DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 31 May 2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,004,039 B2 (the “reference patent”).
The reference patent claims a mobility management entity configured to receive an attach request from a user equipment (UE) including capability information indicating support of a first network and a second network, transmit an attach response indicating completion of attach, receive a session establishment request for the first network, and establish a session for the first network through a session management entity that supports mobility between the first and second networks, wherein the attach request includes information indicating the enabled or disabled status of the second network and the session establishment request includes information related to a session for the second network when the second-network capability is disabled.
The claims of the instant application recite corresponding subject matter from the UE perspective, including transmitting an attach request including capability information for a plurality of networks, receiving an attach accept message, transmitting a session establishment or PDN connectivity request for the first network, and establishing a session for the first network through a session management entity supporting mobility between networks. The claims further recite that the UE includes information related to a session for the second network in the session establishment request under conditions that encompass, overlap with, or are broader than those recited in the reference patent. The additional limitations in dependent claims 2–20, including transmission of capability information, PDN connectivity handling, session modification, mobility procedures, multi-network capability control, and session continuity features, constitute routine UE-side implementation details corresponding to network-side operations already claimed in the reference patent and do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Although the reference patent recites mobility management functions from the network perspective and the instant application recites corresponding operations from the UE perspective, both sets of claims are directed to the same overall inventive concept of attach signaling, capability handling, and multi-network session establishment and maintenance. The differences between the claims—including the perspective (UE vs. network), breadth of conditions for including second-network session information, and minor variations in signaling sequence—are considered obvious design choices and do not constitute patentably distinct subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are unpatentable under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. A terminal disclaimer may be used to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over in view of Park et al (US Pub. 2020/0187301) in view of Song et al. (US Pub. 2020/0196231).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches “transmit, to a management entity, an attach request message for a first network among at least two networks supported by the UE, wherein the attach request message includes first UE network capability information indicating support of a second network among the at least two networks” because Park discloses an Attach Request including UE capability indicating LTE/NR support (Park ¶76; Fig. 4 S410). Park teaches “receive, from the management entity, an attach accept message indicating completion of attach to the first network” (Park Fig. 4 S420). Park teaches “transmit, to the management entity, a packet data network (PDN) connectivity request for the first network” (Park ¶84; Fig. 8A/8B). Park further teaches “establish a first session for the first network through a session management entity supporting mobility between the first network and the second network” through its AMF/SMF architecture supporting LTE–NR mobility (Park ¶197).However, Park does not specifically teach wherein, in case that the UE supports the second network, regardless of an enabled status or a disabled status of UE network capability for the second network, the session establishment request includes information related to a second session for the second network.Song teaches including multi-RAT capability information that drives RAT-specific session/bearer configuration regardless of temporary enable/disable state (Song ¶67–68; Fig. 3B; Fig. 4C). A skilled artisan would combine Song with Park to ensure multi-RAT session configuration continuity based on capability rather than temporary enable state, improving mobility and interoperability in dual-RAT networks—a predictable improvement.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches UE capability information (Park ¶76), but not that “the first UE network capability information comprises information indicating whether the UE supports establishing sessions for the second network via the session management entity.” Song teaches mapping multi-RAT capability to RAT-specific session establishment (Song ¶68; Fig. 4C). Combining Song with Park would allow the SMF/AMF to configure second-network sessions based on capability, which is an expected enhancement.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches transmitting PDN connectivity requests (Park ¶84), but not “the PDN connectivity request including information for establishing the second session for the second network.” Song teaches sending RAT-specific session configuration information derived from capability (Song ¶68). Combining them yields predictable multi-RAT session setup.
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches mobility using a unified SMF/AMF (Park ¶197), but not explicitly “the session management entity being the same entity for both the first session and the second session.” Song shows multi-RAT session control through a single logical session-control entity (Song ¶67; Fig. 4C). Combining is straightforward to reduce signaling and unify session control.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches multiple-RAT capability (Park ¶76), but not “the UE determining that the second network capability is disabled and still including information related to the second session.” Song teaches using multi-RAT capability for session operations even when the RAT is temporarily disabled (Song ¶68). Combining provides robust session availability across RAT transitions.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches sending attach request, receiving attach accept, sending PDN connectivity request, and establishing a mobility-supported session, as substantially recited in claim 1 (Park ¶76; ¶84; ¶197), but not “including second-network session information regardless of enabled or disabled second-network capability.” Song teaches capability-driven, RAT-independent session configuration (Song ¶68). Combining produces predictable multi-RAT session continuity. Claim 6 is thus similarly rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches transmitting capability fields (Park ¶76), but not “distinct capability indicators for session establishment separate from attach capability.” Song teaches using multi-RAT capability for RAT-specific session configuration (Song ¶68). Combination provides enhanced flexibility.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches multi-RAT mobility (Park ¶197), but not “using the same session management entity to anchor both first-network and second-network sessions.” Song’s unified RAT-session entity (Song Fig. 4C) makes this an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches UE sending PDN requests (Park ¶84), but not “the PDN request including explicit multi-RAT session trigger information.” Song teaches RAT-specific session trigger information derived from capability (Song ¶68). Combination is predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches PDN connectivity request (Park ¶84), but not “including multiple RAT session preferences.” Song teaches multi-RAT session selection based on capability sets (Song Fig. 3B). Combination supports multi-RAT session optimization.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches a management entity receiving attach request, sending attach accept, receiving PDN request, and establishing mobility-supported session complimentary to claim 1 (Park ¶76; ¶84; ¶197), but not “including information related to a second session regardless of disabled second-network capability.” Song teaches capability-driven session establishment independent of temporary enable/disable state (Song ¶67–68). Combination is straightforward. Claim 11 is thus similarly rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches session establishment signaling (Park ¶84), but not “using explicit capability-session linkage for both networks.” Song teaches capability-derived RAT session configuration (Song ¶67–68). Combining produces predictable multi-RAT behavior.
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches establishing sessions (Park ¶84), but not “packaging first-network and second-network session information in the same PDN request.” Song teaches generating multiple session configurations from capability (Song ¶68). Combination is obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches multi-RAT capability (Park ¶76), but not “defining second-network session context at attach time.” Song teaches creating RAT-specific configuration using capability before session activation (Song Fig. 3B). Combination improves mobility responsiveness.
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches PDN connectivity (Park ¶84), but not “including both sessions’ information concurrently.” Song teaches generating concurrent RAT-specific session information (Song ¶68). Combining is predictable.
Claim 16 recites a method performed by a management entity of claim 11, and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches PDN connectivity request (Park ¶84), but not “including multiple RAT identifiers in the request.” Song teaches sending multi-RAT capability structures (Song Fig. 3B). Combination improves RAT selection.
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches session establishment (Park ¶84), but not “prioritizing second-network session creation when disabled.” Song teaches configuring RAT sessions from capability regardless of enable/disable state (Song ¶68). Combination yields predictable operation.
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches NAS capability signaling (Park ¶76), but not “explicit mobility trigger to second-network session regardless of enable state.” Song teaches capability-driven mobility/session configuration (Song ¶67–68). Combination is straightforward.
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches multi-RAT attach and PDN flow (Park ¶76–84), but not “including capability-derived session initiation parameters for both networks simultaneously.” Song teaches generating RAT-specific session initiation parameters (Song ¶68). Combination is predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464