DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 are cancelled claims.
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 .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The claim amendments regarding -- ‘store, in the memory arrangement, an indication of whether the network supports non- voice IMS services, wherein the indication comprises an identification of a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) and a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) associated with the response’ -- clearly change the literal scope of the independent and dependent claims and/or the range of equivalents for such claims. The said amendments alter the scope of the claims but do not overcome the disclosure by the prior art as shown below.
The Examiner is presenting new grounds for rejection as necessitated by the claim amendments and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
In regard to Claim 21
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 21) store, in the memory arrangement, an indication of whether the network supports non- voice IMS services, Buckley-Paragraph 139, As the IMS AS detects information or a change in the information describing a lower layer's (e.g. NAS layer) support (e.g. the UE indication about the "IMS Voice over PS session supported indication" being available at the NAS level and indicating support) in a SIP message, the IMS AS may store a related indication, effecting a change in procedures ) wherein the indication comprises an identification of a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (Ryu-figure 25,Paragraph 78, Provided NSSAI may be an NSSAI provided by a serving PLMN, for example, during a registration procedure, indicating the NSSAI provided by the network for the wireless device 100, 200 in the serving PLMN for the current registration area. ) and a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) associated with the response. (Buckley-Paragraph 204, the VoIMS Indicator is given to the UE by the MME or SGSN during initial attach and/or TAU and/or Combined TAU and/or RA update respectively. As a result, when the VoIMS is provided by the MME and SGSN to the UE, the MME and the SGSN are aware of whether IMS voice can be supported over a specific TA or RA respectively.)
In regard to Claim 25,35
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 25,35) wherein the indication further indicates whether the request to initiate the IMS PDU session was successful or unsuccessful ( Ryu-Paragraph 131,The AMF 155, 255 may notify the wireless device 100, 200 that the request procedure has succeeded )
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from Provisional Application 62/975283 filed February 12, 2020.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is February 12, 2020.
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 21-25,31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (USPGPUB 2020/0305118) further in view of Buckley (USPGPUB 2010/0329244)
Regarding Claim 21
Ryu Figure 25,Paragraph 123 disclosed wherein the AMF 155, 255 may respond, to the service request, with a service accept message. The AMF 155, 255 may respond with a service accept message, for example, to synchronize PDU session status between the wireless device 100, 200 and network. The AMF 155, 255 may respond with a service reject message to the wireless device 100, 200, for example, if the service request is not accepted by the network. The service reject message may include an indication and/or cause code requesting the wireless device 100, 200 to perform a registration update procedure.
Ryu Paragraph 118 disclosed wherein registration accept message 955 may comprise IMS voice over PS session supported indication and Paragraph 127 wherein the AMF 155, 255 may reject the N2 message, for example, if the AMF 155, 255 is unable to handle the service request.
Ryu Paragraph 241 disclosed wherein notification response message 2320 may further comprise an allowed PDU session(s) identity list, an indication of available service type(s) to respond to a paging message, an indication of unavailable service type(s) to respond to a paging message. Ryu Paragraph 260 disclosed wherein notification response message 2320 may comprise an allowed PDU session(s) identity list, available service type(s) for responding to a RAN paging message 2710, unavailable service type(s) for responding to a RAN paging message 2710.
Ryu disclosed (re. Claim 21) an apparatus comprising a memory arrangement and processing circuitry configured to:
process, based on signaling received from the base station, a response to the request to initiate the IMS PDU session, (Ryu-Figure 13, Paragraph 49, PDU session establishment procedure ) wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the network supports non-voice IMS services based on the response. (Ryu-Paragraph 286, The wireless device may determine whether to accept service associated with the paging message. The determination to reject or not to accept the request for the connection setup may comprise a determination not to accept service associated with the paging message. The wireless device may register, via the first access technology and the second access technology, with the AMF device... the allowed PDU sessions identity list may indicate user-plane resources of PDU session(s) that may be: associated with the first access technology, and/or allowed to be re-established via the second access technology. The available service type may comprise at least one of: a data network name (DNN); a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI); or a packet data unit (PDU) session identity. The DNN may indicate an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS)… The paging message may comprise a paging cause value. The paging cause value may indicate at least one of: a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling for mobility management; a NAS signaling for policy update; a UE context update; a UE policy update; an indication requesting a registration; an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) voice; an IMS video; an IMS short message service (SMS); an IMS multimedia messaging service (MMS); an IMS signaling, other IMS; or others. The determination to reject or not to accept the request for the connection setup may be based on the paging cause value of the paging message )
While Ryu substantially disclosed the claimed invention Ryu does not disclose (re. Claim 21) process, based on signaling received from a base station, a registration accept message indicating that a network does not support Voice over Packet Switch (VoPS) services;
generate, for transmission to the base station in response to the registration accept message indicating that the network does not support VoPS services, a request to initiate an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) protocol data unit (PDU) session with the network.
Buckley figure 1 Paragraph 65 disclosed wherein the UE checks for an IMS voice support indication from the network. If supported, the UE uses IMS voice in step 16 and may return to step 14 after performing a Tracking Area Update (TAU). If, however, IMS voice is not supported… the UE checks its own settings to determine whether it is voice centric or data centric in step 22. If data centric, the UE stays in the current RAT in step 24. If, however, the UE is voice centric, it reselects to an alternative RAT in step 26.
Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 21) process, based on signaling received from a base station, a registration accept message indicating that a network does not support Voice over Packet Switch (VoPS) services; (Buckley- figure 1 Paragraph 65, the UE checks for an IMS voice support indication from the network. If supported, the UE uses IMS voice in step 16 and may return to step 14 after performing a Tracking Area Update (TAU). If, however, IMS voice is not supported… the UE checks its own settings to determine whether it is voice centric or data centric in step 22. If data centric, the UE stays in the current RAT in step 24. If, however, the UE is voice centric, it reselects to an alternative RAT in step 26.)
generate, for transmission to the base station in response to the registration accept message indicating that the network does not support VoPS services, a request to initiate an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) protocol data unit (PDU) session with the network. (Buckley- figure 1 Paragraph 65, the UE checks for an IMS voice support indication from the network. If supported, the UE uses IMS voice in step 16 and may return to step 14 after performing a Tracking Area Update (TAU). If, however, IMS voice is not supported… the UE checks its own settings to determine whether it is voice centric or data centric in step 22. If data centric, the UE stays in the current RAT in step 24. If, however, the UE is voice centric, it reselects to an alternative RAT in step 26.)
Ryu and Buckley are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding service registration and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the networking art to combine Buckley into Ryu. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable the UE to "fallback" to other solutions to provide AppVoice to the UE when IMS voice is not available.(Buckley-Paragraph 23)
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 21) store, in the memory arrangement, an indication of whether the network supports non- voice IMS services, (Buckley-Paragraph 139, As the IMS AS detects information or a change in the information describing a lower layer's (e.g. NAS layer) support (e.g. the UE indication about the "IMS Voice over PS session supported indication" being available at the NAS level and indicating support) in a SIP message, the IMS AS may store a related indication, effecting a change in procedures ) wherein the indication comprises an identification of a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (Ryu-figure 25,Paragraph 78, Provided NSSAI may be an NSSAI provided by a serving PLMN, for example, during a registration procedure, indicating the NSSAI provided by the network for the wireless device 100, 200 in the serving PLMN for the current registration area. ) and a Tracking Area Identity (TAI) associated with the response. (Buckley-Paragraph 204, the VoIMS Indicator is given to the UE by the MME or SGSN during initial attach and/or TAU and/or Combined TAU and/or RA update respectively. As a result, when the VoIMS is provided by the MME and SGSN to the UE, the MME and the SGSN are aware of whether IMS voice can be supported over a specific TA or RA respectively.)
In regard to Claim 31
Claim 31 (re. user equipment) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 21. Claim 31 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 31) user equipment (UE), comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate with a network; and a processor (Ryu-NAS signaling with a wireless device 100, 200 )
In regard to Claim 22,32
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 22,32) wherein the processing circuitry determines the network supports non-voice IMS services when the response comprises an IMS PDU session accept message.(Ryu-Paragraph 286, The wireless device may determine whether to accept service associated with the paging message. The determination to reject or not to accept the request for the connection setup may comprise a determination not to accept service associated with the paging message, Figure 25,Paragraph 240, Paragraph 236, based on a paging cause value in the paging message 2310. )
In regard to Claim 23,33
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 23,33) wherein the processing circuitry determines the network does not support non-voice IMS services when the response comprises an IMS PDU session reject message. (Ryu-Paragraph 286, The wireless device may determine whether to accept service associated with the paging message. The determination to reject or not to accept the request for the connection setup may comprise a determination not to accept service associated with the paging message, Figure 25,Paragraph 240, Paragraph 236, based on a paging cause value in the paging message 2310. )
In regard to Claim 24,34
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 24,34) wherein the processing circuitry makes an indeterminate determination (Buckley-Paragraph 136, presence of the indicator set to a positive value means support, absence means support unknown ) as to whether the network supports non-voice IMS services when the response comprises an IMS PDU session reject message, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
generate, for transmission to the base station in response to the IMS PDU session reject message, a second request to initiate an IMS PDU session with the network; and process, based on signaling received from the base station, a response to the second request to initiate the IMS PDU session, wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the network supports non-voice IMS services based on the response.(Ryu-Paragraph 248, paging strategy may comprise a paging retransmission scheme, an indication as to whether to send paging messages 2305 to the first base station 2102 during certain AMF high load conditions)
In regard to Claim 25,35
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 25,35) wherein the indication further indicates whether the request to initiate the IMS PDU session was successful or unsuccessful ( Ryu-Paragraph 131,The AMF 155, 255 may notify the wireless device 100, 200 that the request procedure has succeeded )
Claims 26-29,36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (USPGPUB 2020/0305118) further in view of Buckley (USPGPUB 2010/0329244) further in view of Park (US Patent 12082284).
In regard to Claim 26,36
While Ryu-Buckley substantially disclosed the claimed invention Ryu-Buckley does not disclose (re. Claim 26,36) disconnect from the network; after disconnecting from the network, generate, for transmission to a second base station, a second registration request to register with the network; process, based on signaling received from the second base station, a second registration accept message indicating that the network does not support VoPS services; and determine, in response to the second registration accept message indicating that the network does not support VoPS services, whether to generate a second request to initiate a second IMS PDU session with the network based on the indication stored in the memory arrangement.
Park Column 2 Lines 25-45 disclosed wherein the registration method may further comprise storing the rejected S-NSSAI as a rejected NSSAI based on the reason for refusal. The registration method may further comprise not attempting, in the PLMN, a use request for the rejected S-NSSAI with the reason for refusal that it is not available in the PLMN, until the rejected S-NSSAI is deleted in the rejected NSSAI. The registration method may further comprise further comprising not attempting, in the current registration area, a use request for the rejected S-NSSAI with the reason for refusal that it is not available in the current registration area, until the UE gets out of the registration area.
Park Column 36 Lines 40-45 disclosed wherein when a UE enters an area in which a network slice is no longer available, a core network releases a PDU session for an S-NSSAI corresponding to a network slice that is no longer available through a PDU session release procedure.
Park disclosed (re. Claim 26,36) disconnect from the network;( Park-Column 36 Lines 40-45 when a UE enters an area in which a network slice is no longer available, a core network releases a PDU session for an S-NSSAI corresponding to a network slice that is no longer available through a PDU session release procedure)
after disconnecting from the network, generate, for transmission to a second base station, a second registration request to register with the network; process, based on signaling received from the second base station, a second registration accept message indicating that the network does not support VoPS services; and determine, in response to the second registration accept message indicating that the network does not support VoPS services, whether to generate a second request to initiate a second IMS PDU session with the network based on the indication stored in the memory arrangement.( Park-Column 2 Lines 25-45,The registration method may comprise not attempting, in the PLMN, a use request for the rejected S-NSSAI with the reason for refusal that it is not available in the PLMN, until the rejected S-NSSAI is deleted in the rejected NSSAI. The registration method may comprise not attempting, in the current registration area, a use request for the rejected S-NSSAI with the reason for refusal that it is not available in the current registration area, until the UE gets out of the registration area, Column 49 Lines 45-55, if the refusal of the S-NSSAI is given in units of a registration area and the terminal moves to another registration area (that is, when it is out of the current registration area in which the S-NSSAI is rejected), the terminal may re-attempt the request for the use of the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area.)
Ryu and Park are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding service registration and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the networking art to combine Park into Ryu. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement a back-off mechanism to reduce the amount of transmitted information.(Park-Column 49 Lines 65)
In regard to Claim 27,37
Ryu-Buckley-Park disclosed (re. Claim 27,37) wherein, when the indication stored in the memory arrangement indicates the request to initiate the IMS PDU session for the PLMN and TAI corresponding to the second base station was successful, generate the second request to initiate the second IMS PDU session with the network.(Park-Column 49 Lines 45-55, if the refusal of the S-NSSAI is given in units of a registration area and the terminal moves to another registration area (that is, when it is out of the current registration area in which the S-NSSAI is rejected), the terminal may re-attempt the request for the use of the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area.)
In regard to Claim 28,38
Ryu-Buckley-Park disclosed (re. Claim 28,38) wherein, when the indication stored in the memory arrangement indicates the request to initiate the IMS PDU session for the PLMN and TAI corresponding to the second base station was unsuccessful, (Park-Column 49 Lines 30-35, when the S-NSSAI is rejected in a specific location/area/region, the terminal may manage the rejected S-NSSAI as a separate list. This list may be configured in the form of temporary rejected NSSAI, NSSAI restricted list, rejected/forbidden NSSAI, or the like. The terminal may write/store, in the list, the reason for refusal/restriction (e.g., local area/registration area/AMF, etc.) and/or the descriptor/identity information (e.g., LADN, registration area ID, AMF ID, etc., corresponding to the rejected S-NSSAI) thereof for each S-NSSAI. )
While Ryu-Buckley-Park substantially disclosed the claimed invention Ryu-Buckley-Park does not disclose (re. Claim 28,38) omit generating the second request to initiate the second IMS PDU session with the network.
The Examiner notes wherein Ryu Paragraph 4 disclosed wherein the wireless device may conserve radio resources (e.g., avoid retransmission(s) of the request) and/or improve wireless communication performance (e.g., reduce noise and/or congestion due to retransmission(s) of the request, and/or avoid interrupting and/or cancelling active communications).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. An exemplary rationale that may support a conclusion of obviousness is that of ' applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.'
In context of Ryu-Buckley-Park since the non-voice IMS service is not supported it would have been obvious for Ryu-Buckley-Park to avoid initiating an IMS Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment with the network in order to conserve radio resources.
In regard to Claim 29,39
Ryu-Buckley-Park disclosed (re. Claim 29,39) wherein the base station and the second base station are a same base station or are different base stations. (Park-Column 49 Lines 45-55, if the refusal of the S-NSSAI is given in units of a registration area and the terminal moves to another registration area (that is, when it is out of the current registration area in which the S-NSSAI is rejected), the terminal may re-attempt the request for the use of the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area.)
Claims 30,40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (USPGPUB 2020/0305118) further in view of Buckley (USPGPUB 2010/0329244) further in view of Jain (US Patent 11197230).
In regard to Claim 30,40
Ryu-Buckley disclosed (re. Claim 30,40) wherein the registration accept message indicating the network does not support VoPS services. (Buckley- figure 1 Paragraph 65, the UE checks for an IMS voice support indication from the network. If supported, the UE uses IMS voice in step 16 and may return to step 14 after performing a Tracking Area Update (TAU). If, however, IMS voice is not supported… the UE checks its own settings to determine whether it is voice centric or data centric in step 22. If data centric, the UE stays in the current RAT in step 24. If, however, the UE is voice centric, it reselects to an alternative RAT in step 26.)
While Ryu-Buckley substantially disclosed the claimed invention Ryu-Buckley does not disclose (re. Claim 30,40) an IMS service information element (IE).
Jain Column 10 Lines 30-35 disclosed a “Voice domain preference and UE's usage setting” information element (IE).
Jain disclosed (re. Claim 30,40) an IMS service information element (IE).( Jain- Column 10 Lines 30-35 ,a “Voice domain preference and UE's usage setting” information element (IE).)
Ryu and Jain are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding service registration and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the networking art to combine Jain into Ryu. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable informing the eNB that CE mode B is no longer to be used for the UE if the UE's usage setting is changed from “data centric” or “voice centric”.( Jain Column 1 Lines 65 )
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444