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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sugawara and Mildh fail to teach or suggest the combination of:
(1) “activating an unavailability period due to discontinuous coverage”;
(2) “stopping all the NAS timers except for exceptional timers”; and
(3) “aborting associated procedures.”
The arguments are not persuasive because they address the references largely in isolation and, with respect to certain limitations, rely on requirements that are not recited in argued claim 1.
“activating an unavailability period due to discontinuous coverage”
Applicant acknowledges that Sugawara ¶[0202] describes a UE becoming unable to communicate through a satellite due to discontinuous coverage and that Sugawara ¶[0199] describes the UE starting a wait timer after becoming unable to communicate and waiting for coverage to recover.
Applicant nevertheless argues that this does not constitute “activating an unavailability period” because the claim purportedly requires the UE to “actively perform a control operation to establish an unavailability period” that serves as a basis for subsequent NAS timer management. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites “activating an unavailability period due to discontinuous coverage.” The claim does not separately require establishment of a particular data object denominated an “unavailability period,” nor does it require an express signaling operation or a particular implementation by which such a period is activated. As acknowledged by Applicant, Sugawara detects the occurrence of discontinuous coverage, determines that communication through the satellite is unavailable, and starts a wait timer governing the period during which communication is unavailable and during which control-message transmission is restricted. Thus, Sugawara does more than merely recognize an abstract communication condition. Sugawara initiates timer-controlled UE behavior in response to the onset of discontinuous coverage. The interval initiated in response to the discontinuous-coverage condition and controlled by the wait timer reasonably corresponds to the claimed “unavailability period.” Applicant’s distinction between “entering a communication condition” and “actively activating a dedicated unavailability period” therefore depends upon limitations that are not expressly recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not establish error in the Examiner’s finding regarding this limitation.
“stopping all the NAS timers except for exceptional timers”
Applicant further acknowledges that Mildh ¶¶[0247]-[0248] disclose stopping “all timers that are running including timer T380, except T320,” but argues that Mildh concerns RAN-related timers rather than NAS timers. The argument does not address the rejection as a whole. The rejection is based on Sugawara in view of Mildh, rather than on Mildh alone. A rejection under §103 does not require each reference individually to disclose the complete claimed arrangement. Rather, the relevant inquiry is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Mildh expressly teaches a timer-management technique in which, upon occurrence of a communication-related condition, a device stops the timers subject to the procedure while preserving an identified exceptional timer. Mildh therefore teaches the claimed timer-control relationship—i.e., stopping the relevant timers while excluding at least one timer from the stopping operation.
Applicant’s observation that Mildh ¶[0001] concerns handling a Radio Access Network based Notification Area update timer does not, by itself, establish that its timer-control teaching would have been technically inapplicable to timer management associated with Sugawara’s discontinuous-coverage condition. The Examiner’s proposed modification does not require bodily incorporating Mildh’s particular RAN procedure into Sugawara. Rather, Mildh is relied upon for the known timer-management technique of suspending or stopping timers whose associated procedures cannot meaningfully progress during an unavailable communication interval, while preserving an identified exceptional timer. Accordingly, the argument that Mildh itself does not expressly describe the claimed timers using the term “NAS timers” does not overcome the rejection.
“aborting associated procedures”
Applicant additionally argues that Sugawara’s restriction on transmission of a NAS or RRC control message is different from “aborting associated procedures.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive when the references are considered according to the modification articulated in the rejection. Applicant acknowledges that Sugawara ¶[0199] teaches that, during the wait period, the UE need not transmit control messages, including NAS messages, until the wait timer expires. Applicant further acknowledges that Mildh teaches stopping timers as part of its timer-management procedure.
Applicant argues that Sugawara’s procedure might instead remain “pending, suspended, or waiting for a subsequent retry.” That an alternative implementation may also have been possible does not demonstrate that the claimed implementation would have been nonobvious. The question under §103 is not whether Sugawara expressly uses the word “abort,” or whether Sugawara standing alone necessarily aborts every associated procedure. The question is whether the claimed procedure control would have been an obvious implementation of the combined teachings. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Sugawara alone does not expressly disclose “aborting, terminating, canceling, releasing, discarding, or otherwise ending” a procedure does not overcome the combination relied upon in the rejection.
Motivation to Combine Sugawara and Mildh
Applicant argues that there would have been no motivation to combine the references because Sugawara concerns satellite discontinuous coverage while Mildh concerns an RNA update procedure and therefore allegedly addresses a different protocol layer and technical problem. The argument is not persuasive. The references need not address an identical problem or have identical purposes before their teachings may properly be combined. Sugawara identifies a predictable interval during which the UE cannot communicate and consequently delays control-message transmission until communication becomes available. Mildh teaches management of protocol timers during circumstances in which ordinary communication/procedural progression is disrupted, including stopping running timers while allowing an identified exceptional timer to continue. The teachings are reasonably related to the common problem of managing protocol operation when normal communication or procedure progression is temporarily unavailable. The proposed combination therefore represents the application of a known timer-management technique to a predictable communication-unavailability condition for the predictable purpose of avoiding inappropriate timer expiration and maintaining orderly protocol operation.
Applicant’s assertion that Sugawara does not identify a “deficiency” in its timer mechanism does not establish nonobviousness. A reference need not expressly criticize its own implementation before a person of ordinary skill would have reason to apply a known technique that predictably improves or adapts its operation. Accordingly, the rejection is not based upon impermissible hindsight.
Claim 5 — Sugawara in view of Kumar
Applicant argues that Sugawara and Kumar fail to teach or suggest:
(1) returning into coverage of a tracking area in a current registration after discontinuous coverage;
(2) entering a specific xMM state;
(3) the xMM state comprising an xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state; and
(4) the claimed temporal relationship in which the state is entered before expiration of the discontinuous-coverage maximum-time-offset timer and the xMM procedure is performed upon expiration of that timer.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they again focus on whether either reference individually recites the complete claimed sequence rather than addressing what the combined teachings would have suggested.
Return to Coverage of a Tracking Area in a Current Registration
Applicant acknowledges that Sugawara ¶[0199] teaches that the UE becomes unable to communicate through the satellite and subsequently becomes capable of communicating again.
Applicant argues that Sugawara does not expressly identify the recovered coverage as coverage of a “tracking area (TA) in a current registration.” However, the rejection does not require Sugawara alone to provide every aspect of the claimed mobility-management implementation. Sugawara supplies the discontinuous-coverage condition and subsequent return to communication availability. Where the UE maintains a mobility-management registration associated with a tracking area, applying Sugawara’s recovery operation when that UE returns to coverage of its currently registered tracking area constitutes a predictable application of Sugawara’s disclosed coverage-recovery procedure to a conventional registered UE mobility context. Applicant has not identified any technical incompatibility that would prevent Sugawara’s coverage-recovery operation from being used when the restored coverage corresponds to a tracking area in the UE’s existing registration.
Entering the Claimed xMM State
Applicant acknowledges that Kumar teaches a mobility-management state identified as “EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE.” Applicant argues that Kumar enters that state in response to circumstances involving unsuccessful tracking-area update procedures or absence of a network response rather than discontinuous coverage. This argument does not establish that use of Kumar’s state in Sugawara’s recovery procedure would have been nonobvious. Kumar teaches the functional use of an attempting-to-update state for a registered UE that requires an update operation but cannot immediately complete that operation. Sugawara teaches delaying a registration, MM, or SM procedure until expiration of a wait timer following recovery from discontinuous coverage. Kumar’s EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE state provides such a known state. Accordingly, use of Kumar’s known attempting-to-update state during Sugawara’s timer-controlled recovery interval would have predictably represented the UE’s mobility-management condition while the UE awaits performance of the deferred update procedure. The fact that Kumar illustrates other circumstances producing that state does not limit the state itself to those examples absent a teaching that the state cannot be used in another technically analogous circumstance.
Claimed Temporal Relationship
Applicant places particular emphasis on the claimed sequence: return to coverage → enter the specific xMM state → timer expires → perform the xMM procedure. Applicant argues that Sugawara only teaches: timer expires → perform procedure. This argument does not overcome the combination.
Sugawara supplies the latter portion of the sequence: the UE waits following recovery of communication and, after expiration of the timer, performs a registration, MM, or SM procedure. Kumar supplies the known mobility-management state representing a registered UE attempting to perform an update.
Combining those teachings would have resulted in the UE occupying the attempting-to-update state during the interval in which the update procedure is required but remains deferred by Sugawara’s wait timer, followed by performance of the update procedure when that timer expires.
Thus, the claimed ordering follows predictably from the proposed combination:
communication coverage returns;
the UE has an outstanding mobility-management update;
the UE enters or occupies the state identifying that an update is being attempted or remains required;
the wait timer continues until expiration; and
the deferred MM/update procedure is then performed.
Applicant’s argument treats the absence in Sugawara of an express statement naming Kumar’s state before timer expiration as dispositive. That is not the standard applicable to the obviousness combination. The Examiner does not rely on Sugawara alone for the specific xMM state; Kumar is relied upon for that feature.
Motivation to Combine Sugawara and Kumar
Applicant argues that Sugawara and Kumar concern different technical problems and different triggering conditions. The argument is not persuasive. Sugawara teaches that, following restoration of communication after discontinuous satellite coverage, performance of registration/MM/SM procedures may be delayed until expiration of a wait timer. Kumar teaches a mobility-management state for a registered UE that is attempting or required to perform an update. Both references therefore concern UE mobility-management behavior where a registration-related operation cannot be immediately completed or is to be performed subsequently. The proposed combination therefore uses Kumar’s known state mechanism according to its established function in Sugawara’s timer-controlled mobility-management recovery procedure and would have produced predictable results.
Applicant’s Reliance on In re Wilson and In re Fine
Applicant’s citation to In re Wilson does not establish error in the rejection. All limitations of the claims must be considered, and the rejection considers the disputed limitations through the combined teachings of the cited references. Section 103 does not require that every claimed limitation be disclosed in a single reference. Applicant’s reliance on In re Fine with respect to the dependent claims is likewise not persuasive because Applicant’s premise—that the independent claims have not been shown obvious—has not been established. Because the rejection of independent claims 1 and 5 is maintained, Applicant’s derivative argument that the corresponding apparatus claim and dependent claims necessarily are allowable does not overcome their respective rejections.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US 20240147403 A1) in view of Mildh et al. (US 20210022200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugawara teaches a method to control non-access stratum (NAS) timers at or after discontinuous coverage, applied to user equipment (UE), (UE waits until the coverage of the same RAT and/or PLMN that has been used for communication via the satellite recovers (that is, until the UE becomes able to perform communication via the satellite by the same RAT and/or PLMN) with a cause being becoming unable to perform communication via the satellite (this is also referred to as discontinuous coverage, [0202]), comprising:
activating an unavailability period due to discontinuous coverage (The start of the timer using the wait timer may be performed after becoming unable to perform communication via the satellite and before becoming able to perform communication via the satellite, and may be performed after becoming unable to perform communication via the satellite and after becoming able to perform communication via the satellite, [0202]); and
aborting associated procedures (the timer using the wait timer may be a timer for configuring a time period during which the UE cannot transmit a control message, [0202]; The UE need not transmit a control message (for example, a NAS message, an RRC message, and/or the like) until the timer expires, [0199]).
However, Sugawara does not clearly teach stopping all the NAS timers except for exceptional timers.
In an analogous art, Mildh teaches stopping all the NAS timers except for exceptional timers (The WD 22 may: [0247] reset MAC; [0248] stop all timers that are running including timer T380, except T320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara with the idle state of Mildh to provide a methods and a system to handling a periodic Radio Access Network (RAN) based Notification Area (RNA) update timer as suggested, Mildh [0001].
Regarding claim 2, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exceptional timers comprise T3412, T3346, T3396, T3447, any backoff timers, T3247, and a timer controlling a periodic search for a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) or an equivalent HPLMN (EHPLMN), or higher prioritized PLMNs (the timer using the wait timer may be a timer for configuring a time period during which the UE cannot transmit a control message, Sugawara [0202]).
Regarding claim 3, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: deactivating an access stratum (The UE need not transmit a control message (for example, a NAS message, an RRC message, and/or the like) until the timer expires, Sugawara [0199]).
Regarding claim 4, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the unavailability period comprises a period during the discontinuous coverage or a period when an access stratum of the UE is deactivated (The UE need not transmit a control message (for example, a NAS message, an RRC message, and/or the like) until the timer expires, Sugawara [0199]).
Regarding claim 12, Sugawara teaches a user equipment (UE) (user equipment of Fig. 3), comprising: a processor (controller 300), configured to
activate an unavailability period due to discontinuous coverage (The start of the timer using the wait timer may be performed after becoming unable to perform communication via the satellite and before becoming able to perform communication via the satellite, and may be performed after becoming unable to perform communication via the satellite and after becoming able to perform communication via the satellite, [0202]),
abort associated procedures except for exceptional timers (In a case of making emergency call during when the timer using the wait timer is running (that is, before expiration), the UE may perform the MM procedure and/or the SM procedure for the same PLMN even before the timer expires, [0208])
and abort associated procedures (the timer using the wait timer may be a timer for configuring a time period during which the UE cannot transmit a control message, [0202]; The UE need not transmit a control message (for example, a NAS message, an RRC message, and/or the like) until the timer expires, [0199]);
or wherein the processor is configured to return in coverage of a tracking area (TA) in a current registration after being out of coverage due to the discontinuous coverage, run or start a discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer, enter a specific xMM state, and perform an xMM procedure upon expiry of the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer; and wherein the specific xMM state comprises an xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state.
However, Sugawara does not teach stop all non-access stratum (NAS) timers.
In an analogous art, Mildh teaches stop all non-access stratum (NAS) timers (The WD 22 may: [0247] reset MAC; [0248] stop all timers that are running including timer T380, except T320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara with the idle state of Mildh to provide a methods and a system to handling a periodic Radio Access Network (RAN) based Notification Area (RNA) update timer as suggested, Mildh [0001].
Regarding claim 13, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12, wherein the exceptional timer comprises are T3412, T3346, T3396, T3447, any backoff timers, T3247, and a timer controlling a periodic search for a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) or an equivalent HPLMN (EHPLMN), or higher prioritized PLMNs (the timer using the wait timer may be a timer for configuring a time period during which the UE cannot transmit a control message, Sugawara [0202]).
Regarding claim 15, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12, wherein the unavailability period comprises a period during the discontinuous coverage and/or a period when an access stratum of the UE is deactivated (The UE need not transmit a control message (for example, a NAS message, an RRC message, and/or the like) until the timer expires, Sugawara [0199]).
Regarding claim 16, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12, wherein the xMM procedure is a registration procedure for mobility registration update or a tracking area updating procedure (UE may perform the registration procedure (registration procedure to be performed along with movement, Sugawara [0169]).
Regarding claim 18, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12, wherein the processor is configured not to initialize any xMM procedures in a state entered at, during, or after the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer is running, except for emergency services (In a case of making emergency call during the timer running, the UE may stop the timer and perform the registration procedure, and/or the MM procedure, and/or the SM procedure for the emergency call, Sugawara [0200]).
Regarding claim 19, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to stay in the same xMM state until the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer has expired (In a case of not making the emergency call during the timer running, the UE may perform the registration procedure, and/or the MM procedure, and/or the SM procedure in the first PLMN after the timer has expired, Sugawara [0200]).
Regarding claim 21, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12, wherein the UE is configured to deactivate an access stratum (The UE need not transmit a control message (for example, a NAS message, an RRC message, and/or the like) until the timer expires, Sugawara [0199]).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US 20240147403 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 20170127244 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sugawara teaches a method to declare a state of user equipment (UE) at and after an end of discontinuous coverage (An aspect of the present invention is made in view of the circumstances as described above, and is to clarify detailed behaviors of the UE and the network regarding movement management in a case that coverage areas of satellites are discontinuous, case of discontinuous satellite coverage, [0008]), applied to the UE, comprising:
returning in coverage of a tracking area (TA) in a current registration after being out of coverage due to the discontinuous coverage (The UE may start a timer using the wait timer after becoming unable to perform communication via a satellite and becoming able to perform communication via the satellite this is also referred to as a case of returning to coverage from discontinuous coverage, [0199]);
running or starting a discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer (The UE may start a timer using the wait timer after becoming unable to perform communication via a satellite and becoming able to perform communication via the satellite (this is also referred to as a case of returning to coverage from discontinuous coverage, [0199]);
entering a specific xMM state (UE may perform the registration procedure, and/or the MM procedure, and/or the SM procedure in the first PLMN after the timer has expired, [0200]); and performing an xMM procedure upon expiry of the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer (UE may perform the registration procedure, and/or the MM procedure, and/or the SM procedure in the first PLMN after the timer has expired, [0200]).
However, Sugawara does not clearly teach wherein the specific xMM state comprises an xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state.
In an analogous art, Kumar teaches wherein the specific xMM state comprises an xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state (The mobile terminal 110 is further configured to enter a state of one of “GMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE,” “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” and “EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE,”, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara with the update state of Kumar to provide a method of entering a state of “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” which is a 3GPP Stage 3 Release 8 update status parameter as suggested, Kumar [0012].
Regarding claim 6, Sugawara as modified by Kumar teaches the method as claimed in claim 5. Kumar further teaches wherein the xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state is a 5GMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state or an EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE (“EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE which is a 3GPP Stage 3 Release 8 update status parameter that is set when the tracking area updating attempt failed due to a missing response from the network,” in accordance with a change in “EU1 UPDATED, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara with the update state of Kumar to provide a method of entering a state of “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” which is a 3GPP Stage 3 Release 8 update status parameter as suggested, Kumar [0012].
Regarding claim 7, Sugawara as modified by Kumar teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the xMM procedure is a registration procedure for mobility registration update or a tracking area updating procedure (The RM state includes a deregistered state (RM-DEREGISTERED state) and a registered state (RM-REGISTERED state), Sugawara [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Sugawara as modified by Kumar teaches the method as claimed in claim 5. Kumar further teaches further comprising: storing the specific xMM state before entering a discontinuous coverage situation or before an access stratum is deactivated due to the discontinuous coverage (If for any reason the mobile terminal 110 is not able to initiate a specific procedure after moving away from a registered area, then moved information may be stored by the mobile terminal 110 either using a variable or by changing a state to “ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE” and an update status to “NOT UPDATED.”, [0064]); and choosing the specific xMM state once the UE comes out of the discontinuous coverage and the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer is started or running (Based on the stored information, the mobile terminal 110 may initiate an LAU procedure upon expiration of a T3246 timer, [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara with the update state of Kumar to provide a method of entering a state of “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” which is a 3GPP Stage 3 Release 8 update status parameter as suggested, Kumar [0012].
Regarding claim 9, Sugawara as modified by Kumar teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising: not initializing any xMM procedures in a state entered at, during, or after the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer is running, except for emergency services (In a case of making emergency call during the timer running, the UE may stop the timer and perform the registration procedure, and/or the MM procedure, and/or the SM procedure for the emergency call, Sugawara [0200]).
Regarding claim 10, Sugawara as modified by Kumar teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising: staying in the same xMM state until the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer has expired (In a case of not making the emergency call during the timer running, the UE may perform the registration procedure, and/or the MM procedure, and/or the SM procedure in the first PLMN after the timer has expired, Sugawara [0200]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US 20240147403 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 20170127244 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20170245188 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sugawara as modified by Kumar teaches the method as claimed in claim 10.
However, Sugawara and Kumar do not teach wherein the same xMM state comprises an NO-Cell state.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the same xMM state comprises an NO-Cell state (The UE aborts the attach procedure and enters EMM-DEREGISTERED.NO-CELL-AVAILABLE state, [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara and Kumar with the cell state of Kim to provide a method for efficiently processing a NAS signaling request when the NAS signaling request fails or is rejected due to lower layer failure or network failure during a NAS signaling procedure as suggested, Kim [0004].
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US 20240147403 A1) in view of Mildh et al. (US 20210022200 A1) and further Kumar et al. (US 20170127244 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12.
However, Sugawara and Mildh do not teach wherein the xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state is a 5GMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state or an EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE.
In an analogous art, Kumar teaches wherein the xMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state is a 5GMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-REGISTRATION-UPDATE state or an EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE (The mobile terminal 110 is further configured to enter a state of one of “GMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE,” “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” and “EMM-REGISTERED.ATTEMPTING-TO-UPDATE,”, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara and Mildh with the update state of Kumar to provide a method of entering a state of “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” which is a 3GPP Stage 3 Release 8 update status parameter as suggested, Kumar [0012].
Regarding claim 17, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 12.
However, Sugawara and Mildh do not teach wherein the processor is configured to store the specific xMM state before entering a discontinuous coverage situation or before an access stratum is deactivated due to the discontinuous coverage, and choose the specific xMM state once the UE comes out of the discontinuous coverage and the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer is started or running.
In an analogous art, Kumar teaches wherein the processor is configured to store the specific xMM state before entering a discontinuous coverage situation or before an access stratum is deactivated due to the discontinuous coverage (If for any reason the mobile terminal 110 is not able to initiate a specific procedure after moving away from a registered area, then moved information may be stored by the mobile terminal 110 either using a variable or by changing a state to “ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE” and an update status to “NOT UPDATED.”, [0064]); and choose the specific xMM state once the UE comes out of the discontinuous coverage and the discontinuous coverage maximum time offset timer is started or running (Based on the stored information, the mobile terminal 110 may initiate an LAU procedure upon expiration of a T3246 timer, [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara and Mildh with the update state of Kumar to provide a method of entering a state of “MM IDLE, ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE,” which is a 3GPP Stage 3 Release 8 update status parameter as suggested, Kumar [0012].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US 20240147403 A1) in view of Mildh et al. (US 20210022200 A1) and further Kim et al. (US 20170245188 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Sugawara as modified by Mildh teaches the UE as claimed in claim 19.
However, Sugawara and Mildh do not teach wherein the same xMM state comprises an NO-Cell state.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the same xMM state comprises an NO-Cell state (The UE aborts the attach procedure and enters EMM-DEREGISTERED.NO-CELL-AVAILABLE state, [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the waiting period of Sugawara and Mildh with the cell state of Kim to provide a method for efficiently processing a NAS signaling request when the NAS signaling request fails or is rejected due to lower layer failure or network failure during a NAS signaling procedure as suggested, Kim [0004].
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 NICOLE M LOUIS-FILS whose telephone number is (571)270-0671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/NICOLE M LOUIS-FILS/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
