DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2024-10-01 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claim(s) of a reference patent/application.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19
The claim(s) is/are unpatentable over the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim(s) is/are a broader version of identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Hence, the claims are not patentably because the instant claim(s) is/are anticipated by the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application.
Reference patent/application:
US PATENT US12143860
Instant Claim
Claim of Reference patent/application
01 (Method)
01 (Method)
02
02
05
03
01
08
06
04
06
09
06
10
06
11
07
01
08 (System)
12 (System)
09
13
15 (CRM)
15 (CRM)
16
16
19
17
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
35 USC §101 - Claim Rejections
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 15 and 16-20
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim subject matter is directed to software. Software per se is not patent-eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19
“the routing node”
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element.
There is no previously cited “a routing node” but only “a packet routing node.” Consequently it is unclear as to whether “the routing node” and “the packet routing node” as the same node, as there is only one node previously introduced. If this is the case, the claim is confusing because (1) it’s unclear as to why the word “packet” was omitted in “the routing node” and (2) it’s unclear as to how the “packet routing node” comprises both a PGW and ePDG.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI_660 (US20180205660) in view of LAI_607 (US20190364607)
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15
SHI_660 teaches
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), channel performance information that indicates a round trip time (RTT) for a channel passing through a packet routing node and a channel bypassing the packet routing node, Apparatus receives respective ACKs that to calculate RTT values of different paths. An optimal path and non-optimal paths are determined based on the RTT values. In one embodiment, the apparatus can be a UE and two possible paths exists: one via a router (packet routing node) and another path bypassing the router (wireless network); in another embodiment the roles can be reversed where the wireless network includes the packet routing node that is bypassed if the router path is selected <FIG(s). 3, 4, 6A; para. 0047-0048, 0059>.
wherein both the channel passing through the packet routing node and the channel bypassing the packet routing node extend from the UE to a remote node; Both paths extend from the UE to the destination within the internet. <FIG(s). 3, 4, 6A; para. 0047-0048, 0059>.
selecting the channel bypassing the packet routing node as an initial channel for establishing a
instructing the UE to establish the
SHI_660 does not explicitly teach
a session that is specification a PDU session
However in a similar endeavor, LAI_607 teaches
a session that is specification a PDU session PDU session is established for UE including selecting a path. <para. 0045>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SHI_660 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LAI_607. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to establish an ultra-reliable transmission and a user equipment (UE) and a server using the same. <para. 0004>.
Claim(s) 6, 13
SHI_660 teaches
instructing, after establishment of the initial channel, the UE to split the PDU session between the channel bypassing the packet routing node and the channel passing through the packet routing node based on the channel passing through the packet routing node having higher bandwidth, a lower error rate, or a higher availability than the channel bypassing the packet routing node. The path conditions, RTT values and threshold data mounts are continuously monitored and updated. In some embodiments, a path (e.g., default path) can be become more congested after initial establishment. The system then setups of non-optimal paths is also used the communication of messages. <FIG(s). 2, 3, 4; para. 0046-0054>.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20
SHI_660 teaches
wherein the channel passing through the packet routing node extends through a radio access network (RAN). In one embodiment, the apparatus can be a UE and two possible paths exists: one via a router (packet routing node) and another path bypassing the router (wireless RAN network); in another embodiment the roles can be reversed where the wireless RAN network includes the packet routing node that is bypassed if the router path is selected <FIG(s). 3, 4, 6A; para. 0047-0048, 0059>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI_660 (US20180205660) in view of LAI_607 (US20190364607), and further view of KELLER_331 (US20110110331)
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16
SHI_660 does not explicitly teach
wherein the remote node provides internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) services.
However in a similar endeavor, KELLER_331 teaches
wherein the remote node provides internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) services. Whereby the remote end is an IMS terminal or any other media handling device e.g. a Media Resource Function Processor (MRFP), and vice versa. <para. 0010>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SHI_660 and LAI_607 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by KELLER_331. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a method of anchoring a packet switched session of a subscriber, a control node for anchoring a packet switched session of a subscriber, a method of performing a handover of a session of a subscriber from a packet switched access to a circuit switched access, and a control node for performing a handover of a session of a subscriber from a packet switched access to a circuit switched access with enhances characteristics. <para. 0015>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI_660 (US20180205660) in view of LAI_607 (US20190364607), and further view of AHMADI_909 (US20200358909)
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17
SHI_660 does not explicitly teach
wherein the PDU session is
a voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call or
a voice over new radio (VoNR) call.
However in a similar endeavor, AHMADI_909 teaches
wherein the PDU session is
wherein the PDU session is a voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call or a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session associated with the VoLTE call <para. 0017>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SHI_660 and LAI_607 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by AHMADI_909. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a policy device selection by a common IMS. <para. 0020>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI_660 (US20180205660) in view of LAI_607 (US20190364607), and further view of IWAI_580 (US20150264580)
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18
SHI_660 does not explicitly teach
wherein the packet routing node is a user plane function (UPF).
However in a similar endeavor, IWAI_580 teaches
wherein the packet routing node is a user plane function (UPF). Transfer node 4 includes user plane functions <para. 0054>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SHI_660 and LAI_607 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by IWAI_580. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform efficient terminal grouping in architecture where one CNB is shared among a plurality of mobile terminals for transferring user packets thereof. <para. 0011>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI_660 (US20180205660) in view of LAI_607 (US20190364607), in view of BHASKARAN_618 (US20170126618), and further view of BROWN_132 (US20190230132)
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19
SHI_660 does not explicitly teach
wherein the packet routing node comprises a packet data network gateway (PGW) user plane (PGW-U) and
the routing node comprises an evolved packet data gateway (ePDG).
However in a similar endeavor, BHASKARAN_618 teaches
wherein the packet routing node comprises a packet data network gateway (PGW) user plane (PGW-U) and Network node for routing packets can be a PGW-U <FIG(s). 1B, 9; para. 0051, 0190, 0216>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SHI_660 and LAI_607 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by BHASKARAN_618. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide efficient switching of the routing path upon mobility <para. 0050>.
However in a similar endeavor, BROWN_132 teaches
the routing node comprises an evolved packet data gateway (ePDG). Node can be ePDG. <FIG(s). 4; para. 0018, 0029-0030, 0081>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by SHI_660, LAI_607 and BHASKARAN_618 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by BROWN_132. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for managing wireless communication services and in particular to a method and apparatus for controlling device connection to a Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) service. <para. 0002>.
Relevant Cited References
US20090190482
US20190349280
US20190289616
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights