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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed "REMARKS" on 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, “contrary to the Office Action's assertion (Office Action, p. 4), the IMS registration request in Regnier does not comprise an indication that the UE 110 is capable of preserving, when the WTRU become unavailable to the network, context information associated with communications between the WTRU and the network. Instead, Regnier discloses that the IMS registration request may optionally include a UE identifier 119 and/or an address for the P-CSCF 220 (Regnier, para. [0034]). And, neither the UE identifier 119 nor the address for the P-CSCF 220 can be said to be an indication that the UE 110 is capable of preserving context information”, and “no disclosure was found in the asserted references for at least sending, by the WTRU to the network based on a determination that the WTRU will become unavailable to the network, a first message indicating a request to preserve the context information, wherein the first message comprises an indication of a time period during which the WTRU will be unavailable”.
However, Regnier teaches as such. [0036] describes “The proxy 210 then sends the "200 OK" success confirmation to the UE 110 and includes a proxy session identifier 208 in the confirmation that identifies the proxy session 207 now established (step 2g), which the UE 110 stores in memory for future use”, proxy session identifier 208 read as “context information associated with communications between the WTRU and the network”. Furthermore, claim 3 specifically states “storing an association in memory linking the first IP address associated with the user equipment with the second IP address used to register the user equipment”, i.e. storing in memory session identifiers for each connection the UE makes to a network.
Applicant alleges that: Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, “nowhere does Regnier disclose the UE 110 sending a message indicating a request to preserve context information, much less sending the message based on a determination that the WTRU will become unavailable to the network”.
However, Regnier teaches as such. [0035] describes “an association between the UE IP address 106 and the proxy IP address 206 is stored in memory of the proxy 210 to enable continued relaying of messages between the UE 110 and the IMS 200 through the proxy 210 during the lifetime of the proxy session 207”, i.e. the ability for the WTRU and the network to continuously send messages to each other, such as a “disconnect message” see [0040]. Furthermore, [0020] specifically states “ the present invention enables an IMS UE to maintain its registration in the IMS even while the UE is disconnected from an IP bearer”, i.e. connection to proxies is carried out because of disconnection of the UE from a network, i.e. for instances when the WTRU becomes unavailable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regnier et al. (US 2009/0170512 A1, hereinafter Regnier) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0136719 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Regnier teaches a method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) for communications with a network ([0022] referring to FIG. 1/2, the user equipment (UE) 110 and an IP connectivity access network (IP-CAN) 120, provides fixed access to the IMS 200, i.e. UE 110 read as WTRU, and IMS 200 read as network), the method comprising: sending, by the WTRU to a network node, a registration request message requesting to register with the network ([0034] referring to FIG. 2, the UE 110 sends an IMS registration request to the proxy 210 (step 2b), wherein the proxy 210 acts as a communication channel between the UE 110 and IMS 200 as shown in FIG. 1), wherein the registration request message comprises an indication that the WTRU is capable of preserving, when the WTRU becomes unavailable to the network, context information associated with the communications between the WTRU and the network ([0034] to register in the IMS 200, the UE 110 activates the UE IP-CAN bearer 104 to acquire a UE IP address 106 (step 2a). During the activation, the IP-CAN 120 typically verifies that the UE 110 is authorized to make use of IP services, and the IP-CAN 120 normally associates a UE identifier 119 to the UE IP address 106 that the IP-CAN 120 allocates, i.e. verification of UE capabilities, and once the UE IP-CAN bearer 104 is activated, the UE 110 then sends an IMS registration request to the proxy 210 (step 2b), i.e. the registration request 2b will forward the information gathered in step 2a, wherein UE capabilities are verified, i.e. context information and an indication that the WTRU is capable of preserving data relating to the connection of UE 110 and IMS 200 through the use of the Proxy 210, wherein said Proxy 210 is used for when the UE 110 becomes unavailable or is disconnected, as described in [0020]. Furthermore, see Response to Arguments section above, wherein [0020], [0035], [0036], [0040] and [Claim 3] are described); receiving, by the WTRU from the network node, a registration accept message ([0036] the S-CSCF 230 indicates a successful registration by replying with a "200 OK" indication, which is then forwarded to the proxy 210 (steps 2e and 2f). The proxy 210 then sends the "200 OK" success confirmation to the UE 110 and includes a proxy session identifier 208 in the confirmation that identifies the proxy session 207 now established (step 2g), which the UE 110 stores in memory for future use, for when UE 110 becomes unavailable or is disconnected, as described in [0020] explaining the importance of this method), wherein the registration accept message- ([Figure 2: operations 2e, 2f, 2g]) sending, by the WTRU to the network based on a determination that the WTRU will become unavailable to the network, a first message indicating a request to preserve the context information (as described above, the UE 110 stores in memory session information for when it becomes unavailable or is disconnected from the network, therefore a request to preserve context information would occur).
Regnier is not relied on for the claim language -comprises an indication that the network supports the preservation of context information when the WTRU becomes unavailable to the network; wherein the first message comprises an indication of a time period during which the WTRU will be unavailable; and after the time period has ended, sending to the network a second message indicating that the WTRU is available to the network. However, Kim teaches a method where an SMF/AMF node manages a PDU session connecting a UE with a network. The SMF/AMF is capable of determining UE state and whether to release or deactivate a PDU session of the UE on the basis of the received information. Referring to FIG. 10 Steps S1030/S1035, the SMF/AMF is also capable of maintaining the PDU session information even after the UE is disconnected/unavailable to the network. That is, in the event that the SMF/AMF determines the “deregistration is a temporary de-registration,” the session information will be maintained as described in [0164-0165]. Kim also teaches -comprises an indication that the network supports the preservation of context information when the WTRU becomes unavailable to the network ([Figure 10, S1035] and [0165] depicts the SMF node determining whether to maintain the LADN session (S1035), i.e. an indication will be sent to the UE based on the decision); wherein the first message comprises an indication of a time period during which the WTRU will be unavailable ([0163] the network may instruct the UE to perform de-registration with re-registration (detach with re-attach) for administrative purposes or congestion control (S1025). That is, according to the instruction of the network, the UE may be deregistered into the network for a while, and the SMF node may re-register the UE in the network after a predetermined time elapses, i.e. the first registration message from the UE will cause the AMF to generate a given time wherein the UE will be unavailable); and after the time period has ended, sending to the network a second message indicating that the WTRU is available to the network ([0164] the AMF node may update the registration context and may transmit a status update notification to the SMF node (S1030). At this time, the AMF node may recognize that deregistration is temporary de-registration, and thus may transmit information indicating temporary deregistration to the SMF node, i.e. the UE is now available to the network through the use of the AMF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Regnier to include the use of preservation of session contexts, indications of said preservations, a specified timer period wherein the WTRU will be unavailable, and a second message indicating the availability of the WTRU, as taught by Kim, in order [0002-0003] to optimize packet-based and 3GPP systems by minimizing transmission delay and improve transmission capabilities, and [0145] to incorporate the ability for the UE to be temporarily de-registered (that is, re-attached after detached) for network management and path optimization.
Regarding claim 2, Regnier teaches determining that the WTRU will become unavailable to the network due to any one or more of: a modem reset; an operating system update; a software update; a network-initiated de-registration request; a WTRU-initiated de-registration request; a network-initiated N1-reset request; a WTRU-initiated N1-reset request; or a change from an RM-REGISTERED state to an RM-DEREGISTERED state ([0046] referring to FIG. 5, the S-CSCF 230 sends a de-register message to the P-CSCF 220 (step 5a), which in turn sends a UE inform message to the proxy 210 (step 5b), i.e. a network-initiated de-registration request).
Regarding claim 3, Regnier is not relied on for the claim language the context information comprises non-access stratum (NAS) session management (SM) context information. However, Kim teaches as such ([0103] a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) is a higher stratum of a control plane between UE and an MME. The NAS supports mobility management and session management between UE and a network, IP address maintenance, and so on, i.e. context information may include NAS session management (SM)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Regnier to include context information that includes non-access stratum (NAS) session management (SM) context information, as taught by Kim, in order [0002-0003] to optimize packet-based and 3GPP systems by minimizing transmission delay and improve transmission capabilities, and [0145] to incorporate the ability for the UE to be temporarily de-registered (that is, re-attached after detached) for network management and path optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Regnier teaches the context information comprises any one or more of: a protocol data unit (PDU) session identifier; a data network name (DNN); single network slice assistance information (S-NSSAI); or an internet protocol (IP) address ([0034] referring to FIG. 2, a UE identifier 119 to the UE IP address 106 that the IP-CAN 120 allocates. Optionally, the IP-CAN 120 may provide an address for the P-CSCF 220 to the UE 110 during the UE IP-CAN bearer 104 activation. Once the UE IP-CAN bearer 104 is activated, the UE 110 sends an IMS registration request to the proxy 210 (step 2b), i.e. an IP address within the context information).
Regarding claim 5, Regnier teaches the first message indicating the request to preserve the context information comprises one of: an N1-reset request message; or a WTRU-initiated deregistration request message ([0044] referring to FIG. 4, the UE 110 then sends the IMS de-registration request to the proxy 210 (step 4b), which is relayed from the proxy 210 to the S-CSCF 230 via the P-CSCF 220 (steps 4c and 4d), i.e. a WTRU-initiated deregistration request message).
Regarding claim 6, Regnier teaches the second message indicating that the WTRU is available to the network comprises a second registration request message ([0040] FIG. 2 depicts the proxy 210 may send a periodic request to re-register in the IMS on behalf of the UE 110 though the P-CSCF 220 to the S-CSCF 230 as long as the proxy session 207 exists (step 2m and 2n) to enable the UE 110 to maintain its registration in IMS 200 in the event that lack of activity from the UE 110 would otherwise cause the IMS 200 to de-register the UE 110, i.e. comprising of a second registration request message).
Regarding claim 7, Regnier is not relied on for the claim language sending, to the network, a request to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) session, wherein the request to establish the PDU session comprises an indication that the context information for the PDU session is requested to be preserved when the WTRU becomes unavailable. However, Kim teaches sending, to the network, a request to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) session ([0114] referring to FIG. 7 Step 7, if there is no PDU session previously established by the UE, the UE transmits a PDU session establishment request message to the AMF node through the NG RAN, in step 9 the AMF node transmits a PDU session establishment request to the SMF node, i.e. FIG. 7 depicts the second message from the UE, UE read as WTRU, indicating a request to establish a PDU session), wherein the request to establish the PDU session comprises an indication that the context information for the PDU session is requested to be preserved when the WTRU becomes unavailable ([0064] describes the deactivation of the PDU session of the UE may not release the PDU session itself, but releases only a resource of a user plane (UP) by the PDU session, and maintain a context of the PDU session, also described in [0156] the SMF node may determine whether to maintain the LADN PDU session established in the non-3GPP access network according to a network policy, DNN/APN, and/or subscriber information (S945), i.e. the PDU session request would indicate the ability to be maintained/preserved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Regnier to include the use of a protocol data unit (PDU) session, as taught by Kim, in order [0002-0003] to optimize packet-based and 3GPP systems by minimizing transmission delay and improve transmission capabilities, and [0145] to incorporate the ability for the UE to be temporarily de-registered (that is, re-attached after detached) for network management and path optimization.
Regarding claim 8, Regnier teaches storing, in the WTRU, the context information prior to the WTRU becoming unavailable ([0020] the process enables an IMS UE to maintain its registration in the IMS even while the UE is disconnected from an IP bearer, thus allowing an IMS UE to maintain its registration in the IMS even when the IMS coverage is spotty, and also enabling an IMS UE to be supported by legacy UE and network technologies, without requiring the UE to maintain a long-lived IP connection, wherein the proxy 210 makes the UE 110 appear available to IMS services even while the UE 110 is disconnected as explained in [0035], the process of the WTRU storing context information prior to becoming unavailable is depicted in FIG. 2, wherein after the proxy 210 then sends the "200 OK" success confirmation (obtained from steps 2e and 2f) to the UE 110 and includes a proxy session identifier 208 in the confirmation that identifies the proxy session 207 now established (step 2g), which the UE 110 stores in memory for future use, i.e. prior to the UE/WTRU becoming unavailable).
Regarding claim 9, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Regnier teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the WTRU to perform operations- ([0050] FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary UE 110 according to the present invention, i.e. a WTRU. UE 110 comprises a control processor 111 and memory 112, and is directly coupled with controller 212 within the proxy 210, which includes instructions capable of including the logic necessary to cause the controller 212 to maintain the proxy IP-CAN bearer 204 to communicate with the IMS 200 as long as the proxy session 207 exists without regard to the existence of the UE IP-CAN bearer 104 activated by the UE 110, and the other operations as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Regnier teaches sending a notification to one or more applications hosted by the WTRU, the notification indicating that the WTRU is about to be unavailable to the network ([0040] “When the UE 110 some time later deactivates the UE IP-CAN bearer 104, the UE 110 optionally may prior to UE IP-CAN bearer 104 deactivation send a disconnect message with the proxy session identifier 208 to the proxy 210 to indicate the pending UE IP-CAN bearer 104 deactivation (step 2k). Upon UE IP-CAN bearer 104 deactivation, the UE 110 relinquishes the UE IP address 106 (step 21)”, i.e. a notification of a disconnect between the WTRU and the network, and therefore stop WTRU applications).
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 17, further in view of it being notoriously well known in the art that -the instructions, when executed by the processor- perform the operations of claim 17.
References Cited
Regnier, Jean et al. (2009). Maintaining ims registration while disconnected from ip bearer (US 2009/0170512 A1). Filed 2008-07-01.
Kim, Hyunsook et al. (2021). Method for managing session, and smf node for performing method (US 2021/0136719 A1). Filed 2017-10-30.
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 MATTHEW J DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. 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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights