discloses VoWifi registration involving establishing IMS bearer); and
achieving a transfer of the incoming IMS session from the cellular communications access network to the untrusted access network (see page 14, lines 3-12).
Cuevas does not explicitly disclose but Lee discloses triggering by the UE, over an untrusted non-3GPP access network, another IMS registration request along with requesting an IP address of the UE, the request comprising an internet service provider (ISP) identifier of the untrusted access network (see para. 0106-0110, reregistration message to transfer an IMS session from cellular to WLAN, the registration message include PANI, i.e. network access information of untrusted access network, see para. 0064, 0086, discloses assignment of IP address to UE and including in registration message). Lee further also discloses registering by a user equipment (UE) over a cellular communications access network using a session initiation protocol (SIP) registration request with an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session (see fig. 7-8, 705, 710, see para. 0057, 0070, 0085-0086, 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include triggering another IMS registration request as described by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow communicating the connectivity information such that the session can be handed over.
Cuevas fails to disclose but Sharma (US 2021/0058435 A1) discloses enabling generation of a notification of an access change by a policy control function (PCF) based on the trigger from the UE, the notification directed to the IMS based on the IP address of the UE and the ISP identifier for initiating establishment of the incoming IMS session with the first QoS flow for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network (see para. 0045, discloses subscribing by IMS, P-CSCF, for policy changes such as RAT changes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include enabling generation of a notification of an access change by a policy control function (PCF) based on the trigger from the UE as described by Sharma.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow recognizing a change and allowing corresponding activities, such as charging function to be implemented correctly.
Cuevas fails to explicitly disclose but Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1) discloses responsive to the SIP registration request, establishing, by the UE, a first Quality of Service (QoS) flow for the incoming IMS session, the first QoS flow associated with a first Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to the UE for the cellular communications access network by the IMS (see para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include establishing a QoS flow for incoming IMS session responsive to SIP registration request as described by Huang-Fu.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow setting up QoS flow for session.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cuevas and Huang-Fu discloses the method wherein the incoming IMS session comprises: QoS requirements (see Huang-Fu, para. 0009).
Regarding claim 10, 37, Cuevas discloses the method wherein the triggering by the UE another IMS registration request comprises: receiving a second IP address assigned to the UE for said the untrusted access network by an interworking function within the network (see page 9, lines 13-18); and triggering by the UE, over the untrusted non-3GPP access network, UN-WLAN, access network, a second IMS registration request with the second IP address of the UE (see page 9, lines 22-25).
Claims 11-12, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuevas (WO 2019/141623 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0037281 A1), Sharma (US 2021/0058435 A1) and Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359254 A1) as applied to claim 10, 37 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2013/0039337 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 38, Curvas fails to disclose but Hwang discloses he method wherein the enabling generation comprises: enabling generation of a notification of an access change by the UE directed to the IMS based on the second IP address of the UE and the ISP identifier for initiating establishment of a second QoS bearer or QoS flow for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network, the second QoS bearer or QoS flow for the incoming IMS session being associated with the second IP address assigned to the UE for the untrusted access network (see Hwang: fig. 5, step S515-S518, discloses after IP address allocation sending access change notification via eNB to IMS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include generating by the network node the access change notification as described by Hwang.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow migrating the call from one network to another.
Regarding claims 12, 39, Cuevas discloses the method, wherein the achieving the transfer of the incoming IMS session comprises: achieving the transfer of the incoming IMS session from the first IP address of the UE associated with the first QoS bearer or QoS flow established for the incoming IMS session over the cellular communications access network to the second IP address of the UE associated with the second QoS bearer or QoS flow established for the incoming IMS session over the untrusted access network (see fig. 3-4, page 9, lines 8-18, discloses transferring the IMS session from LTE IP address to WiFi IP address).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments with respect to limitation I, II have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on references previously cited.
Applicant’s argument with respect to limitation III, states that Badar merely discloses determining and applying charging rates based on a current access network type using SIP information received from an SIP component. Therefore, applicant concludes that the limitation III is not disclosed. Remarks at claims 13-14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as noted above, Badar does disclose IMS sending updated charging, i.e. details of calls availed, in untrusted access network, such as WiFI network to a remote server. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 NISHANT B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3125. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-6:00 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, Deborah J. Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
NISHANT B. DIVECHA
Supervisory Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights