DETAILED ACTION
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 submission filed 2025-12-15 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1, 10-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 27, 31, 33 are pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15, 16
“UE”
Any abbreviation or shortened representations of a term should be spelled out completely upon its first use in each claim branch (e.g., user equipment (UE)).
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 31 and 10-13, 15-16, 33
With regards to the element(s)
an [application message sequence number]
The claims recite at least two citations of “a(n) [element]” - either within the claim(s) itself or in a claim in which the claim(s) depend from. Consequently, when subsequent citation of “a [element]” is used, it is unclear if said subsequent citations are referring to a previous introduced element or is attempting to introduce a new, distinct element (but fails to describe it in such a manner that distinguishes it from the first citation).
Furthermore, when subsequent citations of "the [element]" are recited, it is unclear which particular “a [element]” (since there at least two previously introduced similarly named elements) is being referring to.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Examiner’s Notes
Claim Interpretation
Due to the feature of “different PDU sessions in the at least one PDU session belong to a same application message” this effectively means that “at least one PDU session” must include at least two PDU sessions since the “different PDU sessions in the at least one PDU session” requires at least two PDU sessions to be in the “at least one PDU session.”
Withdrawn claims: The USC112(b) are also present in the withdrawn claims.
Response to Arguments
The Reply’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights