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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 29, “means for selecting”, “means for selecting”, and “means for establishing” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Supporting structure can be found in the applicant’s specification Fig. 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 28 recite “establishing the PDU session is further based on one set of credentials for: the first access link, and the second access link”. It is unclear if the language is intended as “one set of credentials for (the first and second access link)” OR “one set of credentials for each of (a first access link) and (a second access link). The claim will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 14-17, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al (Pub No: 2021/0092664).
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 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 based on the selected first access link and the second access link (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
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 14, Lai teaches wherein establishing the PDU session is further based on one set of credentials for: the first access link, and the second access link (Lai, [0033][0037], the PDU session for the multiple flows has a single PDU session ID and EBI).
As to claim 15, Lai teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory including instructions executable by the at least one processor (Lai, [0045] Fig 7-8, a UE)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 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 based on the selected first access link and the second access link (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
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 28, Lai teaches wherein establishing the PDU session is further based on one set of credentials for: the first access link, and the second access link (Lai, [0033][0037], the PDU session for the multiple flows has a single PDU session ID and EBI).
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 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 based on the selected first access link and the second access link (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
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 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 based on the selected first access link and the second access link (Lai, [0047] Fig 7, the UE establishes the MA PDU session with the QoS Flows configured).
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 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai 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, so that it would configure the wireless device for cellular communication (Sen, [0003]).
As to claim 5, the combination of Lai 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 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, so that it would configure the wireless device for cellular communication (Sen, [0003]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Lai 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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.
Tonesi et al (Pub No: 2023/0180057).
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