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 with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-23, 25-30, 32-36 and 39-40 of copending Application No. 18/251,062 in view of US 2019/0021026 A1 herein Iskander. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims conflicting claims are directed to the same wireless transmit/receive unit, method, and network apparatus for establishing a multi-access protocol data unit session and steering traffic across two accesses in accordance with a load balancing steering mode.
Instant claim 1 and reference claim 21 recite identical language for sending a request for establishing a multi-access protocol data unit (MA PDU) session, wherein the request indicates support for at least one steering capability and support for one or more steering modes associated with the at least one steering capability, and for receiving, in response to the request, one or more steering rules including a first rule that includes a load balancing steering mode, of the one or more steering modes. The claims differ only in what accompanies the load balancing steering mode and in what the wireless transmit/receive unit does with the splitting percentages.
The difference being that the conflicting claims do not recite send information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic.
Iskander discloses send information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic (0022, the BSR can be used by the UE to indicate portions of data to be sent over LTE and WLAN, and the BSR is reported to the LTE eNB; 0025, the UE can indicate a BSR for total traffic and the percentage of traffic over LTE). 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 Kedalagudde to include indicating to the network the portions of data the WTRU sends over each of two accesses, as taught by lskander, so as to allow the network to allocate uplink resources in accordance with the split the WTRU applies (0024).
Re claims 8 and 15: Claims 8 and 15 are rejected on the same grounds as set forth above for claim 1.
Instant claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 correspond to conflicting claims 22, 23, 25-27, 29, 30, 32-34 and 36, 39-40, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 is/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 4, 10, 11, and 17 each recite "the one or more percentages for steering traffic." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 4, 10, 11, and 17 depend, recite "splitting percentages for steering traffic" and do not recite one or more percentages. It cannot be determined whether "the one or more percentages for steering traffic" refers to the previously recited splitting percentages or to some other quantity. See MPEP Section 2173.05(e).
Claims 3 and 4 each recite "send the information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic which includes to:" followed by a further sending step. The phrase "which includes to" is not a recognized transitional phrase and cannot be construed. See MPEP Section 2111.03. Further, the referent of "which" cannot be determined, since it may refer to the information, to the splitting percentages, or to the act of sending. It therefore cannot be determined whether claims 3 and 4 further limit what is sent or how it is sent. See MPEP Section 2173.02.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over US 2023/0300674 A1 herein Kedalagudde in view of US 2023/0189058 A1 herein Yeh and further in view of US 2019/0021026 A1 herein lskander.
Claim 1, Kedalagudde discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (0109, UE), the WTRU comprising:
a transceiver (0145, transmit and receive circuitry),
memory (0145, memory implied, since a UE is conventional cellular device), and
one or more processors (0145, processing circuitry; see also figure 11 and corresponding disclosure for processors, memory and transceiver elements) configured to:
send a request for establishing a multi-access protocol data unit (MA PDU) session, wherein the request indicates support for at least one steering capability and support for one or more steering modes associated with the at least one steering capability (0031, in step 1 the UE provides Request Type as "MA PDU Request" in UL NAS Transport message and its ATSS capabilities in PDU Session Establishment Request message; 0027, UE indicates support for these steering modes in the UE ATSSS Capability provided in the PDU session establishment message when establishing the MA-PDU session);
receive, in response to the request, one or more steering rules including a first rule that includes a load balancing steering mode, of the one or more steering modes, in association with an indicator that adaptive traffic steering is enabled for the MA PDU session (0023, Load-Balancing with RAN measurement is one of three new steering modes defined to support RAN measurement feedback-based traffic distribution and contains the percentage of the SDF traffic that should be sent over 3GPP access and over non-3GPP access, thus the mode designation carried in the rule indicates that RAN measurement based traffic distribution is enabled for the session).
Kedalagudde may not explicitly disclose determine, based on the received indicator that adaptive traffic steering is enabled for the MA PDU session, splitting percentages for steering traffic on first and second accesses of the MA PDU session, and send information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic.
Yeh discloses determine, based on the received indicator that adaptive traffic steering is enabled for the MA PDU session, splitting percentages for steering traffic on first and second accesses of the MA PDU session (0138, upon detecting congestion over one access the UE updates the traffic split percentage of a MA-PDU SDF by decreasing the split percentage of the congested access and increasing the split percentage of the non-congested access by a step size; 0139, the step sizes are configuration parameters in the ATSSS rule provided by the SMF). 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 Kedalagudde to include updating the traffic split percentages at the WTRU by step sizes configured in the ATSSS rule, as taught by Yeh, so as to adapt the traffic distribution to congestion detected on an access (0138).
Kedalagudde may not explicitly disclose send information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic.
lskander discloses send information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic (0022, the BSR can be used by the UE to indicate portions of data to be sent over LTE and WLAN, and the BSR is reported to the LTE eNB; 0025, the UE can indicate a BSR for total traffic and the percentage of traffic over LTE). 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 Kedalagudde to include indicating to the network the portions of data the WTRU sends over each of two accesses, as taught by lskander, so as to allow the network to allocate uplink resources in accordance with the split the WTRU applies (0024).
Claim 2, Kedalagudde in view of Yeh and further in view of lskander discloses the WTRU of claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses wherein the information is sent in a PMF message (0086, the UE sends back a UE ATSSS Rule Update Complete response message to the UPF).
Claim 3, Kedalagudde in view of Yeh and further in view of lskander discloses the WTRU of claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses send, using PMF protocol signaling, the information indicating the splitting percentages for the MA PDU session (0082, the following PMF protocol messages can be exchanged between the UE and the PMF, messages for UE ATSSS RAN Measurement Report by the UE to the UPF; 0027, the UE ATSSS Capability indicates if the UE supports receiving updates to ATSSS rules over PMF messaging).
Claim 4, Kedalagudde in view of Yeh and further in view of lskander discloses the WTRU of claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses send, using user plane signaling, the information indicating the one or more percentages for steering traffic for the MA PDU session (0106, the UE RAN measurements are sent from UE to UPF over the in-band PMF messaging).
Claim 5, Kedalagudde in view of Yeh and further in view of lskander discloses the WTRU of claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses wherein the steering capability comprises an adaptive traffic steering capability (0023, Dynamic traffic steering with RAN measurement is used to dynamically make decision to split/switch/steer SDF traffic across both accesses based on RAN measurements; 0027, UE indicates support for these steering modes in the UE ATSSS Capability).
Claim 6, Kedalagudde in view of Yeh and further in view of lskander discloses the WTRU of claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses wherein the one or more steering rules comprise one or more access traffic steering, switching, splitting (ATSSS) rules (0040, from the received PCC rules the SMF derives ATSSS rules, which will be sent to UE for controlling the traffic steering, switching and splitting in the uplink direction).
Claim 8, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses a method for use in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (0109, UE).
Kedalagudde may not explicitly disclose sending, in response to at least the received indicator, information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic.
lskander discloses sending, in response to at least the received indicator, information indicating the splitting percentages for steering traffic (0017, the eNB configures a maximum ratio or rates to be transmitted using WLAN while the split beneath the limit is kept to UE implementation; 0025, the UE can indicate a BSR for total traffic and the percentage of traffic over LTE, thus the indicating follows from the received configuration). 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 Kedalagudde to include indicating to the network the portions of data the WTRU sends over each of two accesses, as taught by lskander, so as to allow the network to allocate uplink resources in accordance with the split the WTRU applies (0024).
Claim 9, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 12, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Kedalagudde discloses an apparatus (0130, SGC), the apparatus comprising: a transceiver (0153, communication resources), memory (0153, memory/storage devices), and one or more processors (0153, processors).
Claim 16, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190306752 A1 - In an aspect, the disclosure provides a method for distributing uplink data flow between different access networks in a 5G communication system. The method would include not limited to maintaining an ATSSS rules table; receiving a request to establish an uplink data flow to a DN; determining from the ATSSS rule table whether the DN is in the ATSSS rule table in response to receiving the request to establish the uplink data flow to the DN; selecting a first PDU session from the ATSSS rule table for the uplink data flow to the DN in response to having been determined that the DN is in the ATSSS rule table; and creating a second PDU session for the uplink data flow to the DN and recording the second PDU session in the ATSSS rule table in response to having been determined that the DN is not in the ATSSS rule table.
Conclusion
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
