DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 10/06/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12, 17-18, and 20-21 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 17, and 20-21 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 5, 10-11, 13-16, and 19 have been cancelled to date.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, 12, 18, and 21 were each objected to in the previous Office Action. Applicant has appropriately amended each of these claims to cure the corresponding issues identified as being problematic. As such, the claims objections for claims 4, 9, 12, 18, and 21 are withdrawn herewith.
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 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues that “Shan and Dao fail to disclose that the SMF transmits a request for analytics information to the NWDAF, that the request includes an analytics request set to UE mobility, and analytics filter information includes LADN DNN for a LADN service area.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claim amendments necessitated a new grounds of rejection (Wang in view of Shan), and thus the §103 rejection of the previous Office Action, based on Shan in view of Dao, is no long applied to reject any of the pending claims. Applicant is hereby referred to the currently rejection of claims 1 and 9 under §103, provided herewith.
In the instant Office Action, Wang is fairly relied upon teach/suggest the claim features of: “transmitting a request to for analytics information related to a specific user equipment (UE) or group of UEs to a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF)” (col. 5, ln. 27 through col. 6, ln. 2; and block 401 of Fig. 4 —a request can be sent to a NWDAF, i.e., an NWDAF Analytics-Info request, for analytics information concerning a UE or a UE group), ”wherein the request includes i) an analytics identifier (ID) set to UE mobility (col. 2, lines 25-34, col. 5, lines 13-32, and col. 5, ln. 47 to col. 6, ln. 2 —the analytics request can be a UE mobility data request associated an analytics identifier relating to UE ID, application ID, UE trajectory information including location and timestamp info., etc.), and then, obtaining the analytics information from the NWDAF (col. 6, lines 23-54; and blocks 405 and 407 of Fig. 4 —the NWDAF can then analyze/retrieve the corresponding UE(s) mobility information and provide to the requestor an associated mobility analytics report based on a request associated with UE ID(s), application ID(s), and UE trajectory information including location and timestamp info., etc. —the Examiner notes that Wang’s request is described to include UE location information).
Shan is further relied upon to fairly teach/suggest the claim features of: “analytics location-based filter information including a LADN DNN for a LADN service area,” “determining whether to perform a first procedure or a second procedure for a LADN Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session, based on the analytics information” (paras. [0074]-[0076] —the SMF can provide a LADN DNN to refer to a specific service area as the area of interest AOI, thereby identifying an AOI as a filtering mechanism for determining whether to perform various SM functions/procedures for a LADN based on UE mobility analytics, such as based on UE presence in a particular service area associated with the LADN), “wherein the first procedure is a procedure for releasing the LADN PDU session” (para. [0076] —when the SMF determines that the UE is out of a service area, i.e., by receiving an OUT indication from the AMF, or by not receiving any service area indication from the AMF, the SMF can decide to release a corresponding LADN PDU session of the UE immediately as a first procedural option), and “wherein the second procedure is a procedure for deactivating a user plane connection for the LADN PDU session with maintaining the LADN PDU session (para. [0076] —when the SMF determines that the UE is out of a service area, i.e., by receiving an OUT indication from the AMF, the AMF can alternatively decide to deactivate the UP connection for the LADN PDU session with maintaining the PDU session, as a second procedural option).”
It would be obvious to modify Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting functionality with UE location-based filtering and corresponding LADN PDU session determinations, to improve session management with UE mobility/filtering, as recognized by Shan.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9 are fairly rejected in the instant Office Action under §103 based upon the new grounds of rejection: Wang in view of Shan. As such, Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of the previous Office Action, are either determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot in light of the new rejections applied herewith.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,115,913 B2, Wang, in view of US PG Pub. 2019/0174449 A1, Shan et al. (hereinafter “Shan”).
With respect to claim 1, Wang teaches:
A method comprising:
transmitting a request for analytics information related to a specific user equipment (UE) or group of UEs to a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) (col. 5, ln. 27 through col. 6, ln. 2; and block 401 of Fig. 4 —a request can be sent to a NWDAF, i.e., an NWDAF Analytics-Info request, for analytics information concerning a UE or a UE group)
wherein the request includes i) an analytics identifier (ID) set to UE mobility (col. 2, lines 25-34, col. 5, lines 13-32, and col. 5, ln. 47 to col. 6, ln. 2 —the analytics request can be a UE mobility data request associated an analytics identifier relating to UE ID, application ID, UE trajectory information including location and timestamp info., etc.);
obtaining the analytics information from the NWDAF (col. 6, lines 23-54; and blocks 405 and 407 of Fig. 4 —the NWDAF can then analyze/retrieve the corresponding UE(s) mobility information and provide to the requestor an associated mobility analytics report based on a request associated with UE ID(s), application ID(s), and UE trajectory information including location and timestamp info., etc. —the Examiner notes that Wang’s request is described to include UE location information); and
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
the request including analytics filter information including a LADN DNN for a LADN service area; and
determining whether to perform a first procedure or a second procedure for a LADN Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session, based on the analytics information,
wherein the first procedure is a procedure for releasing the LADN PDU session; and
wherein the second procedure is a procedure for deactivating a user plane connection for the LADN PDU session with maintaining the LADN PDU session.
Shan does teach:
analytics location-based filter information including a LADN DNN for a LADN service area and determining whether to perform a first procedure or a second procedure for a LADN Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session, based on the analytics information (paras. [0074]-[0076] —the SMF can provide a LADN DNN to refer to a specific service area as the area of interest AOI, thereby identifying an AOI as a filtering mechanism for determining whether to perform various SM functions/procedures for a LADN based on UE mobility analytics, such as based on UE presence in a particular service area associated with the LADN),
wherein the first procedure is a procedure for releasing the LADN PDU session (para. [0076] —when the SMF determines that the UE is out of a service area, i.e., by receiving an OUT indication from the AMF, or by not receiving any service area indication from the AMF, the SMF can decide to release a corresponding LADN PDU session of the UE immediately as a first procedural option); and
wherein the second procedure is a procedure for deactivating a user plane connection for the LADN PDU session with maintaining the LADN PDU session (para. [0076] —when the SMF determines that the UE is out of a service area, i.e., by receiving an OUT indication from the AMF, the AMF can alternatively decide to deactivate the UP connection for the LADN PDU session with maintaining the PDU session, as a second procedural option).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 4, Wang in view of Shan teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second procedure comprises:
based on the UE moving out of the LADN service area, transmitting a message to request a corresponding User Plane Function (UPF) to discard downlink data for the LADN PDU session and not to transmit further data notification messages.
Shan does teach:
based on the UE moving out of the LADN service area, transmitting a message to request a corresponding User Plane Function (UPF) to discard downlink data for the LADN PDU session and not to transmit further data notification messages (Shan: paras. [0074]-[0076] —when the UE moves outside the LADN service area, a “UE presence in service area” message, i.e., a UE event notification message, is transmitted to indicate that the UE is OUT of the service area, and as a result of the messaging the UP connection for the LADN PDU session is disabled to ensure that no further data notification messaging are transmitted).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 6, Wang in view of Shan teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the UE mobility analytics includes UE presence pattern information within the LADN service area, and wherein the UE presence pattern information includes one or more of UE presence pattern statistics information and UE presence pattern predictions information.
Shan does teach:
wherein the UE mobility analytics includes UE presence pattern information within the LADN service area, and wherein the UE presence pattern information includes one or more of UE presence pattern statistics information and UE presence pattern predictions information (paras. [0059], [0065], [0074]-[0076], and [0181]; and Dao: paras. [0350], [0357], and [0429]-[0430] —the UE mobility management parameters can include mobility pattern information, statistics, and/or restriction —the alternative term “one or more of” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained in the: Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section, above).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 7, Wang in view of Shan teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the UE presence pattern statistics information includes one or more of:
a Data Network Name (DNN) associated with a LADN service, UE presence pattern information, and information about a percentage at which a UE, any UE or group of UEs come within the LADN service area.
Shan does teach:
UE presence pattern statistics information including a Data Network Name (DNN) associated with a LADN service (paras. [0057]-[0060] and [0072]-[0075]; and Dao: paras. [0113], [0124], and [0136] —UE presence pattern info/stats can include a DNN associated with a LADN service) and UE presence pattern information (paras. [0059], [0065], [0074]-[0076], and [0181]; and Dao: paras. [0350], [0357], and [0429]-[0430] —the UE mobility management parameters can include mobility pattern information, statistics, and/or restriction —the alternative term “one or more of” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained in the: Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section, above).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 8, Wang in view of Shan teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the UE presence pattern predictions information includes one or more of: a Data Network Name (DNN) associated with a LADN service, a UE presence predicted within an analytics target period, and information about a percentage at which a UE, any UE or group of UEs come within the LADN service area.
Shan does teach:
UE presence pattern predictions information including a Data Network Name (DNN) associated with a LADN service (paras. [0057]-[0060] and [0072]-[0075]; and Dao: paras. [0113], [0124], and [0136] —UE presence pattern info/stats can include a DNN associated with a LADN service), and a UE presence predicted within an analytics target period (paras. [0059], [0065], [0074]-[0076], and [0181]; and Dao: paras. [0350], [0357], and [0429]-[0430] —the UE mobility management parameters can include mobility pattern information, statistics, and/or restriction, including presence time information —the alternative term “one or more of” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained in the: Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section, above).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 9 is directed to a SMF node comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory (Wang: col. 3, ln. 45 to col. 5, ln. 39; and NG RAN of Fig. 1; and Shan: BS 111 or RAN 110 and/or server 122 of CN 120 Fig. 1; and hardware resources 700 with processors 710 and memory/storage devices 720 of Fig. 7). As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Wang in view of Shan, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, Wang in view of Shan teaches the SMF node of claim 9.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second procedure comprises based on the UE moving out of the LADN service area, transmitting a message to request a corresponding User Plane Function (UPF) to discard downlink data for the LADN PDU session and not to transmit further data notification messages.
Shan does teach:
wherein the second procedure comprises based on the UE moving out of the LADN service area, transmitting a message to request a corresponding User Plane Function (UPF) to discard downlink data for the LADN PDU session and not to transmit further data notification messages (paras. [0060], [0069]-[0070], [0074] and [0076] —when the UE moves out of a LADN service area the LADN presence in service area message is indicated to be OUT, and UPF can be instructed to discard/deactivate DL PDU data, and to disable further notification messages).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 17, Wang in view of Shan teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second procedure comprises receiving a notification that a UE moved out of the LADN service area from an Access and mobility Management Function (AMF).
Shan does teach:
wherein the second procedure comprises receiving a notification that a UE moved out of the LADN service area from an Access and mobility Management Function (AMF) (paras. [0060], [0069]-[0070], [0074] and [0076] —when the UE moves out of a LADN service area the AMF can send an LADN presence in service area message, i.e., with the UE indicated as OUT, to the SMF).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang’s UE mobility-based analytics request and reporting with UE location-based filtering and LADN PDU session determinations, as taught by Shan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate UE LADN DNN, location-based mobility determinations to improve PDU session management, as recognized by Shan (paras. [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 17, except dependent claim 20 depends from independent claim 9 instead of claim 1. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Wang in view of Shan, for the same reasons cited above for dependent claim 17.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shan, in further view of US Patent No. 12,156,280 B2, Dauneria et al. (hereinafter “Dauneria”).
With respect to claim 18, Wang in view of Shan teaches the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second procedure comprises: transmitting a first message to the AMF to release Next Generation (NG)-Radio Access Network (RAN) resources associated with the LADN PDU session, wherein the first message includes a PDU session ID and N2 Session Management (SM) information, wherein the N2 SM information includes an N2 resource release request, and wherein the N2 resource release request includes a PDU session ID; and receiving a second message in response to the first message from the AMF, wherein the second message includes N2 SM information, and wherein the N2 SM information includes secondary Radio Access Technology (RAT) usage data.
Dauneria does teach:
transmitting a first message to the AMF to release Next Generation (NG)-Radio Access Network (RAN) resources associated with the LADN PDU session (col. 5, No. 11, col. 7, lns. 5-66 —when the user plane connection of the PDU session is active, the SMF transmits a N2 Resource Release Request message associated with a LADN UE PDU session to the AMF to release NG-RAN resources associated with the established UE PDU session),
wherein the first message includes a PDU session ID and N2 Session Management (SM) information (col. 7, ln. 57-66 —the SMF message to the AMF can include an N2 SM Resource Release Request with a PDU Session ID and SM Cause Information),
wherein the N2 SM information includes an N2 resource release request (col. 7, ln. 66 to col. 8, ln. 12; and 502 of Fig. 5 —the message from the SMF to the AMF can include a N2 SM Resource Release Request), and
wherein the N2 resource release request includes a PDU session ID (col. 7, ln.57 to col. 8, ln. 24; and 502 of Fig. 5 —the N2 release request can include the PDU Session ID); and
receiving a second message in response to the first message from the AMF (col. 9, lns. 1-5 and 34-40; and 7a of Fig. 1b —the AMF can respond to the SMF with a N2 SM Resource Release response/ack message),
wherein the second message includes N2 SM information (col. 9, lns. 34-40; and 7a of Fig. 1b —the N2 SM Resource Release response message can include N2 SM information such as user location information and RAT usage data), and
wherein the N2 SM information includes secondary Radio Access Technology (RAT) usage data (col. 9, lns. 34-40; and 7a of Fig. 1b. —the N2 SM Resource Release response message can include N2 SM information such as RAT usage data).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang in view of Shan’s SMF UE mobility SM functionality to include SMF-triggered N2 SM resource release procedures, as taught by Dauneria.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve RAN resource release for a UE when deactivating a UP connection for a LADN PDU session based on UE mobility/location, as recognized by Dauneria (col. 7, ln. 66 to col. 8, ln. 24, col. 9, lns. 1-5 and 34-40; and Fig. 1b).
With respect to claim 21, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 18, except dependent claim 21 depends from independent claim 12 instead of claim 4. As such, claim 21 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Wang in view of Shan and Dauneria, for the same reasons cited above for dependent claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2018/0262924 A1, Dao et al: teaches a request message sent to a NWDAF, including various location filtering information, such as: (R)AN addresses, Registration Areas, Paging Areas, LADN Service Area, Service Areas of NF like AMF, SMF, UPF, whole PLMN, etc.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461