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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/24 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 15-27, 29-32 and new limitations “single set of user credentials for both” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 15-17, 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lai et al (Pub No: 2021/0092664), and further in view of Yi et al (Pub No: 2023/0078760).
As to claim 1, Lai teaches a method for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (Lai, [0045] Fig 7-8, a method for a UE), comprising:
selecting a first access link for a protocol data unit (PDU) session (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 1 for a PDU Session 1);
selecting a second access link for the PDU session based on the first access link (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 2 with EPS Bearer Identity the same as the first QoS Flow 1); and
establishing the PDU session the selected first access link and the selected second access link (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
Lai does not explicitly teach using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link.
However, Yi teaches using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link. (Yi, [0008][0031], using a single identity credential for multiple networks in a MA-PDU environment. Prov. Pg. 17 a single SIM2 (subscriber identity) is used across both networks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a single identity credential for both links” as taught by Yi in the system of Lai, so that it would prevent increased latency and provide flexibility (Yi, [0002][0031]).
As to claim 2, Lai teaches wherein: the PDU session comprises a dual third generation partnership project (3GPP) PDU session (Lai, Fig 7, 8 [0047], the PDU session is dual QoS Flow 3GPP access);
the first access link comprises a first 3GPP-based access link for the dual 3GPP PDU session (Lai, Fig 7, 8 [0047], the PDU session is dual QoS Flow 3GPP access; QoS Flow 1); and
the second access link comprises a second 3GPP-based access link for the dual 3GPP PDU session (Lai, Fig 7, 8 [0047], the PDU session is dual QoS Flow 3GPP access; QoS Flow 2).
As to claim 3, Lai teaches the first access link is associated with a first public land mobile network (PLMN) and a first radio access technology (RAT) (Lai, Fig 5 [0044], the first access type to a first PLMN1), and the second access link is associated with one of: or a second PLMN and a second RAT (Lai, Fig 5, Fig 8 [0048], a different PLMN over a different RAT).
As to claim 15, Lai teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories, and configured to cause the apparatus to:
select a first access link for a protocol data unit (PDU) session (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 1 for a PDU Session 1);
select a second access link for the PDU session based on the first access link (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 2 with EPS Bearer Identity the same as the first QoS Flow 1); and
establish the PDU session (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
Lai does not explicitly teach using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link.
However, Yi teaches using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link. (Yi, [0008][0031], using a single identity credential for multiple networks in a MA-PDU environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a single identity credential for both links” as taught by Yi in the system of Lai, so that it would prevent increased latency and provide flexibility (Yi, [0002][0031]).
As to claim 16, Lai teaches the PDU session comprises a dual third generation partnership project (3GPP) PDU session (Lai, Fig 7, 8 [0047], the PDU session is dual QoS Flow 3GPP access);
the first access link comprises a first 3GPP-based access link for the dual 3GPP PDU session (Lai, Fig 7, 8 [0047], the PDU session is dual QoS Flow 3GPP access; QoS Flow 1); and
the second access link comprises a second 3GPP-based access link for the dual 3GPP PDU session (Lai, Fig 7, 8 [0047], the PDU session is dual QoS Flow 3GPP access; QoS Flow 2).
As to claim 17, Lai teaches the first access link is associated with a first public land mobile network (PLMN) and a first radio access technology (RAT) (Lai, Fig 5 [0044], the first access type to a first PLMN1), and the second access link is associated with one of: or a second PLMN and a second RAT (Lai, Fig 5, Fig 8 [0048], a different PLMN over a different RAT).
As to claim 29, Lai teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (Lai, [0045] Fig 7-8, a UE), comprising:
means for selecting (Lai, [0038], processor 213) a first access link for a protocol data unit (PDU) session (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 1 for a PDU Session 1);
means for selecting (Lai, [0038], processor 213) a second access link for the PDU session based on the first access link (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 2 with EPS Bearer Identity the same as the first QoS Flow 1); and
means for establishing (Lai, [0038], processor 213) the PDU session (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
Lai does not explicitly teach using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link.
However, Yi teaches using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link. (Yi, [0008][0031], using a single identity credential for multiple networks in a MA-PDU environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a single identity credential for both links” as taught by Yi in the system of Lai, so that it would prevent increased latency and provide flexibility (Yi, [0002][0031]).
As to claim 30, Lai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus (Lai, [0045] Fig 7-8, a UE), cause the apparatus to:
select a first access link for a protocol data unit (PDU) session (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 1 for a PDU Session 1);
select a second access link based for the PDU session on the first access link (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 2 with EPS Bearer Identity the same as the first QoS Flow 1); and
establish the PDU session (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
Lai does not explicitly teach using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link.
However, Yi teaches using a single set of user credentials for both the selected first access link and the selected second access link. (Yi, [0008][0031], using a single identity credential for multiple networks in a MA-PDU environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a single identity credential for both links” as taught by Yi in the system of Lai, so that it would prevent increased latency and provide flexibility (Yi, [0002][0031]).
As to claim 31, the combination of Lai and Yi teaches the single set of user credentials is stored in a subscriber identification module (SIM) of the UE (Yi, [0008][0031], Prov. Pg. 17, the credentials are stored in a SIM for registering across both links in a MA-PDU session).
As to claim 32, the combination of Lai and Yi teaches the single set of user credentials is stored in a subscriber identification module (SIM) of the UE (Yi, [0008][0031], Prov. Pg. 17, the credentials are stored in a SIM for registering across both links in a MA-PDU session).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai and Yi as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sen et al (Pub No: 2015/0133196)
As to claim 4, Lai teaches wherein: selecting the first access link is based on a first selection information (Lai, [0036], the QoS flow is based on a protocol configuration option IE), and selecting the second access link is based on a second selection information (Lai, [0036], the QoS flow is based on a protocol configuration option IE).
Lai does not explicitly teach the selection information is an information file.
However, Sen teaches the selection information is an information file (Sen, [0068], selection information comes from a PLMN file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a file” as taught by Sen in the system of Lai and Yi, so that it would configure the wireless device for cellular communication (Sen, [0003]).
As to claim 5, the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen teaches wherein: the first selection file (Sen, [0068], PLMN file) comprises an operator controlled public land mobile network (PLMN) selector with access technology elementary file (EF) (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN), and the second selection file (Sen, [0068], PLMN file)comprises an access traffic steering, switching and splitting (ATSSS) PLMN EF (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN with ATSSS supported).
As to claim 8, the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen teaches wherein the second selection file is stored in a subscriber identification module (SIM) of the UE (Sen, [0068], selection information comes from a PLMN file stored on a SIM).
As to claim 18, Lai teaches select the first access link is based on a first selection information (Lai, [0036], the QoS flow is based on a protocol configuration option IE), and selecting the second access link is based on a second selection information (Lai, [0036], the QoS flow is based on a protocol configuration option IE).
Lai does not explicitly teach the selection information is an information file.
However, Sen teaches the selection information is an information file (Sen, [0068], selection information comes from a PLMN file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a file” as taught by Sen in the system of Lai and Yi, so that it would configure the wireless device for cellular communication (Sen, [0003]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen teaches wherein: the first selection file (Sen, [0068], PLMN file) comprises an operator controlled public land mobile network (PLMN) selector with access technology elementary file (EF) (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN), and the second selection file (Sen, [0068], PLMN file)comprises an access traffic steering, switching and splitting (ATSSS) PLMN EF (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN with ATSSS supported).
As to claim 22, the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen teaches wherein the second selection file is stored in a subscriber identification module (SIM) of the UE (Sen, [0068], selection information comes from a PLMN file stored on a SIM).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen as applied to claims above, and further in view of Moisanen et al (Pub No: 2013/0136115).
As to claim 6, the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen teaches a first (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN) and second selection file (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN with ATSSS supported).
The combination of Lai and Yi and Sen does not explicitly teach a list of prioritized primary PLMNs and RAT combinations, and a list of prioritized secondary PLMNs and RAT combinations.
However, Moisanen teaches a list of prioritized primary PLMNs and RAT combinations (Moisanen, [0030], a selector list of prioritized PLMN and RAT candidate) and a list of prioritized secondary PLMNs and RAT combinations (Moisanen, [0030], a second(at least one) selector list of prioritized PLMN and RAT candidate)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “prioritized PLMN and RAT candidate lists” as taught by Moisanen in the system of Lai and Yi, so that it would be able to successfully perform fallback when voice data is to be transferred in event of failure (Moisanen, [0002]).
As to claim 20, the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen teaches a first (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN) and second selection file (Lai, [0055], the configuration is an indicator (file) for a PLMN with ATSSS supported).
The combination of Lai and Sen does not explicitly teach a list of prioritized primary PLMNs and RAT combinations, and a list of prioritized secondary PLMNs and RAT combinations.
However, Moisanen teaches a list of prioritized primary PLMNs and RAT combinations (Moisanen, [0030], a selector list of prioritized PLMN and RAT candidate) and a list of prioritized secondary PLMNs and RAT combinations (Moisanen, [0030], a second(at least one) selector list of prioritized PLMN and RAT candidate)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “prioritized PLMN and RAT candidate lists” as taught by Moisanen in the system of Lai and Yi, so that it would be able to successfully perform fallback when voice data is to be transferred in event of failure (Moisanen, [0002]).
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lai and Yi and Sen as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chen et al (Pub No: 2024/0107417).
As to claim 7, the combination of Lai and Sen teaches selecting the second access link (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 2 with EPS Bearer Identity the same as the first QoS Flow 1).
The combination of Lai and Sen does not explicitly teach based on a UE route selection policy (URSP) rule associated with the first PLMN and a traffic requirement associated with the PDU session.
However, Chen teaches based on a UE route selection policy (URSP) rule associated with the first PLMN and a traffic requirement associated with the PDU session (Chen [0215] [0245], a URSP rule corresponding to PLMN and traffic condition requirement [0236] to select the session)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “URSP rules and a traffic requirement” as taught by Chen in the system of Lai and Yi, so that it would be able to satisfy multiple service requirements (Chen, [0006]-[0009]).
As to claim 21, , the combination of Lai and Sen teaches selecting the second access link (Lai, Fig 7 [0047], a UE selects a QoS Flow 2 with EPS Bearer Identity the same as the first QoS Flow 1).
The combination of Lai and Sen does not explicitly teach based on a UE route selection policy (URSP) rule associated with the first PLMN and a traffic requirement associated with the PDU session.
However, Chen teaches based on a UE route selection policy (URSP) rule associated with the first PLMN and a traffic requirement associated with the PDU session (Chen [0215] [0245], a URSP rule corresponding to PLMN and traffic condition requirement [0236] to select the session)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “URSP rules and a traffic requirement” as taught by Chen in the system of Lai and Yi, so that it would be able to satisfy multiple service requirements (Chen, [0006]-[0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 23-27 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.
Blinn et al (Pub No: 2005/0204041).
King et al (Patent No: 6,934,848).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights