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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4, 6-7, and 9-11 broaden the scope of claim 1 because they add an additional operation to the group of operations of which at least one is performed. Claims 5 and 8 depends on claims 4 and 7 respectively and are rejected based on the dependence. Claims 15-20 are similar to claims 1-9 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niemi (EP 3958648 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Niemi discloses:
“A method, comprising: determining, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), that a lower layer failure occurred during a service request (SR) procedure being performed for initiating an emergency PDU session with a network for establishing an emergency call; performing, by the processor responsive to the determining, one or more operations, wherein the one or more operations comprise a UE non-access-stratum (NAS) layer in a 5th Generation Mobility Management (5GMM) protocol stack informing one or more upper layers of the 5GMM protocol stack of a failure of the SR procedure for accessing the network such that an upper layer of the 5GMM protocol stack initiates a mechanism for remedying the failure, or performing a local de-registration and attempting to initiate an initial registration for emergency services with the network.” (¶ 0028: “Under various proposed schemes in accordance with the present disclosure pertaining to UE behavior for failed registration and service requests for emergency services fallback in mobile communications, processor 212 of apparatus 210 in a 5GS, implemented in or as UE 110, may determine a failure in attempting to initiate a mobility registration request procedure and/or a service request procedure with a network (e.g., network 120) to perform an emergency service fallback. Moreover, responsive to the determining, processor 212 may perform one or more operations including at least a UE NAS layer in a 5GMM protocol informing an upper layer in the 5GMM protocol of the failure to cause the upper layer to attempt an emergency call in a different domain or via a different network.” Also see paragraphs 36-37.)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Niemi discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Niemi further discloses “wherein the upper layer of the 5GMM protocol stack implements one or more procedures that result in an emergency call being attempted to an additional network” and “wherein the additional network is an Internet Protocol-connectivity access network (IP-CAN).” (¶ 0017: “This may cause or otherwise trigger UE 110 to attempt an emergency call in a different domain such as, for example, a circuit-switched (CS) domain or via different network such as, for example, an Internet Protocol-connectivity access network (IP-CAN).”)
Claims 15-20 broaden the scope of claim 12 by adding additional alternatives. Thus, the teachings of paragraph 28 and 36-37 of Niemi still fully teach the scope of these claims.
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, 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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemi (EP 3958648 A1) in view of Won (US 20210321356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Niemi discloses:
“A method, comprising: determining, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), that a lower layer failure occurred during a … procedure being performed for initiating an emergency PDU session with a network for establishing an emergency call; and performing, by the processor responsive to the determining, one or more operations, wherein the one or more operations comprise a UE non-access-stratum (NAS) layer in a 5th Generation Mobility Management (5GMM) protocol stack informing one or more upper layers of the 5GMM protocol stack of a failure of the MRU procedure for accessing the network such that an upper layer of the 5GMM protocol stack initiates a mechanism for remedying the failure, or performing a local de-registration and attempting to initiate an initial registration for emergency services with the network.” (¶ 0028: “Under various proposed schemes in accordance with the present disclosure pertaining to UE behavior for failed registration and service requests for emergency services fallback in mobile communications, processor 212 of apparatus 210 in a 5GS, implemented in or as UE 110, may determine a failure in attempting to initiate a mobility registration request procedure and/or a service request procedure with a network (e.g., network 120) to perform an emergency service fallback. Moreover, responsive to the determining, processor 212 may perform one or more operations including at least a UE NAS layer in a 5GMM protocol informing an upper layer in the 5GMM protocol of the failure to cause the upper layer to attempt an emergency call in a different domain or via a different network.” Also see paragraphs 36-37.)
Niemi does not explicitly disclose the procedure is “mobility and periodic registration update (MRU).”
However, Won discloses the missing feature “mobility and periodic registration update (MRU)” (¶ 0088: “However, the registration update request has not been accepted by the AMF, such as in instances in the registration update request has failed due to a lack of response from the network or due to predefined circumstances, such as the circumstances described in subclauses 5.3.9 and 5.5.1.3.5 of 3GPP TS 24.501. While in this state, the UE determines that an emergency session needs to be established, such as based on input from the user of the UE 102 or from upper layers of the UE, and the registration request including the emergency services fallback request is generated and transmitted, such as by the processor 202 and/or the communication interface 206.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Niemi and Won, to modify the technique as disclosed by Niemi, to be used in response to MRUs as disclosed by Won. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Niemi with Won to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Niemi in view of Won discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Niemi further discloses “wherein the upper layer of the 5GMM protocol stack implements one or more procedures that result in an emergency call being attempted to an additional network” and “wherein the additional network is an Internet Protocol-connectivity access network (IP-CAN).” (¶ 0017: “This may cause or otherwise trigger UE 110 to attempt an emergency call in a different domain such as, for example, a circuit-switched (CS) domain or via different network such as, for example, an Internet Protocol-connectivity access network (IP-CAN).”)
Claims 4-11 broaden the scope of claim 1 by adding additional alternatives. Thus, the teachings of paragraph 28 and 36-37 of Niemi still fully teach the scope of these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412