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 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art rejection has been revised to address the amended language. The 3GPP TR 23.700-87 document suggests that if IMS data channel capabilities are supported that a feature-caps header can be added in response meaning if they are not supported then the feature-caps header is not added and the IMS audio-video function in a conventional manner to avoid impacts on basis audio/video as indicated by section 6.4.1.3 of the 3GPP TR 23.700-87 document. The 3GPP TR 23.700-87 document explicitly describes that requests can be retried which is all the applicant has disclosed with respect to the actions of the UE, as shown in Figure 2. Lau has been added to show that an invite message from a UE after a conventional 200 OK response in an IMS system is known. The Examiner did not find any technology disclosed with respect to Figure 2 that could be found patentable over the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-10, and 12-14 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 1, 5, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: Each independent claim refers to a time period “after the initial registration” but the claims do not actually define an initial registration or a time period or time instance associated with an initial registration. The first limitation of each independent claim references “a first register request” for the purpose of initial registration but there is no further attempt to actually define what constitutes the “initial registration”. It is not clear whether the “initial registration” is supposed to cover the reception of the 200 OK response by the UE, the transmitting of the invite request by the UE, or a step subsequent to the invite received performed by the network function.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 8-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.700-87 v0.2.0 published April 2022 (Part of IDS filed on 11/1/2024) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0018039 by Lau.
As to claim 1, 3GPP TR 23.700-87 teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a network function, a first 200 OK response as a response to a first register request for an initial registration, wherein the first 200 OK response does not include a first Feature-Caps header field indicating a support of a multimedia subsystem (IMS) data channel (section 6.4.1.2.1 states that the feature-caps header field is only included if the home supports IMS data channel capability, and thus it is not included if IMS data channel capability is not supported); transmitting, to the network function, a second register request for a subsequent registration (the UE discovery procedure referenced in section 6.4.2.1 can be performed after the retry referenced in 6.4.1.3 in the second bullet point); and if an internet protocol (IP) IMS network supports the IMS data channel after the initial registration, receiving, from the network function, a second 200 OK response as a response to the first second request, the second 200 OK response including a second Feature-Caps header field indicating the support of the IMS data channel (Section 6.4.1.2.1); however 3GPP TR 23.700-87 does not explicitly teach transmitting, to the network function, a first invite request message, wherein the first invite request message does not include an IMS data channel media description in a first session description protocol (SDP) offer.
Lau teaches a method performed by a UE in a wireless communication system comprising: receiving, from a network function, a first 200 OK response as a response to a first register request for an initial registration (ref. no. 626), wherein the first 200 OK response does not include a first Feature-Caps header field indicating a support of a multimedia subsystem (IMS) data channel; transmitting, to the network function, a first invite request message (ref. no. 802), wherein the first invite request message does not include an IMS data channel media description in a first session description protocol (SDP) offer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of 3GPP TR 23.700-87 regarding a network function indicating to a UE whether or not it support of an IMS data channel with the teachings of Lau regarding transmitting an invite message from a UE in response to a 200 OK response that does not include a Feature-Caps header because 3GPP TR 23.700-87 does not detail what happens when an IMS data channel is not supported, and Lau provides a possible implementation scenario for a UE receiving a 200 OK message without a Feature-caps header field.
As to claim 2, 3GPP TR 23.700-87 teaches wherein the network function includes a serving - call session control function (S-CSCF) (See section 6.4.3, the S-CSCF returns the response referenced in section 6.4.1.2.1).
As to claim 3, see section 6.4.1.1.2 of 3GPP TR 23.700-87.
As to claims 5-7, the mapping of the rejection of claims 1-3 shows the that the network function performs the claimed limitations in response to the UE mapped in the rejection of claims 1-3.
As to claims 8-10 and 12-14, they cover devices which implement the claimed methods of 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected according to the mapping provided.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights