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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 02/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 have been amended. No claim is added or cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/22/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAJWADHA et al. (US 20240314178) hereinafter RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist et al. (US 20130060954) hereinafter Dahlqvist and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160353334) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, RAJWADHA teaches a method for handling a data connection session in an internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network (i.e. Fig. 6 and a session initiation protocol (SIP) registration request with an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session, [0052]), the method comprising: performing a registration process to register, by a first network entity, with a second network entity over an interface between the first network entity and the second network entity; establishing, by the first network entity, a user equipment (UE) session with the second network entity (i.e. the UE establishes over a cellular communications access network, a Quality of Service QoS flow, for an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session, [0052] and registering by a UE over a cellular communications access network using a session initiation protocol (SIP) registration request with an incoming Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) session, [0020] and Fig. 6).
However, RAJWADHA does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the first network entity from the second network entity over the interface, a first message that is generated by the second network entity based on UE context established during the registration process and existing at the second network entity, the first message indicating a call notification is to be transmitted to a UE in case that there is an attempt to connect to the UE that is not registered to the IMS network.
However, Dahlqvist teaches receiving, by the first network entity from the second network entity over the interface, a first message that is generated by the second network entity based on UE context established during the registration process and existing at the second network entity, the first message indicating a call notification is to be transmitted to a UE in case that there is an attempt to connect to the UE that is not registered to the IMS network (i.e. the P-CSCF network node 14 may determine that the user equipment 10 is not registered based on an originating Internet Protocol (IP) address of the user equipment 10. Furthermore, The P-CSCF network node 14 may determine that the user equipment 10 is not registered when an association between an IMS identity and an identity of the user equipment 10 is lacking in the P-CSCF network node 14, [0044], the P-CSCF network node 14 simulates a setup of a terminating service connection to the priority service node 27. This is performed by sending a terminating request to the I-CSCF network node 21. The terminating request comprises an indication that the request regards a priority service. The terminating request may be indicated as originating from the user equipment 10, and in the P-CSCF network node 14 there may be stored indications of user equipment that are registered with the IMS 12. An indication comprises an association between an IMS identity, such as IP Multimedia Public Identity (IMPU), and an identity of the user equipment 10. This association is then used for all SIP transactions for this particular registration as long as the registration is valid, [0066], and when the service request has been identified as a priority service request and the user equipment 10 has been determined not registered with the Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem 12, the P-CSCF network node 14 simulates setup of a terminating service connection to the priority service node 27. The simulation is performed by sending a terminating request to an Interrogating call session control function network node 21 comprised in the Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem 12. The terminating request comprises an indication of the priority service and may also indicate the originating user equipment URI or the like, [0068]).
Based on RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dahlqvist to the system of RAJWADHA in order to improve priority user’s experience to perform a call.
However, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose notifying, by the first network entity, the UE about a mobile terminated (MT) voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call or a mobile terminated (MT) voice over new radio (VoNR) call.
However, Kim teaches and notifying, by the first entity, the UE about a mobile terminated (MT) voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call or a mobile terminated (MT) voice over new radio (VoNR) call (i.e. the first network 802 may transmit a paging signal for VoLTE to the electronic device 801 in response to the reception of the MT voice call, [0239]).
Based on RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the system of RAJWADHA and Dahlqvist in order to provide a guaranteeing activity of users (Kim, [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, RAJWADHA teaches the establishing the UE session with the second network entity comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a Npcf_AMPolicyControl_Create message to the second entity to setup the UE session at the second network entity (i.e. Npcf_AMPolicyControl_Create request sent by AMF to PCF to create the policy association with passing of ISP identifier along with other parameters like SUPI, GSPI, Access Type, [0068]); and receiving, by the first network entity, a Npcf_AMPolicyControl_Create response from the second network entity, after creating the UE context (i.e. the PCF responds with the policy association information Npcf_AMPolicyControl_Create response, [0098]).
Regarding claim 5, RAJWADHA teaches the first network entity is an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity and the second network entity is a policy control function (PCF) entity (i.e. Fig. 6 and The AMF contacts the PCF to create a policy association and retrieve the UE policy and/or Access and mobility control policy, [0097]), and wherein the interface is a service based interface (SBI) (i.e. Npcf_EventExposure Service of PCF also works on subscribe/notify model as other service-based interfaces (SBI), [0070]).
Regarding claim 6, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose the interface handles at least one of: a session setup request (SSR) signaling message, a session setup answer (SSA) signaling message, a session modification request (SMR) signaling message, a session modification answer (SMA) signaling message, a session release request (SRR) signaling message, a session release answer (SRA) signaling message, an initiate-registration-request (IRR) signaling message, and an initiate-registration-answer (IRA) signaling message, and wherein the interface comprises a S50 interface.
However, Kim teaches the interface handles at least one of: a session setup request (SSR) signaling message, a session setup answer (SSA) signaling message, a session modification request (SMR) signaling message, a session modification answer (SMA) signaling message, a session release request (SRR) signaling message, a session release answer (SRA) signaling message, an initiate-registration-request (IRR) signaling message, and an initiate-registration-answer (IRA) signaling message (i.e. the electronic device may be configured to receive a call or transmit a call request (or a call setup request) through the first network that provides a packet data (or IP) based call service, [0109] and the electronic device 801 may perform an IMS registration procedure for registering the electronic device 801 to the IMS. For example, the electronic device 801 may transmit a registration request message to an S-CSCF, [0218]), and wherein the interface comprises a S50 interface (i.e. The interface 270 may be included in, for example, the communication interface 170 illustrated in FIG. 1. Additionally or alternatively, the interface 270 may include, for example, a mobile high-definition link (MHL) interface, an SD card/MMC interface, or an infrared data association (IrDA) standard interface, [0075]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 7, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose the establishing the UE session with the second network entity comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a session setup request (SSR) to the second network entity to setup the UE session at the second network entity; and receiving, by the first network entity, a session setup answer (SSA) from the second network entity, after the second network entity creates a UE context, based on the SSR.
However, Kim teaches the establishing the UE session with the second network entity comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a session setup request (SSR) to the second network entity to setup the UE session at the second network entity (i.e. In the first mode, the electronic device may be configured to receive a call or transmit a call request (or a call setup request) through the first network that provides a packet data (or IP) based call service, [0109]); and receiving, by the first network entity, a session setup answer (SSA) from the second network entity, after the second network entity creates a UE context, based on the SSR (i.e. the first network 802 may transmit a paging signal for VoLTE to the electronic device 801 in response to the reception of the MT voice call, [0221] and the second network 803 may transmit a paging signal for a CS call (for example, CDMA 1× call) to the electronic device 801 in response to the reception of the MT voice call, [0243]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 8, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose the first message is an initiate-registration-request (IRR) and the UE context is available with the second network entity over the interface, and wherein the first network entity sends an initiate-registration-answer (IRA) to the second entity.
However, Kim teaches the first message is an initiate-registration-request (IRR) and the UE context is available with the second network entity over the interface (i.e. the electronic device may be registered to the second network in order to receive a call or transmit a call request (or a call setup request) through the second network, [0121]), and wherein the first network entity sends an initiate-registration-answer (IRA) to the second network entity (i.e. and the electronic device 801 may perform an IMS registration procedure for registering the electronic device 801 to the IMS. For example, the electronic device 801 may transmit a registration request message to an S-CSCF, [0218] and the electronic device may be in a state of being registered to both of the first network and the second network (that is, a dual registration state), [0123]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 9, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose the notifying the UE about the MT VoLTE call comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a second message to the UE, wherein the UE initiates a data connection session for the MT VoLTE call, and wherein a SIP-INVITE is forwarded to the UE over the data connection session.
However, Kim teaches the notifying the UE about the MT VoLTE call comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a second message to the UE, wherein the UE initiates a data connection session for the MT VoLTE call (i.e. the electronic device 801 may transmit a VoLTE MO (Mobile Originating) call request message to the first network 802 in response to the detection (or reception) of the voice call request, [0224]), and wherein a SIP-INVITE is forwarded to the UE over the data connection session (i.e. the first network 802 may transmit a paging signal for VoLTE to the electronic device 801 in response to the reception of the MT voice call, [0239]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 10, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose the data connection session is one of an IMS protocol data unit (IMS PDU) session and a packet data network (PDN) connection session, wherein the first network entity notifies the UE about the MT VoLTE call using a downlink NAS transport when the UE is not registered in the IMS network.
However, Kim teaches disclose the data connection session is one of an IMS protocol data unit (IMS PDU) session and a packet data network (PDN) connection session (i.e. outing of a message received from an eP-CSCF (or an electronic device 801) to a PDN or a 3GPP/3GPP2 CS network, or the like, and an IMS access gateway enhanced for WebRTC (eIMS-AGW) that executes transcoding, [0206]), wherein the first network entity notifies the UE about the MT VoLTE call using a downlink NAS transport when the UE is not registered in the IMS network (i.e. the electronic device 801 may transmit a TAU request message including capability information representing 2G/3G capability to an AS/NAS or MME of the first network 802, [0236]. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, RAJWADHA teaches the first network entity is a mobility management entity (MME) (i.e. Access and Mobility Function (AMF) in 5G receives all connection and session related information from the User Equipment (UE) and is responsible only for handling connection and mobility management tasks, [0006] and The IMS registration request is sent to the network node by forwarding the identified ISP identifier to an access and mobility function (AMF) node, [0058]) and the second network entity is a policy and charging rules function (PCRF) entity (i.e. Policy Control Function (PCF) in 5G is a Network Function which provides policy rules for control plane functions, [0080]), and wherein the interface is an S50 interface (i.e. Reference point between AMF & PCF is known as N15 reference point, [0007]).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15-20, the limitations of claims 12-13 and 15-20 are similar to the limitations of claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, and 11. A combination of RAJWADHA and Kim further teaches an apparatus comprising: interface circuitry to communicate over a first reference point and a second reference point (i.e. All messages related to session management are forwarded over the N11 reference interface to the Session Management Function (SMF), [0006] and Reference point between AMF & PCF is known as N15 reference point, RAJWADHA, [007]; instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the instructions (i.e. The electronic device 101 may include a bus 110, a processor 120, a memory 130, an input/output interface, [0048] and the processor (e.g., the processor 210). At least some of the program module 310 may include, for example, a module, a program, a routine, a set of instructions, and/or a process for performing one or more functions, Kim, [0097]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 12-13 and 15-20 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, and 11 above, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAJWADHA et al. (US 20240314178) hereinafter RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist et al. (US 20130060954) hereinafter Dahlqvist and Kim et al. (US 20160353334) hereinafter Kim and further in view of Guo et al. (US 20240276312) hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 3, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist and further in view of Kim teach the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist and further in view of Kim do not explicitly disclose the first message is a Npcf_AMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify with “mtVoNRTrigger” .
However, Guo teaches disclose the first message is a Npcf_AMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify with “mtVoNRTrigger” (i.e. the PCF may request voice resource reservation (e.g., voice QoS flow reservation) in the 5GS and subscribe “radio access technology (RAT) type change” to the PGW-C-SMF, for example, by a signaling message such as Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify, [0049]).
Based on RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist and Kim and further in view of Guo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Guo to the system of RAJWADHA, Dahlqvist and Kim in order to enables flexible network deployment and operation (Guo, [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, RAJWADHA in view of Dahlqvist do not explicitly disclose the notifying the UE about the MT VoNR call comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a second message to the UE, wherein the UE initiates a IMS protocol data unit (PDU) session for the MT VoNR call, and wherein a SIP-INVITE is forwarded to the UE over the IMS PDU session.
However, Kim teaches the notifying the UE about the MT VoNR call comprising: sending, by the first network entity, a second message to the UE, wherein the UE initiates a IMS protocol data unit (PDU) session for the MT VoNR call (i.e. the first network 802 may transmit a paging signal for VoLTE to the electronic device 801 in response to the reception of the MT voice call, [0239]), and wherein a SIP-INVITE is forwarded to the UE over the IMS PDU session (i.e. Figs. 9A and B). Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are similar to the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
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 AYELE F WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5196. The examiner can normally be reached M_F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/AW/
AYELE F. WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2447
5/5/2026
/SURAJ M JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights