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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Chinthalapudi et al. for the "METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ESTABLISHING IP MULTIMEDIA SUBSYSTEM (IMS) SESSIONS" filed 09/06/2024 has been examined. This application claims foreign priority to 202341060584, filed 09/08/2023
and claims foreign priority to 202341060584, filed 09/03/2024 in India. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: this claim should depend on claim 1 instead of claim 5. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
6. Claims 1-3, 7-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) in view of Atarius et al. (US#2019/0335534).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a method and device for receiving and transmitting data & control information in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) discloses a method of establishing Internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) sessions at a mobile originating (MO) device (see Figs. 8-9 for the message sequences illustrated the MO/MT case of enhanced call control using UE-triggered fallback procedure), the method comprising: establishing, with a mobile terminating (MT) device, a first IMS session over a first network, the first IMS session being configured to perform first communications between the MO device and the MT device (Figs. 6, 8, para [0068], [0085]-[0090]: in step S801, the caller UE denoted as MO UE sends an INVITE message with SDP attributes to initiate an IMS call in the 5G network, starts a guard timer, and the IMS network forwards the INVITE message to the callee UE denoted as MT UE); determining that the MO device failed to receive a response from the first network within a predefined time period after the establishing of the first IMS session (Figs. 6, 8; para [0072]-[0073], [0091]-[0094]: In steps S807-S808, the 5G network performs QoS establishment procedure for IMS voice and the network trigger command fails to be delivered to the caller UE before the guard timer expires. In step S809, the caller UE determines that the condition for call continuation in the 5G network is not met); establishing, with the MT device, a second IMS session over a second network, based on the determining that the MO device failed to receive the response from the first network, the second IMS session being configured to perform second communications between the MO device and the MT device (Fig. 10; para [0007]-[0008], [0011], [0014], [0103]: The UE triggers a fallback from the first RAT to a second RAT in response to the condition for call continuation in the mobile communication network not being met).
However, Naik reference does not disclose expressly wherein terminating, based on a content of a dedicated bearer, at least one of the first IMS session or the second IMS session; and communicating with the MT device over a remaining IMS session from the at least one of the first IMS session or the second IMS session. In the same field of endeavor, Atarius et al. (US#2019/0335534) teaches in Figs. 15-16 schematic block diagrams illustrated the communications for EPS fallback for IMS voice, in which If the UE 1502 supports Request Type flag “handover” for PDN connectivity request during the attach procedure, such as described in clause 5.3.2.1 of 3GPP TS 23.401, and has received an indication that interworking without N26 is supported, then the UE 1502 initiates Attach with PDN connectivity request with request type “handover”. Upon completion of the mobility procedure to EPS, the CORE 1506 re-initiates to establish the dedicated bearer for the IMS session and notifies the PCRF+PCF 1508 about the new access type. The PCRF+PCF 1508 informs the AF+P-CSCF 1510 about the UE's 1502 new access type of the PDU session (para [0426]. [0451]: a UE may successfully fallback from a 5GS to an EPS. Fallback as described herein may include a handover to EPS, setup of a default EPS bearer, and setup of dedicated bearers for GBR QoS flows in EPS).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Atarius’s establishing an IP multimedia subsystem session into Naik’s enhanced call control using User Equipment (UE)-triggered fallback procedure with the motivation being to provide a method and device for establishing Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) sessions.
Regarding claims 2-3, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 1 examined above, Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) further teaches wherein the first/second network is one of a New Radio (NR) network or a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) network (see Fig. 6; para [0067]-[0068]: the 5G network may also called a NR network and the 4G network may also be called a LTE network).
Regarding claim 6, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 1 examined above, Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) further teaches wherein obtaining the content of the dedicated bearer by monitoring a dedicated bearer activation (para [0451]: Upon completion of the mobility procedure to EPS, the CORE 1606 re-initiates to establish the dedicated bearer for the IMS session and notifies the PCRF+PCF 1608 about the new access type. The PCRF+PCF 1608 informs the AF+P-CSCF 1610 about the UE's 1602 new access type of the PDU session).
Regarding claim 7, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 1 examined above, Atarius et al. (US#2019/0335534) further teaches wherein the content of the dedicated bearer comprises at least one of a traffic flow template (TFT) or quality of service (QoS) information (Fig. 6; para [0009], [0072]-[0075]: step S640, the 5G network performs QoS establishment procedure for IMS voice).
Regarding claim 8, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 1 examined above, Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) further teaches wherein determining that the MO device failed to receive the response from the first network due to one or more conditions comprising a signal condition of the first network failing to meet a predetermined threshold (Figs. 6, 8; para [0072]-[0073], [0091]-[0094]: In steps S807-S808, the 5G network performs QoS establishment procedure for IMS voice and the network trigger command fails to be delivered to the caller UE before the guard timer expires. In step S809, the caller UE determines that the condition for call continuation in the 5G network is not met).
Regarding claim 9, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 1 examined above, Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) further teaches wherein receiving, from the MT device, an invite response indicating a selected IMS session to maintain active from the at least one of the first IMS session or the second IMS session (Fig. 10; para [0103]: in step S1030, the UE triggers a fallback from the first RAT (e.g., 5G) to a second RAT (e.g., 4G) in response to the condition for call continuation in the mobile communication network not being met. In one example, the fallback is the EPS fallback if the SIP session for establishing the IMS call is not yet completed).
Regarding claims 13-15, 18, they are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1-3, 6 examined above. Therefore, claims 13-15, 18 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 1-3, 6.
7. Regarding claim 10, the references disclose a method and device for receiving and transmitting data & control information in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) discloses a method of establishing Internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) sessions at a network device (see Figs. 8-9 for the message sequences illustrated the MO/MT case of enhanced call control using UE-triggered fallback procedure), the method comprising: receiving, from a mobile originating (MO) device, an invite message requesting to establish an IMS session with a mobile terminating (MT) device (Figs. 6, 8, para [0068], [0085]-[0090]: in step S801, the caller UE denoted as MO UE sends an INVITE message with SDP attributes to initiate an IMS call in the 5G network, starts a guard timer, and the IMS network forwards the INVITE message to the callee UE denoted as MT UE); rejecting the invite message based on determining that the invite is received on the new RAN; generating one or more recommendations for the MO device to establish the IMS session via the current RAN; and transmitting, to the MO device, the one or more recommendations (Figs. 6-7, para [0007]-[0011], [0037]-[0040]: the 5G network performs QoS establishment procedure for IMS voice and then determines to trigger the EPS fallback or RAT fallback procedure).
However, Naik reference does not disclose expressly wherein determining whether the invite is received on a current radio access network (RAN) or a new RAN by comparing a P-access network information header of the invite message with current voice domain preference RAN information of the network device. In the same field of endeavor, Atarius et al. (US#2019/0335534) teaches in Figs. 5-6 schematic block diagrams illustrated the embodiment of communications for EPS fallback with N26 employed and terminating at a UE, in which If timer 1 is exhausted and the AF+P-CSCF 522 has not been notified about any radio access and system changes or any unreachability of the terminating UE 524, the AF+P-CSCF 522 may assume there was no change and interruption in the PDU session modification and/or IMS session establishment. In order to avoid generalizing this delay, the AF+P-CSCF 522 invokes this procedure when the P-Access-Network-Info header field indicates 5G access technology in combination with other header fields showing the MMTEL service is requested (Figs. 5-6; para [0085], [0132]: the P-Access-Network-Info header field indicates 5G access technology in combination with other header fields showing the Multimedia Telephony MMTEL service is requested).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Atarius’s establishing an IP multimedia subsystem session into Naik’s enhanced call control using User Equipment (UE)-triggered fallback procedure with the motivation being to provide a method and device for establishing Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) sessions.
Regarding claim 11, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 10 examined above, Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) further teaches wherein the invite message comprises a session initiation protocol (SIP) invite message (Figs. 8-9, SIP INVITE messages S801, S901).
Regarding claim 12, Naik in view of Atarius teaches the method of claim 10 examined above, Naik et al. (US#2022/0369197) further teaches wherein the one or more recommendations comprise a recommendation to reply with an error message indicating to retry establishing the IMS session on another radio access technology (RAT)(para [0080]: the 5G network may reply a 200 OK message including SDP attributes to indicate the allocated QoS).
Regarding claims 19-20, they are system claims corresponding to the method claims 10-11 examined above. Therefore, claims 19-20 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 10-11.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4, 5, 16, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the establishing the first/second IMS session comprises: transmitting a first/second invite to the first/second network, the first/second invite requesting to establish the first/second IMS session with the MT device; and establishing the first/second IMS session over the first/second network based on the first/second invite, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Li (US#2026/0150010) shows voice call method and devices
The Zhang et al. (US#2026/0197396) call processing method, device & storage medium.
The Dai et al. (US#2026/0197881) shows call establishment method and apparatus
The Shahidi et al. (US#2025/0317883) shows techniques for sharing PDU sessions between multiple subscriber services
The Huang et al. (US#12,273,395) shows IMS registration duration management system, terminal device and chip
The Shi et al. (US#12,426,117) apparatus and method of a mobile terminating UE connecting to a fallback network.
The Venkataraman et al. (US#12,273,940) shows 5G NR voice call EPS fallback enhancements.
The Chiang et al. (US#10,492,243) shows fallback indicators in SIP signaling.
The Singh et al. (US#10,602,483) shows mobile terminated IMS calls on devices which support wi-fi and cellular radios.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
13. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
07/19/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights