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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 19/009,364 last filed on January 03rd, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, directed to PDU SESSION MODIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC.
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/989,134. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of only a slight difference in a PDU session establishment request message vs a PDU session modification request message. The rest of the contents within such a message are all the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 12,010,549 B2 to Huang-Fu et al. (referred to hereafter as “Huang”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0051516 A1 to Huang-Fu et al. (referred to hereafter as “Huang2”).
As to claim 1, Huang discloses a method of operating in user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session Modification Request message (Huang discloses of a similar basic process, with many varying examples involving a UE sending out a PDU related request and getting back a response, e.g., Huang: col. 6, ll. 49-66 and Fig. 5 example); and
receiving a PDU Session Modification Command message, a PDU Session Modification ACK message or a PDU Session Modification Reject message in response to the transmitting of the PDU Session Modification Request message (Following the same Fig. 5 example, the network can reject the request and send back a PDU session modification reject message (e.g., Huang: col. 6, ll. 56-60 and Fig. 5). In other variation examples, the UE could’ve gotten back a PDU session modification command message that allowed the request (e.g., Huang: col. 6, l. 10 and col. 7, ll. 16-17)), wherein
the PDU Session Modification Request message comprises a PDU session type to indicate industrial traffic (Regarding the PDU session modification request message, while Huang does not explicitly use the term or disclose about specific industrial traffic here, it is understood that industrial traffic differs from regular networking traffic in that it requires more precision and has more constraints, such as with various QoS factors, and a lot of the examples Huang describes are involved with managing those resources or constraints within each of the PDU sessions.
To supplement this obvious aspect, Huang2 more expressly discloses in another similar reference about working with certain radio access technologies, that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
Based upon Huang2’s teachings and how much these two references overlap in this field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that what Huang discloses within the various examples can be applicable towards industrial traffic, given all the details associated with various parameters, and as suggested from Huang2’s explicitly mentioning of encompassing certain industrial network traffic), and
the PDU Session Modification Reject message comprises a cause value indicating that a network does not support the PDU session type, upon receiving the PDU Session Modification Reject message (Regarding the PDU session modification reject message coming back, Huang’s various example have a cause value included, which would explain the reasons for the rejection, such as cause #67 or #69 for example, e.g., Huang: col. 6, l. 58 and Fig. 5).
As to claim 2, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the industrial traffic comprises traffic for a Time Sensitive Network (TSN), Time-Sensitive Communication (TSC), Deterministic Networking (DetNet), Ultra Reliable and Low Latency Communications (URLLC) or Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (Following claim 1, once again, while Huang does not explicitly use the term or disclose about specific industrial traffic here, Huang’s described examples are still relevant as they appear to deal with traffic or session that require more precision and control.
Huang2 more expressly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 3, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PDU Session Modification Reject message comprises a back-off timer (Following claim 1, the returned reject message can include a back-off (BO) timer, e.g., Huang: col. 6, l. 59 and Fig. 5).
As to claim 4, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PDU Session Modification Reject message comprises a Re-attempt indicator (Following claim 1, the returned reject message can also include a re-attempt indicator, e.g., Huang: col. 6, ll. 25-27 and col. 8, ll. 47-50 and Figs. 4, 5, and 8), and
the Re-attempt indicator indicates whether the UE is allowed to attempt a PDU Session Modification procedure in an equivalent Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) using a same data network name (DNN) and a same Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (Huang explains that each PDU session has an associated DNN and PLMN and S-NSSAI, and so with the re-attempt indicator in the returned message, it would cause the UE to re-attempt the using the same DNN, PLMN and S-NSSAI, e.g., Huang: col. 3, ll.39-44 and col. 5, ll. 5-19).
As to claim 5, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PDU Session Modification Request message further comprises capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic (Following claim 1, while Huang does not explicitly disclose of details related to industrial traffic, Huang’s examples do include various parameters like the timers, and re-attempt indicators and QoS constraints, which would suggest the higher level of control and constraints that are involved with industrial traffic (e.g., Huang: col. 5, ll. 54-67 and col. 6, 54-56).
Huang2 more explicitly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 6, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a Registration Request message comprising capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic (Following claim 1 and similar to claim 5, while Huang does not explicitly disclose of details related to industrial traffic, an initial registration request message can include various parameters like the timers and QoS constraints (or be added later in a medication message), which would suggest the higher level of control and constraints that are involved with industrial traffic. While Huang does not explicitly elaborate on the registration request message, it would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date that these parameters can be included within any message, such as with the initial registering step or later added in a further medication step (e.g., Huang: col. 5, ll. 54-67 and col. 7, ll. 36-39, and Fig. 6, initial registration to the VPLMN1).
Huang2 more explicitly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 7, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a Registration Accept message comprising capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic (Following claim 1 and similar to claims 5 and 6, while Huang does not explicitly disclose of details related to industrial traffic, nor specifically about accepting a registration request, it would have been obvious that Huang’s examples already establish that the UE has a connected session and is further making modification requests. There are other examples of a returned message, which would similarly establish the same concept, where the retuned message (even if it’s a modification request, would be similar to a registration request) can include specifics regarding the various parameters that get established with the PDU session, including the timers and QoS constraints, which would suggest the higher level of control and constraints that are involved with industrial traffic (e.g., Huang: col. 5, ll. 54-67 and col. 7, ll. 36-39, and Fig. 6, registration is established already to the VPLMN1).
Huang2 more explicitly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 8, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a UL Non-Access Stratum (NAS) TRANSPORT message comprising capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic (Following claim 1 and similar to claims 5, the messages between the UE and the network are already interpreted and considered NAS transport type messages, and going from the UE to the network, those messages are further interpreted as uplink or UL. Therefore, this is similarly interpreted like claims 5 or 6, with messages from the UE to the network, that can contain specifics regarding the various parameters that get established with the PDU session, including the timers and QoS constraints, even though Huang does not explicitly disclose of industrial traffic (e.g., Huang: col. 5, ll. 54-67 and col. 6, 54-56).
Huang2 more explicitly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 9, Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a DL Non-Access Stratum (NAS) TRANSPORT message comprising capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic (Following claim 1 and similar to claim 8, this is interpreted as the downlink direction or messages coming from the network to the UE, that can contain specifics regarding the various parameters that get established with the PDU session, including the timers and QoS constraints, even though Huang does not explicitly disclose of industrial traffic (e.g., Huang: col. 5, ll. 54-67 and col. 6, 54-56).
Huang2 more explicitly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claims 11-13, see the similar corresponding rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4 respectively.
As to claim 14, Huang further discloses the chipset of claim 11, wherein the PDU Session Modification Reject message further comprises capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic (Following claim 11 and similar to claims 7 and/or 9, a returned rejection message can contain specifics regarding the various parameters that get established with the PDU session, including the timers and QoS constraints, even though Huang does not explicitly disclose of industrial traffic (e.g., Huang: col. 5, ll. 54-67 and col. 6, 54-56).
Huang2 more explicitly discloses of working with certain radio access technologies that further encompasses Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) (e.g., Huang2: ¶¶ 14 and 75-76).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Huang2’s teachings together within Huang’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 15, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 6.
As to claims 16-20, see the similar corresponding rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-6 respectively.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 12,010,549 B2 to Huang in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0051516 A1 to Huang2 and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2025/0234329 A1 to Hu et al. (referred to hereafter as “Hu”)
As to claim 10, Huang does not disclose of the method of claim 1, wherein capability information or indication related to the industrial traffic is configured in the UE or universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE (Following claim 1, both Huang references do not elaborate on the USIM of the UE.
Hu more explicitly disclose in a similar field of endeavor that certain variables or parameters can be stored within a USIM of the UE (e.g., Hu: ¶ 2 and 146), which means other capabilities information related to the industrial traffic can be included as well.
Based on Hu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Hu’s teachings within Huang’s overall system and teachings as this can reinforce and provide additional information towards establishing a PDU session).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights