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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the respective claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 12120775 and 11178725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely slightly broader versions of the ‘775 and ‘725 patents. Specifically, the ‘775 and ‘725 claims include details regarding ATSSS, which are absent from the instant claims.
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 18 is 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. The claim recites the limitation "the data notification message". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 8-14, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youn (US 20210219371 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Youn discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by an access and mobility management function (AMF) [fig. 13 “AMF”] from a session management function (SMF) [fig. 13 “SMF”], a first request to activate user plane resources of an access network type from among multiple access network types of a multi access (MA) packet data unit (PDU) session of a wireless device (A request is sent from the SMF to AMF to activate UPF of AN, where MA-PDU sessions are used [fig. 13 no. 1-3a, par. 0229-235, 080, 222-223]), wherein the first request comprises an indication of the access network type, from among the multiple access network types (The request includes AN info to which the signaling is to be transmitted (i.e., from among multiple) [fig. 13 no. 3a, par. 0236, 222-223]); and
transmitting, by the AMF to the SMF, a response to the first request, wherein the response comprises a cause indicating that the AMF attempts to reach the wireless device (The AMF responds with “Attempting to reach UE” [fig. 13 no. 3b, par. 0239-240]).
Regarding claim 8, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Youn further discloses an access and mobility management function (AMF) [fig. 7 “AMF”].
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Youn further discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable medium [fig. 7 “AMF” (inherent)] comprising instructions [fig. 11-12].
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses:
wherein the transmitting the response is performed if the AMF is able to page the wireless device [par. 0239].
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses:
wherein the transmitting the response is performed if the wireless device is in an idle state [par. 0239].
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 19, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses:
wherein the MA PDU session comprises one or more PDU sessions associated with one or more access network types [par. 0219, 226, 142].
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 20, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses wherein the multiple access network types comprise:
a third generation partnership project (3GPP) access network [fig. 6 “3GPP Access”, par. 0078, 142]; and
a non-3GPP access network [fig. 6 “Non-3GPP Access”, par. 0078, 142].
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses:
further comprising sending, to the SMF, a second request to establish the MA PDU session (Update request (i.e., second request) [fig. 9B “… Session Update … Context Request”], as well as continued establishment of session through commands (i.e., “requests”) [fig. 13 no. 5]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses wherein the first request comprises:
an identifier of the MA PDU session (PDU Session ID [par. 0234]); and
access information associated with a child session of the MA PDU session (At least common S-NSSAI [par. 0233-237, 128-134, 142-143]).
Regarding claim 18, Youn discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Youn further discloses wherein the data notification message comprises:
access information associated with the MA PDU session, wherein the access information comprises the access network type [par. 0236]; and
an identifier or a session between the SMF and the UPF associated with the MA PDU session [par. 0234-237, fig. 9 “UPF”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
