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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LG (Support of DualSteer Device management using Primary/Secondary SUPI and DualSteer PDU session using separate PDU sessions).
Regarding claims 1 and 13. LG discloses a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a first mobile termination (MT) and a second MT (see at least figure 6.1.X.1.4-1), wherein the first MT and second MT are each in a protocol data unit (PDU) session with a network (see at least section 6.1.X.1.4), the method comprising: identifying a condition affecting the PDU session of the second MT; and in response to identifying the condition (see at least section 6.1.X.1.6): releasing the PDU session of the second MT; selecting, using the second MT, a new network; and requesting, using the second MT, a PDU session with the new network (see at least sections 6.1.X.2.2 and 6.1.X.2.3).
Regarding claims 3 and 15. LG discloses a method wherein the first MT maintains its PDU session while the second MT releases its PDU session and selects the new network (see at least sections 6.1.X.2.2 and 6.1.X.2.3).
Regarding claim 4 and 16, LG discloses a method wherein the first MT is in its PDU session with a first network; the second MT is in its PDU session with the first network; and the condition affects the PDU sessions of both the first MT and the second MT (see at least sections 6.1.X.2.2, 6.1.X.2.3 and 6.1.X.3: UE).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, LG discloses a method further comprising establishing, using the second MT, a PDU session with the new network; and after the second MT establishes the PDU session with the new network, releasing the PDU session of the first MT (see at least sections 6.1.X.2.2 and 6.1.X.2.3).
Regarding claim 6, LG discloses a method further comprising selecting the second MT to release its PDU session based on a condition (see at least sections 6.1.X.2.2 and 6.1.X.2.3).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, LG discloses a method wherein the first MT is in its PDU session with a first network; the second MT is in its PDU session with a second network different than the first network (see at least section 6.1.X.1.6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG in view of Tan et al (US 2024/0205778, hereinafter referred to as Tan).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, LG discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the condition comprises one of: a quality of service metric being below a threshold; or a prediction the MT may lose coverage. However, Tan, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches the condition comprises one of: a quality of service metric being below a threshold; or a prediction the MT may lose coverage (see at least abstract and paragraphs [0035], and [0054]-[0057]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Tan, as indicated, into the communication method of LG for the purpose of guaranteeing a QOS.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG in view of Agarwal et al (CN 117223327, hereinafter referred to as Agarwal)
Regarding claims 10 and 19, LG discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of in response to identifying the condition, requesting, by the second MT, traffic of the second MT to be moved to the first MT; and in response to the second MT receiving an acknowledgement that the request to move the traffic of the second MT is accepted, performing the releasing of the PDU session of the second MT. However, Agarwal, from a the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to identifying the condition, requesting, by the second MT, traffic of the second MT to be moved to the first MT; and in response to the second MT receiving an acknowledgement that the request to move the traffic of the second MT is accepted, performing the releasing of the PDU session of the second MT (In one embodiment, detecting, by the UE, a trigger criterion satisfying the 5G data session handover to the second SIM based on the network broadcast parameter includes: the bad network performance of the first SIM is identified by the UE; the UE estimates that the second SIM can continue the 5G data session with the optimal network performance based on the network broadcast parameter; and when the second SIM is estimated to be able to continue the 5G data session with the optimal network performance, the UE detects a trigger standard satisfying the 5G data session handover.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching Agarwal, as indicated, into the communication method of LG for the purpose of maintain data delivery and avoid service interruption
Regarding claims 11 and 20. LG in view of Agarwal discloses a method further comprising establishing, using the second MT, a PDU session with the new network; and after the second MT establishes the PDU session with the new network, requesting, by the second MT, to move the traffic back to the second MT (see at least section 6.1.x.1.6: the UE2 would re-establish normal operations whenever permitted based on configuration.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG in view of Wang et al (US 2023/0189191, hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 12, LG discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of in response to identifying the condition, requesting, by the second MT, traffic of the second MT to be put on one of hold or standby. However, Wang, from the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to identifying the condition, requesting, by the second MT, traffic of the second MT to be put on one of hold or standby (see at least paragraph [0096]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Wang, as indicated, into the communication method of LG for the purpose of steering data flows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights