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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II. Accordingly, the BRI of claim 5 requires the step of “identifying that the PDU session is released at the UE based on the received suspend notification” and does not include the step of “receiving, from the UE, a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established is to be released,” because the condition—“in case that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is selected at a user equipment (UE) based on verification of roaming information from an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a visited PLMN and a timer to release a protocol data unit (PDU) session previously established is set at the UE”—is not met. Claim 6 further narrows the condition recited in claim 5 but does not impose any additional limitation on any step, contingent or otherwise. Thus, the BRI of claim 6 likewise requires the step of “identifying that the PDU session is released at the UE based on the received suspend notification” and does not include the step of “receiving, from the UE, a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established is to be released,” because the narrower condition of claim 6 is not met.
The BRI of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II. Accordingly, the BRI of claim 12 requires structure capable of performing the function of “receiv[ing], from the UE, a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established is to be released,” should the condition—“in case that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is selected at a user equipment (UE) based on verification of roaming information from an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a visited PLMN and a timer to release a protocol data unit (PDU) session previously established is set at the UE”—occur. Claim 13 narrows the condition of claim 12 but does not add any further functional limitation. Thus, the BRI of claim 12 requires structure capable of performing the function of “receiv[ing], from the UE, a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established is to be released,” should the narrower condition of claim 13 occur.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objection
The phrase “a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established [at the UE] is to be released” recited in claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 should read “a notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established [at the UE] is to be released”, because the notification pertains to the release of the PDN session, not the suspension. An appropriate correction is required.
The phrase “identif[ing] that the PDU session is released at the UE based on the received suspend notification” recited in claims 5 and 12 should read “identif[ing] that the PDU session is to be released at the UE based on the received suspend notification.” Otherwise, it would amount to a new matter. The original specification discloses that “UE 101 … may transmit a … notify notifying that the UE 101 is going to release the previous PDU session” ([0091], emphasis added), which would lead the SMF to identify “that the UE 101 is going to release the previous PDU session.” However, it does not disclose SMF identifying that the PDU session is released at the UE based on a notification indicating that the PDU session is to be released.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended to recite the limitation: “based on the selection of the PLMN, set[ting] a timer to release a protocol data unit (PDU) session previously established at the UE.” Applicant asserts that “the amendment … are supported by paragraphs [0061] and [0088]-[0096] of published Application.” However, the cited paragraphs merely state:
[0089] In step 453, the UE 101 may perform PLMN selection. Here, the UE 101 may perform PLMN selection by selecting a high priority PLMN.
[0090] In step 461, the UE 101 may set a timer to release a PDU session that is previously performed by the UE 101
These disclosures do not indicate any “based on” relationship between PLMN selection and timer setting. Although Fig.4 depicts PLMN selection followed by timer setting, the specification expressly states: “It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the blocks may occur out of the order shown. For example, two blocks shown in succession may in fact be executed substantially concurrently or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order” ([0031], emphasis added.) Because the specification teaches that PLMN selection and timer setting may occur in the reverse order or concurrently, the sequence shown in Fig.4 does not establish the claimed “based on” relationship.
Accordingly, the written description does not support the newly added limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 12 recite the limitation “in case that … is set at the UE, receiv[ing], from the UE, a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established is to be released; and identif[ing] that the PDU session is released at the UE based on the received suspend notification.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the PDU session” and “the received suspend notification” when the condition specified by “in case that … is set at the UE” is not satisfied. Accordingly, it is unclear whether “identif[ing] that the PDU session is released at the UE based on the received suspend notification” is contingent on the condition1, or whether “the PDU session” and “the received suspend notification” were intended to respectively read “a PDU session” and “a received notification.” For purposes of the prior-art rejections, the latter is assumed.
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 of this title, 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 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 20180270781 A1, Baek) in view of Li et al. (WO 2022001671 A1, hereafter Li). EP 4156728 A1 is used as the English translation of Li.
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses
A method performed by a session management function (SMF) (Fig.13, SMF (First session management network element)), the method comprising:
in case that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is selected at a user equipment (UE) based on verification of roaming information from an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a visited PLMN and a timer to release a protocol data unit (PDU) session previously established is set at the UE, receiving, from the UE, a suspend notification for notifying that the PDU session previously established is to be released (the “receiving” step is not required to be performed because the condition is not met; See the claim interpretation above); and
identifying a status of a UE based on the received suspend notification (registration request notifying a status of a UE) (Fig.13; [0473] S1305: The UE sends a registration request (registration request) to the AMF network element, and the AMF network element receives the registration request from the UE. [0474] The registration request includes the location and/or the status of the UE. The location may be the identification information of the RA. [0476] S1306: The AMF network element sends a subscription response to the SMF network element, and the SMF network element receives the subscription response from the AMF network element. [0477] The subscription response includes content, for example, the location and/or the status of the UE, in the registration request in S1305. [0478] It should be noted that the registration request in S1305 and the subscription response in S1306 are used by the UE to send the location and/or the status of the UE to the SMF network element.; SMF identifies a status of UE by receiving registration request notifying the status of a UE).
Li does not disclose that the status of the UE includes a status that a PDU session is released at the UE.
However, Baek discloses:
The status of the UE includes a status that a PDU session is released at the UE (Fig.16; [0150] On the other hand, if the terminal is set to release the PDU session for the non-3gpp access or the user selects to do so in a state where the use of the non-3gpp access is impossible until the timer expires (16-05), the terminal locally releases the PDU session for the non-3gpp access, or performs local deregistration for the non-3gpp access according to the setting (16-06). Thereafter, when the terminal performs registration update through the 3gpp access, the registration request message may include an indication for notifying that the PDU session for the non-3gpp access is to be released or an indication for notifying that the local deregistration has been performed for the non-3gpp access (16-07).).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the status of the UE of Li to inlcude a status that a PDU session is to be released at the UE as taught by Baek, in order to facilitate registration and connection managements via SMF subscription to AMF in Service-Based Architecture (SBA) (Baek, [0147] FIG. 16 illustrates a process of performing registration management and connection management; Li, [0463] S1301: The SMF network element sends a subscription request to the AMF network element, and the AMF network element receives the subscription request from the SMF network element. [0464] The subscription request is for subscribing to a location and/or a status of the UE).
Regarding claim 6, Li and Baek disclose
wherein the roaming information includes mobility-related information and chanced subscription data information (See the claim interpretation and the rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses
A session management function (SMF) (Fig.13, SMF (First session management network element); Fig.17, 1700) comprising:
a transceiver (1702); and
at least one processor (1701) coupled with the transceiver and configured to (In some other embodiments, the communication apparatus 1700 may be used in the communication system shown in FIG. 1, to perform functions of the second device in the communication method shown in FIG. 9; or may be used in the communication system shown in FIG. 2, to perform functions of the SMF network element in the communication method shown in FIG. 10, FIG. 12, FIG. 13, or FIG. 15, functions of the B-SMF network element in the communication method shown in FIG. 11, functions of the AMF network element in the communication method shown in FIG. 12, or functions of the T-RAN in the communication method shown in FIG. 14.):
in case that a public land mobile network (PLMN) is selected at a user equipment (UE) based on verification of roaming information from an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a visited PLMN and a timer to release a protocol data unit (PDU) session previously established is set at the UE, receive, from the UE, a suspend notification (registration request notifying a status of a UE) for notifying a status of the UE (Fig.13; [0473] S1305: The UE sends a registration request (registration request) to the AMF network element, and the AMF network element receives the registration request from the UE. [0474] The registration request includes the location and/or the status of the UE. The location may be the identification information of the RA. [0476] S1306: The AMF network element sends a subscription response to the SMF network element, and the SMF network element receives the subscription response from the AMF network element. [0477] The subscription response includes content, for example, the location and/or the status of the UE, in the registration request in S1305. [0478] It should be noted that the registration request in S1305 and the subscription response in S1306 are used by the UE to send the location and/or the status of the UE to the SMF network element.), and
identify the status of the UE based on the received suspend notification (Fig.13, [0473]-[0478]; SMF identifies a status of UE by receiving registration request notifying the status of a UE).
Li does not disclose that the status of the UE includes a status that the PDU session previously established is to be released at the UE.
However, Baek discloses:
The status of the UE includes a status that a PDU session previously established is to be released at the UE (Fig.16; [0150] On the other hand, if the terminal is set to release the PDU session for the non-3gpp access or the user selects to do so in a state where the use of the non-3gpp access is impossible until the timer expires (16-05), the terminal locally releases the PDU session for the non-3gpp access, or performs local deregistration for the non-3gpp access according to the setting (16-06). Thereafter, when the terminal performs registration update through the 3gpp access, the registration request message may include an indication for notifying that the PDU session for the non-3gpp access is to be released or an indication for notifying that the local deregistration has been performed for the non-3gpp access (16-07).).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the status of the UE of Li to include a status that a PDU session previously established is to be released at the UE as taught by Baek, in order to facilitate registration and connection managements via SMF subscription to AMF in Service-Based Architecture (SBA) (Baek, [0147] FIG. 16 illustrates a process of performing registration management and connection management; Li, [0463] S1301: The SMF network element sends a subscription request to the AMF network element, and the AMF network element receives the subscription request from the SMF network element. [0464] The subscription request is for subscribing to a location and/or a status of the UE).
Regarding claim 13, Li and Baek disclose
wherein the roaming information includes mobility-related information and changed subscription data information (See the claim interpretation and the rejection of claim 12 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moo Ryong Jeong whose telephone number is (571)272-9617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached on (571)272-0734. 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.
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 The line break and the indentation before “identif[ing] that the PDU session is released at the UE based on the received suspend notification” should be removed if “identif[ing]” is contingent on the condition.