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 .
Claim objections
Claims 14-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Some of the claims among 14-19 are repeated in the appended claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 12-14, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZONG et al (US 2022/0272584) in view of SUN et al (US 2021/0168595)
Regarding claim 1, 10, ZONG discloses a method/AMF for transferring Protocol Data Unit, PDU, sessions, and their associated Quality of Service, QoS, Flows, of a User Equipment, UE, during a mobility procedure in which the UE is moved from a Fifth Generation System, 5GS, to an Evolved Packet System, EPS, the method performed by an Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF, in a 5G Core, 5GC, of the 5GS, (ZONG: ¶83, ¶77, a session is moved from first network (5G) to a second network (LTE) when a UE is moved from the 5G to LTE network; the method performed by an AMF) and comprising: -
determining that a target Mobility Management Entity, MME, for the mobility procedure in the EPS supports a first number of EPS Bearers that is less than a second number of EPS Bearer Identities, EBIs, wherein the EBIs are assigned to the QoS Flows of one or more PDU sessions, of the UE, said one or more PDU sessions that are to be transferred from the 5GS to the EPS (ZONG: ¶85, ¶94, it is determined at the AMF of the 5G network that the numbers of EBIs supported by the MME of the LTE network are less than the EBIs detected at the 5G (allocated to the flows at the 5G));
determining which of the EBIs that are not to be transferred to the target MME (ZONG: ¶88, ¶118, ¶122, it is determined by the AMF that MME of the LTE does not support the extended EBI among the EBIs i.e. the bearer contexts with EBIs <4); and
requesting initiating the release of the one or more PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows for which the EBIs are determined not to be transferred to the target MME (ZONG: ¶118, ¶134, ¶145, Fig. 5-Fig. 6, requesting a release of the context of the PDU session for which the EBIs are determined to be not supported at the target MME by sending a session context request message);
wherein determining which of the PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows of the UE are not to be transferred to the target MME comprises marking EBI values in a range as not to be transferred (ZONG: ¶145, a range of EBI values are determined and indicated (marked) in a list, and sent in message as not to be handed over as the MME does not support this range e.g. EBI values less 5);
wherein determining which of the PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows of the UE are not to be transferred to the target MME further comprises, if more than 8 EBI values remain assigned to PDU sessions, determining additional EBI values not to be transferred (ZONG: ¶102 and ¶106, maximum of 8 EPS bearers are able to be handed over and supported by the target MME; the AMF selects only a maximum of 8 EBIs out of the EBIs that fall within 5 to 15; these are the additional EBI values in addition to the EBI values within the range of 0 to 4).
ZONG remains silent regarding the additional EBI values not to be transferred are determined based on Single Network Slice Selection Assistance information, S-NSSAI, values, Allocation and Retention Priority, ARP, values or both S-NSSAI values (s) and ARP values.
However, SUN et al (US 2021/0168595) discloses the additional EBI values not to be transferred are determined based on Single Network Slice Selection Assistance information, S-NSSAI, values, and Allocation and Retention Priority, ARP, values (SUN: ¶95-96, EBIs to be released are based on ARP (a component of allocation retention policy) and S-NSSAI).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ZONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of SUN as it provides a technique to based the decision precisely on the capability of the slice instead of the entire network as the slice may have limited resources in at least some scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ZONG with teachings of SUN in order to resource management.
Regarding claim 2, 12, ZONG modified by SUN discloses the method/AMF of claim 1, further comprising retrieving a Session Management, SM, context for the PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows for which the EBIs are determined to be transferred (ZONG: ¶135, ¶147, session management context is received for EBIs > 4 that are to be transferred to the target MME).
Regarding claim 3, 13, ZONG modified by SUN discloses method/AMF of claim1, wherein the target MME does not support 15 EPS Bearers (ZONG: ¶134, ¶145, the target MME does not support 15 EBIs).
Regarding claim 4, 14, ZONG modified by SUN discloses method/AMF of claim1, wherein the target MME supports 8 EPS Bearers and more than 8 EBIs are assigned to PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows that are to be transferred (ZONG: ¶106, 8 EBIs are supported by the target MME and the allocated bearer identities to be transferred from the 5G network are more than 8).
Regarding claim 6, 16, ZONG modified by SUN discloses method/AMF of claim 5/15, wherein determining which of the PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows of the UE are not to be transferred to the target MME comprises marking EBI values in a range 1 to 4 as not to be transferred (ZONG: ¶134-135, a range of EBI values, from 1 through 4, are indicated (marked) as not to be handed over).
Claim(s) 9, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZONG modified by SUN as applied to claim 1/10 above, further in view of SIOMINA et al (2013/0040683)
Regarding claim 9, 19, ZONG modified by SUN discloses method of claim1, wherein determining which of the PDU sessions and/or QoS Flows of the UE are not to be transferred to the target MME comprises, if some QoS Flows in a given PDU session are not to be transferred, determining if a QoS data flow associated with a default QoS rule is to be transferred based on a transferring decision (ZONG: ¶106, 8 EBIs are supported by the target MME and the allocated bearer identities to be transferred from the 5G network are more than 8; ¶135, ¶147, ¶83, context is received for EBIs > 4 that are to be transferred to the target MME; flow with default QoS rule where when the QoS rule defines that the default QoS flow with EBI value less than 5 (1 to 4) is not transferred and more than 4 (5 to 15) is also not transferred)
ZONG modified by SUN remains silent regarding the policy based on an Allocation and Retention Priority, ARP, Priority Level, PL, an ARP Pre-emption Vulnerability Indicator, PVI, or both the ARP PL and the ARP PVI.
However, SIOMINA et al (2013/0040683) discloses the policy based on an Allocation and Retention Priority, ARP, Priority Level, PL, an ARP Pre-emption Vulnerability Indicator, PVI, or both the ARP PL and the ARP PVI (SIOMINA: ¶72, ARP priority level (PL) is being used to determine which EBI is transferred).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ZONG modified by SUN would have been motivated to use the teachings of SIOMINA as it provides a way to use policies compatible with the EBI management in order to improve resource management (¶72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ZONG modified by SUN with teachings of SIOMINA in order to improve resource management.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
766
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Examiner respectfully submits that ZONG, ¶106, explains and teaches how a two-step process is utilized by the AMF to determine which session context to have transferred to the MME of 4G network.
[0102] In another implementation, it is assumed that a range of EBI values allocated by the AMF includes 1 to 4 in addition to 5 to 15, bearers corresponding to values ranging from 1 to 4 are default EPS bearers/default QoS flows, and a quantity of allocated bearer identities with EBIs values ranging from 5 to 15 does not exceed N. In this case, an EBI corresponding to a default EPS bearer/default QoS flow and an EBI corresponding to a connection (PDN connection)/session (PDU session) associated with the default EPS bearer/default QoS flow need to be removed from EBI values included in the indication information. For example, if a bearer whose EBI value is equal to 2 is a default EPS bearer, and a session associated with the default EPS bearer further includes a bearer whose EBI value is equal to 6, the AMF needs to remove both the bearer whose EBI is equal to 6 and the bearer whose EBI is equal to 2, and the indication information includes a remaining bearer identity of the allocated bearer identities with EBI values ranging from 5 to 15 from which the EBI value of 6 is removed. Optionally, it is assumed that a range of EBI values allocated by the AMF includes 1 to 4 in addition to 5 to 15, bearers corresponding to values ranging from 1 to 4 are default EPS bearers/default QoS flows, and a quantity of allocated bearer identities with EBIs values ranging from 5 to 15 exceeds N. In this case, an EBI corresponding to a default EPS bearer/default QoS flow and an EBI corresponding to a connection/session associated with the default EPS bearer/default QoS flow need to be removed from EBI values included in the indication information. If there are not more than N allocated bearer identities after the EBIs are removed, the indication information includes bearer identities corresponding to EBI values ranging from 5 to 15 from which the EBI corresponding to the default EPS bearer/default QoS flow and the EBI corresponding to the connection/session associated with the default EPS bearer/default QoS flow are removed. If there are still more than N allocated bearer identities after the EBIs are removed, N bearer identities are selected from the more than N allocated bearer identities, and the indication information includes the N EBIs. Optionally, when the first bearer is a bearer that the second access management network element does not support, the indication information includes the EBI corresponding to the default EPS bearer/default QoS flow and the EBI corresponding to the connection/session associated with the default EPS bearer/default QoS flow in the allocated EBIs with values ranging from 1 to 4. For example, if a bearer whose EBI is equal to 2 is a default EPS bearer, and a session associated with the default EPS bearer further includes a bearer whose EBI is equal to 6, values of the allocated EBIs range from 5 to 12, and values of EBIs included in the indication information include 2 and 6.
…
[0106] Optionally, when the indication information includes the bearer identity of the first bearer, the first access management network element receives context information corresponding to the first bearer. The following uses an example in which the MME supports a maximum of N EBIs for description, where N may be less than or equal to 8. When the first bearer is a bearer that the second access management network element supports, in an implementation, assuming that values of EBIs allocated by the AMF all fall within 5 to 15, and a quantity of allocated bearer identities does not exceed N, the first access management network element receives context information corresponding to bearer identities that the second access management network element has allocated. Optionally, assuming that values of EBIs allocated by the AMF all fall within 5 to 15, and a quantity of allocated bearer identities exceeds N, the first bearer includes any eight bearer identities of allocated bearer identities. In this implementation, if the indication information includes the any eight bearer identities of the allocated bearer identities, the first access management network element receives context information corresponding to the any eight bearer identities of the allocated bearer identities. Optionally, in this implementation, when the first bearer is a bearer that the second access management network element does not support, the indication information includes bearer identities of all the allocated bearer identities excluding the any N bearer identities. For example, if the allocated bearer identities are 5 to 14, and EBIs corresponding to bearer identities 5 to 12 are selected as available/handover-supported bearers, bearers corresponding to bearer identities 13 and 14 are unavailable/handover-unsupported bearers, that is, the indication information includes the bearer identities with EBI values of 13 and 14. Correspondingly, the first access management network element receives context information corresponding to the bearer identities with EBI values of 13 and 14. Optionally, the first access management network element receives context information corresponding to the bearer identities with EBI values of 5 to 12.
When the AMF determines this, it releases bearer contexts of EBI (EPS Bearer Identities) < 4 and only decides to transfers context of bearers with EBIs >4. Additionally, out of the one that are > 4 i.e. 5 to 15, only a maximum of 8 are transferred if there are more than 8 EBIs present for the session.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. ZONG expressly discloses that additional EBI values that are not to be transferred is based on the target MME not being able to handle more than 8 EBIs for the session.
ZONG remains silent regarding the additional EBI values not to be transferred are determined based on Single Network Slice Selection Assistance information, S-NSSAI, values, Allocation and Retention Priority, ARP, values or both S-NSSAI values (s) and ARP values.
However, newly cited reference. SUN et al (US 2021/0168595) discloses the additional EBI values not to be transferred are determined based on Single Network Slice Selection Assistance information, S-NSSAI, values, and Allocation and Retention Priority, ARP, values (SUN: ¶95-96, EBIs to be released are based on ARP (a component of allocation retention policy) and S-NSSAI).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ZONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of SUN as it provides a technique to base the decision on the requirement of the network slice instance instead of the entire network as the slice may have limited resources in at least some scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of ZONG with teachings of SUN in order to improve resource management.
All remaining arguments are addressed above as they are based on the above addressed arguments.
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 OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461