DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 have been amended.
Claims: 4, 8-9 and 13 have not been amended.
Claims: 2, 6 and 11 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/24/25 with regards to claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … To at least these and related ends, independent claim 1, as amended, recites in part: receiving an EPS (evolved packet system) fallback event report indicating an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Voice EPS Fallback event from a session management node, wherein the fallback event report is received via a Npcf SMPolicyControl UpdateNotify message. C1 and Belling fail to disclose at least these recited elements of claim 1. The Office Action alleges that C1 discloses that the EPS fallback event report indicates the IMS Voice EPS Fallback, but C1 does not actually disclose an IMS Voice EPS Fallback event anywhere within C1. C1 discloses in Section 6g that the SMF initiates signaling to the PCF after receiving a rejection from the NG-RAN node that QoS Flow establishment for voice service that EPS fallback is ongoing. C1 does not disclose here however that this is for IMS Voice EPS Fallback event. The Office Action also alleges that section 6f discloses that the AMF forwards to the PGW-C and SMF the N2 SM information container that includes an indication of the inter-RAT mobility and that this somehow reads on the IMS Voice EPS Fallback event, but the there is nothing in 6f that indicates this is related to an IMS Voice EPS Fallback event. C1 therefore fails to disclose all the elements of claim 1, and Belling fails to cure the deficiencies of C1 (See Pages 5-6 of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 12/24/25).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the teachings of C1 does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations of an “IMS Voice EPS Fallback event” as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
The examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 & Page 4, Lines 18-22 & Page 5, Lines 6-8 & Page 7, Section 6, sub-section g seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
323
1578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
1520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
259
1582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
390
1567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of C1 seen above, C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 discloses 3GPP SA2 group has now defined a use case where the NG-RAN may reject an IMS voice session (i.e. reads on IMS voice) to trigger the core network to redirect the IMS MMTEL session to EPS (i.e. reads on EPS fallback event). This fallback from 5GS to EPS may happen at the time of IMS voice session setup and similarly C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section g. discloses PGW-C + SMF to PCRF + PCF: after receiving rejection from NG-RAN node for QoS flow establishment for voice service (i.e. reads on IMS voice) and indication that inter-RAT mobility such as EPS fallback (i.e. reads on EPS fallback event) in Idle state is ongoing and C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL and C1, Page 4, Lines 18-22 discloses The call flows in the following use cases, the UE successfully fallback from 5GS to EPS. The procedures involve a handover to EPS and setup of default EPS bearer and dedicated bearers for GBR QoS Flows in EPS. In the following flows the network entities such as AF+ P-CSCF, PCRF + PCF, PGW-C + SMF, and AMF may subscribe to the event notification of each other, where that event notification may be the UE mobility and change of radio access technology which clearly indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the indication of an inter-rat mobility corresponding to an EPS fallback in idle state or indication of a radio access type change or communication system change is directed towards an IMS Voice EPS fallback event and which reads on applicant’s argued limitations of “IMS Voice EPS Fallback event”.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … With regard to wherein the fallback event report is received via a Npcf SMPolicyControl UpdateNotify message, the Office Action concedes that C1 fails to disclose this, but instead relies on Belling. Belling discloses the use of a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message for example at paragraph [0033] as shown below: … We note however that the use of the Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message in Belling is contingent on whether PCC is used for the UE, with the context being provided in paragraph [0027] … The Non-Final Office Action does not provide a reasoned explanation however for why it would have been obvious to combine signalling in Belling with the embodiments in C1. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to combine Belling with C1, and therefore, Belling and C1 fail to teach or suggest all the elements of claim 1 (See Pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 12/24/25).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the combination of the teachings of C1 in view of Belling together as a whole does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations of “wherein the fallback event report is received via a Npcf SMPolicyControl UpdateNotify message” and the examiner has clearly provided as a reasoned explanation however for why it would have been obvious to combine signalling in Belling with the embodiments in C1 will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
To begin with, the examiner would like to note that the applicant’s arguments are against Belling alone without considering what the combination of the cited references together as a whole would teach and as such, the applicant’s arguments are against the references individually and are not therefore not based on the combination of the references as a whole.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually (see MPEP 2145, Section lV).
In addition, the examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of MPEP 2141, Section lll. RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 that recites “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. … The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be "so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art." Id. … The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” and MPEP 2141, Section ll, Subsection C. Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art that recites "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In addition to the factors above, Office personnel may rely on their own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit has stated that examiners and administrative patent judges on the Board are "persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work" and that their findings are "informed by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary skill in the art." In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 2003, 2007 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, examiners "are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the art ." PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 86 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d 1350, 1360, 220 USPQ 763, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” and MPEP 2143, Section A, Example 2 & Section B, Example 3 & Section C, Example 2 that recites “Example 2: The claimed invention in Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) was directed to a system which employs a screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor. The prior art (Fuller) used screw anchors for underpinning existing structural foundations. Fuller used a concrete haunch to transfer the load of the foundation to the screw anchor. The prior art (Gregory) used a push pier for underpinning existing structural foundations. Gregory taught a method of transferring load using a bracket, wherein a metal bracket transfers the foundation load to the push pier. The pier is driven into the ground to support the load. Neither reference showed the two elements of the claimed invention – screw anchor and metal bracket – used together. The court found that “artisans knew that a foundation underpinning system requires a means of connecting the foundation to the load-bearing member” … The nature of the problem to be solved – underpinning unstable foundations – as well as the need to connect the member to the foundation to accomplish this goal, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate load bearing member and a compatible attachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) in combination with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations” and recites “Example 3: The fact pattern in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is set forth above in Example 2 in subsection I.A., above. The prior art showed differing load-bearing members and differing means of attaching the foundation to the member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metal bracket taught in Gregory for Fuller’s concrete haunch for the predictable result of transferring the load.” and recites “Example 2: The fact pattern in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is set forth above in Example 2 in subsection I.A. The nature of the problem to be solved may lead inventors to look at references relating to possible solutions to that problem. Id. at 1277, 69 USPQ2d at 1691. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations.”
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of the MPEP seen above, the guidelines for obviousness indicated by the MPEP does not require any of the cited prior art to explicitly recite or disclose each and every limitation of the claimed limitation in order to render a teaching as obvious and as such, the cited prior art of C1 or Belling alone does not need to teach each and every limitations of the claimed invention as the rejection made on the claimed invention is based on the combination of the teachings of C1 as modified by the teachings of Belling together as a whole.
In this instance, C1 already discloses the transmission of a fallback event report from a SMF to a PCF and only fails to disclose the specific type of message being utilized to transmit the event report is “a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message;”.
However, this missing aspects of C1 is remedied by the disclosure of Belling that discloses the similar process of the transmission of an event report from a SMF to a PCF and indicates the use of a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message in sending the event report and as such, based on the guidelines for obviousness set forth by the MPEP as indicated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize and find obvious that the invention of C1 may be modified to specifically utilize the Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message in sending the fallback event report from a SMF to a PCF and the examiner has clearly indicated said reasoned explanations as can be seen in pages 6-8 of the previous office action filed on 09/24/25.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to further distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art, claim 1 has been amended to recite that "the EPS fallback event is reported to the call control node, in response to a subscription of the EPS fallback event by the call control node", consistent with former claim 2. While C1 does show a subscription mechanism and subsequent notifications, the cited portions appear to relate to radio access type changes and PDU Session Modifications rather than specifically to EPS fallback events. The Examiner's mapping seems to conflate different types of events and subscriptions, and it's not clear that C1's disclosure of radio access type change subscriptions would reasonably encompass the specific EPS fallback event subscription as claimed. The cited evidence appears to show a general subscription and notification framework, without specifically teaching the claimed relationship between EPS fallback event subscription and subsequent EPS fallback event reporting. Moreover, the Examiner does not show how Belling can cure these deficiencies of C1. Therefore, it would not be obvious for the person skilled in the art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 as amended from the combination of C1 and Belling. Claim 5 and 10 as amended include features similar to those of claim 1 and, as such, are believed to be allowable over C1 and Belling for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. … Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 12-13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, 5, and 10 as amended. As such, since claims 1, 5, and 10 as amended are allowable over C1 and Belling, claims 3-4, 7-8, and 12-13 are also believed to be allowable for at least the same reasons (See Pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 12/24/25).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the teachings of C1 does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations of "the EPS fallback event is reported to the call control node, in response to a subscription of the EPS fallback event by the call control node" as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
The examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of C1, Page 4, Lines 18-22 & Page 5, Lines 6-8 & Page 7, Section 6, sub-section h & Page 8, Section 11 seen below:
PNG
media_image5.png
349
1543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
587
1559
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
390
1567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
259
1582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of C1 seen above, C1, Page 8, Section 11 discloses if the PCRF + PCF received an indication that inter-RAT mobility (i.e. reads on according to the EPS fallback event report) is ongoing in step 6h, the PCRF + PCF may inform (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event and reads on wherein the EPS fallback event is reported) the AF + P-CSCF (i.e. reads on to a call control node) to temporary hold-on the IMS signalling towards the UE until at least the default bearer is established in the target RAT and/or system and upon receipt the Response Confirmation as a PRACK message, the P-CSCF should evaluate the elapsed time initiated at the time when P-CSCF + AF was notified that change of access technology (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event) was required to this step and C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section h. discloses PCRF + PCF to AF+ P-CSCF: The AF + P-CSCF (i.e. reads on by the call control node) may subscribe (i.e. reads on in response to a subscription) to the radio access type change (i.e. reads on of the EPS fallback event) by employing Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Subscribe service according to 3GPP TS 29.514. The subscription may also be based on the communication system change, any system change or any change that may occur so the UE is unreachable. The PCRF + PCF notifies (i.e. reads on wherein the EPS fallback event is reported) PDU Session Modification by invoking Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify request to the AF+ P-CSCF (i.e. reads on to the call control node). Upon receipt, the AF+ P-CSCF responds by sending Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify reply. From the time the P-CSCF initiates authorization of the necessary resources for the PDU session until the time the P-CSCF receives the need for change of access technology, the P-CSCF may maintain a timer and C1, Page 4, Lines 18-22 discloses The call flows in the following use cases, the UE successfully fallback from 5GS to EPS. The procedures involve a handover to EPS and setup of default EPS bearer and dedicated bearers for GBR QoS Flows in EPS. In the following flows the network entities such as AF+ P-CSCF, PCRF + PCF, PGW-C + SMF, and AMF may subscribe to the event notification of each other, where that event notification may be the UE mobility and change of radio access technology and C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL which clearly indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize and find obvious that the policy charging entity PCRF + PCF reports a radio access type or communication system change event indicating an inter-RAT mobility event such as an IMS EPS Fallback to a call control node P-CSCF after receiving the reported or indicated radio access type change event or inter-RAT mobility event and in response to the subscription request by the P-CSCF for receiving the information and which clearly reads on applicant’s argued limitations of "the EPS fallback event is reported to the call control node, in response to a subscription of the EPS fallback event by the call control node".
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Document Title “EPS fallback for an IMS session setup” (3GPP TSG CT WG1 Meeting #110, C1-182176, Kunming (P.R. of China), 16-20 April 2018 herein after referenced as C1) in view of BELLING (US Patent Publication 2020/0404106 herein after referenced as Belling).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 5, C1 discloses:
A method performed by a policy charging entity, comprising: and A policy charging entity, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing computer program codes that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the policy charging entity to: (C1, Page 4, Lines 18-22 discloses The call flows in the following use cases, the UE successfully fallback from 5GS to EPS. The procedures involve a handover to EPS and setup of default EPS bearer and dedicated bearers for GBR QoS Flows in EPS. In the following flows the network entities such as AF+ P-CSCF, PCRF + PCF (i.e. reads on policy charging entity), PGW-C + SMF, and AMF may subscribe to the event notification of each other, where that event notification may be the UE mobility and change of radio access technology. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for complex systems such as the disclosed PCRF + PCF to include processors and memories storing software instructions in order to be able to perform the various disclosed functionalities of transmission and reception. Applicant’s Specification, [0072] discloses “… the policy charging node may comprise a PCF (such as the PCF shown in Fig. 3), or any other suitable network entity or instance which can support a policy charging function …”).
receiving an EPS (evolved packet system) fallback event report indicating an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Voice EPS Fallback event from a session management node, wherein the fallback event report is received via a (C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section g. discloses PGW-C + SMF to PCRF + PCF: after receiving rejection from NG-RAN node for QoS flow establishment for voice service (i.e. reads on IMS voice) and indication that inter-RAT mobility such as EPS fallback (i.e. reads on EPS fallback event) in Idle state is ongoing, PGW-C + SMF (i.e. reads on session management node) initiates signaling towards the PCRF + PCF (i.e. reads on performed by a policy charging entity) by invoking e.g. Nsmf_EventExposure_Notify request (i.e. reads on wherein the fallback event report is received via a message) and providing the event (i.e. reads on receiving an EPS fallback event report) that generates the notification and the event information and the PGW-C + SMF may additionally inform the PCRF + PCF that inter-RAT mobility (i.e. reads on EPS fallback event) is ongoing in Idles state and the UE is temporary not reachable; C1, Page 6, Section 6, sub-section f. discloses AMF to PGW-C + SMF: The AMF may also provide the reason for the rejection of the PGW-C + SMF, e.g. Idle state inter-RAT mobility. Such an indication can be a trigger for the PGW-C + SMF that a specific indication is needed towards the PCRF + PCF to indicate that the UE is temporary not reachable. In addition to the exchange from AMF to the PGW-C + SMF for the IMS session (i.e. reads on IMS), this step is also performed with all PGW-C + SMFs allocated to the UE for each PDU session of the UE; C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL; C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 discloses 3GPP SA2 group has now defined a use case where the NG-RAN may reject an IMS voice session to trigger the core network to redirect the IMS MMTEL session to EPS. This fallback from 5GS to EPS may happen at the time of IMS voice session setup and at the time when the P-CSCF allocates core network QoS flows which may eventually be mapped to RAN bearers by the gNB. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the event indicated by the session management node PGW-C + SMF to the policy charging entity PCRF + PCF corresponds to a radio access type or communication system change event indicating an inter-RAT mobility event such as an IMS EPS Fallback. Applicant’s Specification, [0079] discloses “… In an exemplary embodiment, a functional node such as PGW-SMF can immediately report an EPS fallback event to a PCF after receiving an EPS fallback indicator from a NG-RAN, …”; Applicant’s Specification, [0068] discloses In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the session management node may comprise a PGW-SMF, PGW+SMF, a PGW-C-SMF (such as the PGW-C-SMF shown in Fig. 3) or any other suitable network entity or instance which can act as a packet gateway supporting a session management function.”).
and reporting an EPS fallback event indicating the IMS Voice EPS Fallback event to a call control node, according to the EPS fallback event report, wherein the EPS fallback event is reported to the call control node, in response to a subscription of the EPS fallback event by the call control node (C1, Page 8, Section 11 discloses if the PCRF + PCF received an indication that inter-RAT mobility (i.e. reads on according to the EPS fallback event report) is ongoing in step 6h, the PCRF + PCF may inform (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event and reads on wherein the EPS fallback event is reported) the AF + P-CSCF (i.e. reads on to a call control node) to temporary hold-on the IMS signalling towards the UE until at least the default bearer is established in the target RAT and/or system and upon receipt the Response Confirmation as a PRACK message, the P-CSCF should evaluate the elapsed time initiated at the time when P-CSCF + AF was notified that change of access technology (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event) was required to this step; C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section h. discloses PCRF + PCF to AF+ P-CSCF: The AF + P-CSCF (i.e. reads on by the call control node) may subscribe (i.e. reads on in response to a subscription) to the radio access type change (i.e. reads on of the EPS fallback event) by employing Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Subscribe service according to 3GPP TS 29.514. The subscription may also be based on the communication system change, any system change or any change that may occur so the UE is unreachable. The PCRF + PCF notifies (i.e. reads on wherein the EPS fallback event is reported) PDU Session Modification by invoking Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify request to the AF+ P-CSCF (i.e. reads on to the call control node). Upon receipt, the AF+ P-CSCF responds by sending Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify reply. From the time the P-CSCF initiates authorization of the necessary resources for the PDU session until the time the P-CSCF receives the need for change of access technology, the P-CSCF may maintain a timer; C1, Page 4, Lines 18-22 discloses The call flows in the following use cases, the UE successfully fallback from 5GS to EPS. The procedures involve a handover to EPS and setup of default EPS bearer and dedicated bearers for GBR QoS Flows in EPS. In the following flows the network entities such as AF+ P-CSCF, PCRF + PCF, PGW-C + SMF, and AMF may subscribe to the event notification of each other, where that event notification may be the UE mobility and change of radio access technology; C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL; C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 discloses 3GPP SA2 group has now defined a use case where the NG-RAN may reject an IMS voice session to trigger the core network to redirect the IMS MMTEL session to EPS. This fallback from 5GS to EPS may happen at the time of IMS voice session setup and at the time when the P-CSCF allocates core network QoS flows which may eventually be mapped to RAN bearers by the gNB. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the policy charging entity PCRF + PCF reports a radio access type or communication system change event indicating an inter-RAT mobility event such as an IMS EPS Fallback to a call control node P-CSCF after receiving the reported or indicated radio access type change event or inter-RAT mobility event and in response to the subscription request by the P-CSCF for receiving the information. Applicant’s Specification, [0079] discloses “… and the PCF can report this EPS fallback event to a P-CSCF for an IMS. Thus, the P-CSCF/IMS can be aware of the EPS fallback timely and handle SIP signaling in a flexible and efficient way, for example, by buffering signaling or prolonging the (re)transmission time until the PDN connection and default bearer is ready in EPS (e.g., in the case that a RAT type change is received by the P-CSCF). …”; Applicant’s Specification, [0075] discloses In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the call control node may comprise a P-CSCF (such as the P-CSCF shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4), or any other suitable network entity or instance which can support a proxy-call serving call control function and/or a proxy-call session control function.”).
C1 discloses that the SMF informs the PCF of the event and provides an example of utilizing the Nsmf_EventExposure_Notify request but fails to explicitly disclose the use of a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message and therefore fails to disclose “event report is received via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message;”.
In a related field of endeavor, Belling discloses:
event report is received via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message (Belling, [0033] discloses the SMF may send Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message (i.e. reads on via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message to the PCF indicating that the SMF has received a subscription and may include monitoring event (i.e. reads on event report is received); Belling, [0028]-[0029] discloses the PCF may provide a new policy control request trigger about subscriptions for event exposure received by the SMF and when the SMF receives a subscription request or notifications about one or several events from another network function, the SMF notifies the PCF about that subscription such as by requesting new policies using the Npcf_SMPolicy-Control_UpdateNotify service operation and discloses the PCF may then install or update PCC rules based on the information received from the SMF).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of C1 to incorporate the teachings of Belling for the purpose of providing the system with a means to allow the system to install or update PCC rules based on the event (Belling, [0028]-[0029]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of the SMF notifying the PCF with regards to an event as taught by C1) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of the SMF notifying the PCF with regards to an event, wherein the SMF notifies the PCF of the event via the use of an Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message as taught by Belling) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of the SMF notifying the PCF with regards to an event (i.e. as taught by C1 & Belling) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 9, C1 in view of Belling discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program codes embodied thereon which, when executed by one or more processors of a policy charging entity, cause the policy charging entity to implement a method according to claim 1 (See claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for complex systems such as the disclosed PCRF + PCF to include processors and memories storing software instructions in order to be able to perform the various disclosed functionalities of transmission and reception).
Regarding claim 10, C1 discloses:
A method, comprising: receiving, by a session management node, an EPS (evolved packet system) fallback indicator from a mobility management node, wherein the EPS fallback indicator indicates that a fallback to an EPS for an IMS (Internet protocol multimedia subsystem) voice service is ongoing; (C1, Page 6, Section 6, sub-section f. discloses AMF to PGW-C + SMF: The AMF (i.e. reads on from a mobility management node) may also provide the reason (i.e. reads on receiving EPS fallback indicator) for the rejection of the PGW-C + SMF (i.e. reads on session management node), e.g. Idle state inter-RAT mobility (i.e. reads on EPS fallback indicator). Such an indication can be a trigger for the PGW-C + SMF that a specific indication is needed towards the PCRF + PCF to indicate that the UE is temporary not reachable. In addition to the exchange from AMF to the PGW-C + SMF for the IMS session (i.e. reads on IMS), this step is also performed with all PGW-C + SMFs allocated to the UE for each PDU session of the UE; C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section g. discloses PGW-C + SMF to PCRF + PCF: after receiving rejection from NG-RAN node for QoS flow establishment for voice service (i.e. reads on for an IMS voice service) and indication that inter-RAT mobility such as EPS fallback (i.e. reads on EPS fallback event) in Idle state is ongoing, PGW-C + SMF initiates signaling towards the PCRF + PCF and providing the event that generates the notification and the event information and the PGW-C + SMF may additionally inform the PCRF + PCF that inter-RAT mobility is ongoing (i.e. reads on wherein the EPS fallback indicator indicates that fallback to an EPS is ongoing) in Idles state and the UE is temporary not reachable; C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL; C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 discloses 3GPP SA2 group has now defined a use case where the NG-RAN may reject an IMS voice session to trigger the core network to redirect the IMS MMTEL session to EPS. This fallback from 5GS to EPS may happen at the time of IMS voice session setup and at the time when the P-CSCF allocates core network QoS flows which may eventually be mapped to RAN bearers by the gNB. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the event indicated by the session management node PGW-C + SMF receives from the mobility management node AMF, a report comprising a radio access type or communication system change event indicating an inter-RAT mobility event such as an IMS EPS Fallback. Applicant’s Specification, [0068]-[0069] discloses In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the session management node may comprise a PGW-SMF, PGW+SMF, a PGW-C-SMF (such as the PGW-C-SMF shown in Fig. 3) or any other suitable network entity or instance which can act as a packet gateway supporting a session management function.” and discloses “… the session management node may receive an EPS fallback indicator from a mobility management node (e.g., the AMF-MME shown in Fig. 3) as shown in block 502. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the EPS fallback indicator may indicate that a fallback to an EPS for an IMS voice service is ongoing. According to the EPS fallback indicator, the session management node may report an EPS fallback event to a policy charging node (e.g., the PCF shown in FIG. 3), as shown in block 504”).
reporting, by the session management node, an EPS fallback event indicating an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Voice EPS Fallback event to a policy charging node via a (C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section g. discloses PGW-C + SMF to PCRF + PCF: after receiving rejection from NG-RAN node for QoS flow establishment for voice service (i.e. reads on IMS voice) and indication that inter-RAT mobility such as EPS fallback (i.e. reads on indicating EPS fallback event) in Idle state is ongoing, PGW-C + SMF (i.e. reads on by the session management node) initiates signaling towards the PCRF + PCF (i.e. reads on to a policy charging entity and reads on by the policy charging node) by invoking e.g. Nsmf_EventExposure_Notify request (i.e. reads on via a message) and providing the event (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event and receiving an EPS fallback event report) that generates the notification and the event information and the PGW-C + SMF may additionally inform the PCRF + PCF that inter-RAT mobility (i.e. reads on EPS fallback event) is ongoing in Idles state and the UE is temporary not reachable; C1, Page 6, Section 6, sub-section f. discloses AMF to PGW-C + SMF: The AMF may also provide the reason for the rejection of the PGW-C + SMF, e.g. Idle state inter-RAT mobility. Such an indication can be a trigger for the PGW-C + SMF that a specific indication is needed towards the PCRF + PCF to indicate that the UE is temporary not reachable. In addition to the exchange from AMF to the PGW-C + SMF for the IMS session (i.e. reads on IMS), this step is also performed with all PGW-C + SMFs allocated to the UE for each PDU session of the UE; C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL; C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 discloses 3GPP SA2 group has now defined a use case where the NG-RAN may reject an IMS voice session to trigger the core network to redirect the IMS MMTEL session to EPS. This fallback from 5GS to EPS may happen at the time of IMS voice session setup and at the time when the P-CSCF allocates core network QoS flows which may eventually be mapped to RAN bearers by the gNB. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the event indicated by the session management node PGW-C + SMF to the policy charging entity PCRF + PCF corresponds to a radio access type or communication system change event indicating an inter-RAT mobility event such as an IMS EPS Fallback. Applicant’s Specification, [0079] discloses “… In an exemplary embodiment, a functional node such as PGW-SMF can immediately report an EPS fallback event to a PCF after receiving an EPS fallback indicator from a NG-RAN, …”; Applicant’s Specification, [0068] discloses In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the session management node may comprise a PGW-SMF, PGW+SMF, a PGW-C-SMF (such as the PGW-C-SMF shown in Fig. 3) or any other suitable network entity or instance which can act as a packet gateway supporting a session management function.”).
and reporting, by the policy charging node, the EPS fallback event indicating the IMS Voice EPS Fallback event to a call control node; wherein the EPS fallback event is reported to the call control node, in response to a subscription of the EPS fallback event by the call control node (C1, Page 8, Section 11 discloses if the PCRF + PCF received an indication that inter-RAT mobility is ongoing in step 6h, the PCRF + PCF (i.e. reads on by the policy charging node) may inform (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event indicating the IMS Voice EPS Fallback event and reads on wherein the EPS fallback event is reported) the AF + P-CSCF (i.e. reads on to a call control node) to temporary hold-on the IMS signalling towards the UE until at least the default bearer is established in the target RAT and/or system and upon receipt the Response Confirmation as a PRACK message, the P-CSCF should evaluate the elapsed time initiated at the time when P-CSCF + AF was notified that change of access technology (i.e. reads on reporting an EPS fallback event) was required to this step; C1, Page 7, Section 6, sub-section h. discloses PCRF + PCF to AF+ P-CSCF: The AF + P-CSCF (i.e. reads on by the call control node) may subscribe (i.e. reads on in response to a subscription) to the radio access type change (i.e. reads on of the EPS fallback event) by employing Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Subscribe service according to 3GPP TS 29.514. The subscription may also be based on the communication system change, any system change or any change that may occur so the UE is unreachable. The PCRF + PCF notifies (i.e. reads on wherein the EPS fallback event is reported) PDU Session Modification by invoking Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify request to the AF+ P-CSCF (i.e. reads on to the call control node). Upon receipt, the AF+ P-CSCF responds by sending Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify reply. From the time the P-CSCF initiates authorization of the necessary resources for the PDU session until the time the P-CSCF receives the need for change of access technology, the P-CSCF may maintain a timer; C1, Page 4, Lines 18-22 discloses The call flows in the following use cases, the UE successfully fallback from 5GS to EPS. The procedures involve a handover to EPS and setup of default EPS bearer and dedicated bearers for GBR QoS Flows in EPS. In the following flows the network entities such as AF+ P-CSCF, PCRF + PCF, PGW-C + SMF, and AMF may subscribe to the event notification of each other, where that event notification may be the UE mobility and change of radio access technology; C1, Page 5, Lines 6-8 discloses a Handover or Idle state fallback from NG-RAN to E-UTRAN is required. This assumption in this use case is that the N26 interface is not deployed. Note that this use case covers the EPS fallback for voice services, MMTEL; C1, Page 1, Lines 19-22 discloses 3GPP SA2 group has now defined a use case where the NG-RAN may reject an IMS voice session to trigger the core network to redirect the IMS MMTEL session to EPS. This fallback from 5GS to EPS may happen at the time of IMS voice session setup and at the time when the P-CSCF allocates core network QoS flows which may eventually be mapped to RAN bearers by the gNB. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the policy charging entity PCRF + PCF reports a radio access type or communication system change event indicating an inter-RAT mobility event such as an IMS EPS Fallback to a call control node P-CSCF after receiving the reported or indicated radio access type change event or inter-RAT mobility event and in response to the subscription request by the P-CSCF for receiving the information. Applicant’s Specification, [0079] discloses “… and the PCF can report this EPS fallback event to a P-CSCF for an IMS. Thus, the P-CSCF/IMS can be aware of the EPS fallback timely and handle SIP signaling in a flexible and efficient way, for example, by buffering signaling or prolonging the (re)transmission time until the PDN connection and default bearer is ready in EPS (e.g., in the case that a RAT type change is received by the P-CSCF). …”; Applicant’s Specification, [0075] discloses In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the call control node may comprise a P-CSCF (such as the P-CSCF shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4), or any other suitable network entity or instance which can support a proxy-call serving call control function and/or a proxy-call session control function.”).
C1 discloses that the SMF informs the PCF of the event and provides an example of utilizing the Nsmf_EventExposure_Notify request but fails to explicitly disclose the use of a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message and therefore fails to disclose “reporting, by the session management node, an event via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message” and “receiving, by the policy charging node, report of the event from the session management node via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message;”.
In a related field of endeavor, Belling discloses:
reporting, by the session management node, an event via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message; receiving, by the policy charging node, report of the event from the session management node via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message; (Belling, [0033] discloses the SMF (i.e. reads on by the session management node and reads on from the session management node) may send Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message (i.e. reads on via a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message) to the PCF (i.e. reads on by the policy charging node) indicating that the SMF has received a subscription and may include monitoring event (i.e. reads on reporting an event and reads on receiving an event); Belling, [0028]-[0029] discloses the PCF may provide a new policy control request trigger about subscriptions for event exposure received by the SMF and when the SMF receives a subscription request or notifications about one or several events from another network function, the SMF notifies the PCF about that subscription such as by requesting new policies using the Npcf_SMPolicy-Control_UpdateNotify service operation and discloses the PCF may then install or update PCC rules based on the information received from the SMF).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of C1 to incorporate the teachings of Belling for the purpose of providing the system with a means to allow the system to install or update PCC rules based on the event (Belling, [0028]-[0029]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of the SMF notifying the PCF with regards to an event as taught by C1) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of the SMF notifying the PCF with regards to an event, wherein the SMF notifies the PCF of the event via the use of an Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message as taught by Belling) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of the SMF notifying the PCF with regards to an event (i.e. as taught by C1 & Belling) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Document Title “EPS fallback for an IMS session setup” (3GPP TSG CT WG1 Meeting #110, C1-182176, Kunming (P.R. of China), 16-20 April 2018 herein after referenced as C1) in view of BELLING (US Patent Publication 2020/0404106 herein after referenced as Belling) and further in view of LIU et al. (US Patent Publication 2019/0037339 herein after referenced as Liu).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 7 and claim 12, C1 in view of Belling discloses:
The method according to claim 2, (see claim 2) and The policy charging entity according to claim 6, (see claim 6) and The method according to claim 11 (see claim 11).
wherein the subscription of the EPS fallback event by the call control node is informed to the policy charging entity in an (C1, Page 7, Section 6 sub-section h. discloses PCRF + PCF to AF+ P-CSCF: The AF + P-CSCF may subscribe to the radio access type change by employing Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Subscribe service according to 3GPP TS 29.514. The subscription may also be based on the communication system change, any system change or any change that may occur so the UE is unreachable. The PCRF + PCF notifies PDU Session Modification by invoking Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify request to the AF+ P-CSCF. Upon receipt, the AF+ P-CSCF responds by sending Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify reply. From the time the P-CSCF initiates authorization of the necessary resources for the PDU session until the time the P-CSCF receives the need for change of access technology, the P-CSCF may maintain a timer).
C1 in view of Belling discloses the P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply but fails to explicitly disclose that said authorization request is an authentication and authorization request and that said authorization reply is a reauthentication reply and therefore fails to disclose “an authentication and authorization request from the call control node”.
In a related field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
an authentication and authorization request from the call control node (Liu, [0108] discloses the P-CSCF may request the user location information from the PCRF by sending an authentication authorization request AAR message to the PCRF; Liu, [0111] discloses the PCRF can include the geographical location in a re-authentication request RAR message and send the RAR message to the P-CSCF; Liu, [0104] discloses sending the geographical location related information to the PCRF due to LTE to Wi-Fi handover).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of C1 in view of Belling to incorporate the teachings of Liu for the purpose of providing the system with a means to utilize specific types and formats of messages when requesting information between the P-CSCF and the PCRF (Liu, [0108] & [0111]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply as taught by C1) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply, wherein the authorization request is an authentication and authorization request and wherein the authorization replay is a reauthentication reply as taught by Liu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply (i.e. as taught by C1 & Liu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 8 and claim 13, C1 in view of Belling discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1) and The policy charging entity according to claim 5, (see claim 5) and The method according to claim 10 (see claim 10).
wherein the EPS fallback event is reported to the call control node in a (C1, Page 7, Section 6 sub-section h. discloses PCRF + PCF to AF+ P-CSCF: The AF + P-CSCF may subscribe to the radio access type change by employing Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Subscribe service according to 3GPP TS 29.514. The subscription may also be based on the communication system change, any system change or any change that may occur so the UE is unreachable. The PCRF + PCF notifies PDU Session Modification by invoking Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify request to the AF+ P-CSCF. Upon receipt, the AF+ P-CSCF responds by sending Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify reply. From the time the P-CSCF initiates authorization of the necessary resources for the PDU session until the time the P-CSCF receives the need for change of access technology, the P-CSCF may maintain a timer).
C1 in view of Belling discloses the P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply but fails to explicitly disclose that said authorization request is an authentication and authorization request and that said authorization reply is a reauthentication reply and therefore fails to disclose “a re-authentication request from the policy charging entity”.
In a related field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
a re-authentication request from the policy charging entity (Liu, [0111] discloses the PCRF can include the geographical location in a re-authentication request RAR message and send the RAR message to the P-CSCF; Liu, [0108] discloses the P-CSCF may request the user location information from the PCRF by sending an authentication authorization request AAR message to the PCRF; Liu, [0104] discloses sending the geographical location related information to the PCRF due to LTE to Wi-Fi handover).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of C1 in view of Belling to incorporate the teachings of Liu for the purpose of providing the system with a means to utilize specific types and formats of messages when requesting information between the P-CSCF and the PCRF (Liu, [0108] & [0111]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply as taught by C1) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply, wherein the authorization request is an authentication and authorization request and wherein the authorization replay is a reauthentication reply as taught by Liu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of P-CSCF subscribing to receive information from the PCRF by transmitting an authorization request and receiving an authorization reply (i.e. as taught by C1 & Liu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights