DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2025 and 07/28/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claim 1, 10 and 19 are amended.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 8-9), filed on 07/28/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S2-2104319, in view of TS23.503, and in view of TS23.502.
Per claim 1, 10 ad 19:
Regarding claim 1, S2-2104319 teaches ‘An apparatus for a first policy control function’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.3.2.2.1-1]: “PCF”, an apparatus for a policy control function); ‘the apparatus comprising: at least one processor’ (existence of processor for an apparatus is implied); ‘at least one memory’ (existence of memory for an apparatus is implied); ‘comprising code that, when executed by the at least one processor’ (this is implied);
‘causes the apparatus to:
receive, from a session management function, a request for a policy to be established for a session for a subscriber’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.3.2.2.1-1]: Step 7a, Step 7b, [Page 9]: “the SMF performs PCF selection ... The SMF may perform an SM Policy Association Establishment procedure as defined in clause 4.16.4 to establish an SM Policy Association with the PCF”, PCF may receive a request from SMF about a policy to be established for a session of a subscriber);
‘wherein the subscriber is subscribed in a second domain and the first policy control function is configured to operate in a first domain’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.3.2.2.1-1]: “roaming with local breakout”, the roaming subscriber with local break out may be subscriber from a different domain (subscriber’s HPLMN); [Page 15]: “In local breakout roaming, the V-PCF interacts with the UDR of the VPLMN”);
‘determine a policy for the requested session’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.16.5.1-1]: Step 4, [Page 16]: “The PCF makes a policy decision”);
‘signal the at least one trigger condition to the session management function’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.3.2.2.1-1]: Step 7b. [Page 9]: “The PCF may provide policy information defined in clause 5.2.5.4 (and in TS 23.503 [20]) to SMF”; [Page 15]: “a Policy Control Request Trigger condition”, may signal a trigger condition to SMF);
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach, but TS23.503 in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘the determined policy comprising an indication of an allowed usage for the subscriber and at least one trigger condition for the policy to be updated’ (TS23.503: [Page 82: Table 6.2-3]: “Remaining allowed usage subscription information”; [Page 9]: “Monitoring key: information used by the SMF and PCF for usage monitoring control purposes as a reference to a given set of service data flows or application (s), that all share a common allowed usage on a per UE and DNN basis”; [Page 84]: “For the purpose of usage monitoring control the PCF shall request the Usage report trigger”);
‘wherein the allowed usage is retrieved based on an identifier for the subscriber and an identifier for a network associated with the first policy control function’ (TS23.503: [Page 84]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … usage monitoring related information for Monitoring key(s) per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE may also be received from the UDR, together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”, PCF retrieves allowed usage based on DNN (an identifier for a network associated with PCF) and a given UE). However, combination S2-2104319 and TS23.503 fails to expressly teach retrieve allowed usage based on an identifier for the subscriber;
‘monitor the allowed usage for the subscriber by updating the policy in response to receipt of an indication that the at least one trigger condition has been met’ (TS23.503: [Page 84]: “The PCF supports usage monitoring control for a PDU Session … Updating the remaining allowed usage after the SMF reporting, minimizes the risk of exceeding the usage allowance”);
‘wherein the at least one trigger condition comprises a reset of the allowed usage’ (TS23.503: [Page 82]: “The Reset period only applies to usage monitoring control instances that periodically reset the allowed usage”, trigger condition may comprise a reset of the allowed usage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
TS23.502 in the same field of endeavor teaches PCF retrieves allowed usage based on SUPI (an identifier for the subscriber) and DNN (an identifier for a network) (TS23.502: [Page 385]: “If the PCF does not have the subscriber's subscription related information, it sends a request to the UDR by invoking Nudr_DM_Query (SUPI, DNN, S-NSSAI, Policy Data, PDU Session policy control data, Remaining allowed Usage data) service in order to receive the information related to the PDU Session”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.502’s teaching with that of combination of S2-2104319 and TS23.503 to conform to 3GPP specification in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the memory and the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Per claim 5 and 14:
Regarding claim 5, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach, but TS23.503 teaches ‘signaling, to a data repository function that operates in the first domain, a request for a remaining amount of the allowed usage, the request comprising an identification of the subscriber’ (TS23.503: [Page 81: Table 6.2-2], [Page 82: Table 6.2-3], [Page 84]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”; [Page 84]: “Once the PCF receives a usage report from the SMF the PCF shall deduct the value of the usage report from the remaining allowed usage”; [Page 84]: “the PCF shall store the remaining allowed usage, i.e. the information about the remaining overall amount of resources, in the UDR”);
‘receiving an indication of the allowed usage from the data repository function’ (discussed in element above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Per claim 6 and 15:
Regarding claim 6, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach, but TS23.503 teaches ‘the indication of the allowed usage’ (TS23.503: [Page 81: Table 6.2-2], [Page 82: Table 6.2-3], [Page 84]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above).
Per claim 7 and 16:
Regarding claim 7, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of S2-2104319 and TS23.503 teaches ‘receiving, from the session management function, an indication that the at least one trigger condition has been met’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.16.5.1-1]: Step 1. [Page 15]: “When a Policy Control Request Trigger condition is met the SMF requests to update (Npcf_SMPolicyControl_Update) the SM Policy Association and provides information on the conditions that have been met”);
‘signaling, to a data repository function configured to operate in the same domain as the first policy control function, a request to update a usage information for the subscriber that is stored by the data repository function’ (TS23.503: [Page 81: Table 6.2-2], [Page 82: Table 6.2-3], [Page 84]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”; [Page 84]: “Once the PCF receives a usage report from the SMF the PCF shall deduct the value of the usage report from the remaining allowed usage”; [Page 84]: “the PCF shall store the remaining allowed usage, i.e. the information about the remaining overall amount of resources, in the UDR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching of usage monitoring with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above).
Per claim 8 and 17:
Regarding claim 8, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 teaches the apparatus of claim 7 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach, but TS23.503 teaches ‘in response to receiving said indication that the at least one trigger condition has been met, retrieving information identifying a quantity of the allowed usage that is remaining following the trigger condition being met’ (TS23.503: [Page 81: Table 6.2-2], [Page 82: Table 6.2-3], [Page 84, lines 4-7]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”; [Page 84, lines 24-25]: “Once the PCF receives a usage report from the SMF the PCF shall deduct the value of the usage report from the remaining allowed usage”; [Page 84, lines 41-42]: “the PCF shall store the remaining allowed usage, i.e. the information about the remaining overall amount of resources, in the UDR”);
‘wherein said signaling the request to update the policy comprises a request to update the allowed usage’ (discussed in element above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Per claim 9 and 18:
Regarding claim 9, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 teaches ‘wherein the first domain is a visited domain, and the second domain is a home domain for the subscriber’ (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.3.2.2.1-1]: “roaming with local breakout”; in roaming with local breakout, the serving network is V-PLMN and subscriber has its H-PLMN; [Page 15, lines 21-22]: “In local breakout roaming, the V-PCF interacts with the UDR of the VPLMN”).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Claims 2-4, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502, and in view of Karampatsis et al. (US 20240031231 A), hereinafter “Karampatsis”.
Per claim 2, 11 and 20
Regarding claim 2, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 teaches PCF usage monitoring for roaming subscriber with local breakout to perform AMBR monitoring and enforcement, but fails to expressly teach usage monitoring for remaining allowed usage. S2-2104319 refers to TS 23.503 about the behavior for PCF monitoring (S2-2104319: [Figure 4.3.2.2.1-1]: “roaming with local breakout”; [Page 1]: “Update procedures of monitoring and enforcement of the Total Bandwidth per S-NSSAI that is performed aggregating the MBR allocated to each PDU session established in that S-NSSAI"; [Page 10]: “the behaviour of PCF for monitoring … is defined in TS 23.503”).
TS 23.503 teaches the PCF usage monitoring for remaining allowed usage, but the Information Elements in Policy Data defined by TS 23.503 on usage monitoring for remaining allowed usage do not contain PLMN and so do not allow to monitor usage monitoring for roaming subscriber with local breakout by retrieving and updating remaining allowed usage from home PCF/UDR (TS 23.503: [Page 82: Table 6.2-3] and [Page 107: Table 6.4-1]).
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach ‘signaling, to a second policy control function that operates in the second domain, a request for the allowed usage, the request comprising an identification of the subscriber and an identification of a data connectivity being requested; and receiving the allowed usage from the second policy control function’.
TS23.503 only briefs about the interaction between V-PCF and H-PCF and refers to TS23.502 in the same field of endeavor about the detail procedures (TS23.503: [Page 23, lines 12-16]: “Interactions between V-PCF and H-PCF ... Relay of notification of changes from the V-PCF in the VPLMN to the H-PCF as defined in clause 4.16 of TS 23.502”).
TS23.502 teaches ‘signaling, to a second policy control function that operates in the second domain, a request for the allowed usage’ (TS23.502: [Figure 4.16.11-1]: step 3, [Page 400]: “The V-PCF forwards the information received from AMF in step 2 to the H-PCF”). However, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 fails to expressly teach a request for the allowed usage.
‘the request comprising an identification of the subscriber and an identification of a data connectivity being requested’ (TS23.502: [Figure 4.16.11-1]: step 2, step 3, [Page 399]: “The AMF sends a Npcf UEPolicy Control Create Request with the following information: SUPI, … Serving Network (PLMN ID, or PLMN ID and NID)”; [Page 400]: “The V-PCF forwards the information received from AMF in step 2 to the H-PCF”);
‘receiving the allowed usage from the second policy control function’ (TS23.502: [Figure 4.16.11-1]: Step 4, [Page 400, lines 9-10]: “The H-PCF sends a Npcf UEPolicy Control Create Response to the V-PCF. The H-PCF may provide the Policy Control Request Trigger parameters in the Npcf UEPolicy Control Create Response”). However, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 fails to expressly teach receiving the allowed usage from the second PCF.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of TS23.502 and TS23.503 with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
However, Karampatsis in the same field of endeavor teaches Policy Data with “Remaining allowed usage data” and “PLMN ID for the UDR in VPLMN” (Karampatsis: [TABLE 1]: “Remaining allowed usage data”, “PLMN ID (for the UDR in VPLMN)”; [0099]: “the Remaining allowed Usage data are described in 3GPP TS 23.503”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karampatsis’s teaching with that of combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503 and TS23.502 for V-PCF to retrieve and update remaining allowed usage from home PCF/UDR, i.e., first PCF to signal, to a second policy control function that operates in the second domain, a request for the allowed usage, the request comprising an identification of the subscriber and an identification of a data connectivity being requested; and receive the allowed usage from the second policy control function in order to provide traffic policies to visited PLMN with local breakout by supporting usage monitoring for remaining allowed usage on roaming subscriber with local breakout (Karampatsis: [0065]: “provide the traffic steering policies … to the visited PLMN (“VPLMN”) providing local breakout”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the memory and the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Per claim 3 and 12:
Regarding claim 3, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503, TS53.502 and Karampatsis teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 2 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach, but TS23.503 teaches ‘signal, to a data repository function configured to operate in the first domain, a request for the allowed usage’ (TS23.503: [Page 81: Table 6.2-2], [Page 82: Table 6.2-3], [Page 84]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”; [Page 84]: “Once the PCF receives a usage report from the SMF the PCF shall deduct the value of the usage report from the remaining allowed usage”; [Page 84]: “the PCF shall store the remaining allowed usage, i.e. the information about the remaining overall amount of resources, in the UDR”);
‘receive an indication from the data repository function that the allowed usage is not available at the data repository’, this is implicitly taught when UDR does not have the allowed usage date yet (discussed in element above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503, Karampatsis and TS23.502 teaches ‘wherein said signaling to the second policy control function is performed in response to the received indication from the data repository function’ (this could be concluded from claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above).
Per claim 4 and 13:
Regarding claim 4, combination of S2-2104319, TS23.503, TS53.502 and Karampatsis teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 2 (discussed above).
S2-2104319 does not expressly teach, but TS23.503 teaches ‘an indication of a data network name and an indication of slice information associated with the session being provided’ (TS23.503: [Page 81: Table 6.2-2], [Page 82: Table 6.2-3], [Page 84]: “The PCF may receive usage monitoring related information per DNN and S-NSSAI combination and UE from the UDR … together with the corresponding remaining allowed usage related information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine TS23.503’s teaching with that of S2-2104319 to conform to 3GPP specification on usage monitoring in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the method implemented by the apparatus in claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462