DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to a response filed on February 12th, 2026. In this office action:
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-16, and 19-22 are pending.
Claims 15-16 and 19-22 are rejected.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-14 are objected to.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on February 12th, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 15-16 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 9 have been canceled.
Claims 20-22 have been added.
The previously raised claim objection for claims 15 and 19 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The previously raised 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is withdrawn for claims 15-16, and 19 in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on February 12th, 2026, have been considered by the Examiner and are partially persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument regarding claim 15 that “Li fails to teach or suggest "transmit a second message to a fifth network function, wherein the second message initiates the P-CSCF restoration, wherein the fifth network function comprises a mobility management entity (MME), as recited in amended claim 15,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Li discloses transmit a second message to a fifth network function, wherein the second message initiates the P-CSCF restoration, wherein the fifth network function comprises a mobility management entity (MME) (See Parag. [0082]; after the HSS receives the SAR request of the S-CSCF, the HSS sends a subscription data updating request, which carries the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, to the MME (fifth network function) ... Se Parag. [0088]; after receiving the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, the SGW/PGW reselects a P-CSCF for the UE, and sends a bearer updating response, which carries the P-CSCF list included in the PCO, to the MME).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0178336), hereinafter Li, in view of Bartolome Rodrigo et al. (Pub No. US 2015/0195864), hereinafter Bartolome; and further in view of Jain et al. (Pub No. US 2019/0182897, claiming priority to Provisional application No. 62/630,107 filed on 02/13/2018), hereinafter Jain.
Claim 15. Li discloses [a] fourth network function for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (See Parag. [0275]) and configured to cause the fourth network function to:
receive a first message from a first network function, wherein the first message comprises a request for proxy (P) call session control function (CSCF) (P-CSCF) restoration (See Parag. [0080-0081]; the S-CSCF detects the P-CSCF failure, and then sends an SAR request, which carries a P-CSCF failure recovery indication, to an HSS; the HSS returns an SAA response to the S-CSCF);
transmit a second message to a fifth network function, wherein the second message initiates the P-CSCF restoration, wherein the fifth network function comprises a mobility management entity (MME) (See Parag. [0082]; after the HSS receives the SAR request of the S-CSCF, the HSS sends a subscription data updating request, which carries the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, to the MME (fifth network function) ... Se Parag. [0088]; after receiving the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, the SGW/PGW reselects a P-CSCF for the UE, and sends a bearer updating response, which carries the P-CSCF list included in the PCO, to the MME);
receive a third message from the fifth network function, wherein the third message comprises confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration (See Parag. [0089]; the MME sends a bearer updating response, which carries the P-CSCF list, to the UE. See also Parag. [0082-0088]).
Li doesn’t explicitly disclose transmit a fourth message to the first network function, wherein the fourth message comprises the confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration.
However, Bartolome discloses transmit a fourth message to the first network function, wherein the fourth message comprises the confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration (See Parag. [0092]; the HSS may include the UE capability information received during the UE registration to IMS, and stored at the HSS in the request to start P-CSCF restoration forwarded towards the MME. This UE capability information indicates the UE supports Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedures, i.e. the UE is enabled to receive a list with one or more further available P-CSCF entities and to register in the IMS network with one of them).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth network function, taught by Li, to transmit a fourth message to the first network function, wherein the fourth message comprises the confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration, as taught by Bartolome. This would be convenient to enable the UE to receive a list with one or more further available P-CSCF entities and to register in the IMS network with one of them (Bartolome, Parag. [0092]).
Li in view of Bartolome doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the fourth network function comprises a unified data repository (UDR), a UDR translation function (UTF), or a combination thereof;
However, Jain discloses wherein the fourth network function comprises a unified data repository (UDR), a UDR translation function (UTF), or a combination thereof (See Parag. [0084]; Enhanced Coverage restriction information may be received by PCF from UDM/UDR… See also Parag. [0129]. Examiner’s interpretation: Applicant discloses in the Specification, Parag. [0098]: communications 500 include messages transmitted between a UE 502, an AMF 504, an MME 506, a UDM/UDR 508, a UTF 510, an HSS 512, and an IMS AS 514. Therefore, The Examiners interpret the fourth network function being a UDM/UDR as equivalent the fourth network function comprises a unified data repository (UDR)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth network function, taught by Li in view of Bartolome, to comprise a unified data repository (UDR), as taught by Jain. This would be convenient to managing enhanced coverage (EC) in 5G systems (Jain, Parag. [0002]).
Claim 16. Li in view of Bartolome and Jain discloses the fourth network function of claim 15,
Bartolome further discloses wherein the first network function comprises a home subscriber server (HSS) (See Parag. [0016]; detecting by at least one of the one or more serving entities unavailability of the P-CSCF entity to handle the invite message, and sending from one of the at least one detecting serving entity towards an access network entity, via a HSS, a request to start P-CSCF restoration).
Claim 19. Li discloses a method performed by a fourth network function, the method comprising:
receiving a first message from a first network function, wherein the first message comprises a request for proxy (P) call session control function (CSCF) (P- CSCF) restoration (See Parag. [0080-0081]; the S-CSCF detects the P-CSCF failure, and then sends an SAR request, which carries a P-CSCF failure recovery indication, to an HSS; the HSS returns an SAA response to the S-CSCF);
transmitting a second message to a fifth network function, wherein the second message initiates the P-CSCF restoration, wherein the fifth network function comprises a mobility management entity (MME) (See Parag. [0082]; after the HSS receives the SAR request of the S-CSCF, the HSS sends a subscription data updating request, which carries the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, to the MME (fifth network function) ... Se Parag. [0088]; after receiving the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, the SGW/PGW reselects a P-CSCF for the UE, and sends a bearer updating response, which carries the P-CSCF list included in the PCO, to the MME);
receiving a third message from the fifth network function, wherein the third message comprises confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration (See Parag. [0089]; the MME sends a bearer updating response, which carries the P-CSCF list, to the UE. See also Parag. [0082-0088]).
Li doesn’t explicitly disclose transmitting a fourth message to the first network function, wherein the fourth message comprises the confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration.
However, Bartolome discloses transmitting a fourth message to the first network function, wherein the fourth message comprises the confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration (See Parag. [0092]; the HSS may include the UE capability information received during the UE registration to IMS, and stored at the HSS in the request to start P-CSCF restoration forwarded towards the MME. This UE capability information indicates the UE supports Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedures, i.e. the UE is enabled to receive a list with one or more further available P-CSCF entities and to register in the IMS network with one of them).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth network function, taught by Li, to transmit a fourth message to the first network function, wherein the fourth message comprises the confirmation of the P-CSCF restoration, as taught by Bartolome. This would be convenient to enable the UE to receive a list with one or more further available P-CSCF entities and to register in the IMS network with one of them (Bartolome, Parag. [0092]).
Li discloses that the fourth network function is the UDM, but Li in view of Bartolome doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the fourth network function comprises a unified data repository (UDR), a UDR translation function (UTF), or a combination thereof;
However, Jain discloses wherein the fourth network function comprises a unified data repository (UDR), a UDR translation function (UTF), or a combination thereof (See Parag. [0084]; Enhanced Coverage restriction information may be received by PCF from UDM/UDR… See also Parag. [0129]. Examiner’s interpretation: Applicant discloses in the Specification, Parag. [0098]: communications 500 include messages transmitted between a UE 502, an AMF 504, an MME 506, a UDM/UDR 508, a UTF 510, an HSS 512, and an IMS AS 514. Therefore, The Examiners interpret the fourth network function being a UDM/UDR as equivalent the fourth network function comprises a unified data repository (UDR)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth network function, taught by Li in view of Bartolome, to comprise a unified data repository (UDR), as taught by Jain. This would be convenient to managing enhanced coverage (EC) in 5G systems (Jain, Parag. [0002]).
Claim 20 is taught by Li in view of Bartolome and Jain as described for claim 16.
Claim 21. Li in view of Bartolome and Jain discloses [t]he method of claim 19,
Li further discloses wherein the fifth network function further comprises an access and mobility management function (AMF) (See Parag. [0048]; Compared with the 4G system, network functions have been divided and reorganized in the 5G system ... The AMF is basically equivalent to the MME in the 4G system in terms of functions. See also Parag. [0097]).
Claim 22 is taught by Li in view of Bartolome and Jain as described for claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-14 are objected to.
The independent claims 1 and 8 are allowable over prior arts (See PTO-892) of the following reasons: The prior arts of record do not fairly teach in whole or make obvious:
“... in response to receiving the first message, determine whether an internet protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) capability for the UE is indicated within 4G subscription data or 5G subscription data, wherein the 4G subscription data comprises information about an IMS over packet switching (PS) capability within 5G;
in response to determining that the IMS capability is supported within the 4G subscription data, initiate the P-CSCF restoration by transmitting a second message to a third network function;
in response to determining that the IMS capability is supported within 5G or determining that IMS capability is not supported within the 4G subscription data, transmit a third message to a fourth network function, wherein the third message comprises a request for the P- CSCF restoration ..."
There are no prior arts, whether singly or in combination, teach or suggest the above limitations together in conjunction with the other limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, these reasons put the claims in condition of allowance.
The dependent claims are also allowed as they depend upon the allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0223070) – Related art in the area of telecommunication network, (Abstract; An access network can allocate a bearer for a network service associated with a quality-of-service (QoS) value (QV) and a retention-priority value (RPV), and determine a bearer ID for the service based on the QV, the RPV, and a supplemental priority value (SPV) different from the QV and from the RPV. Upon handover of a terminal, session(s) carried by a bearer allocated by the terminal can be terminated. That bearer can be selected using IDs of the bearers and a comparison function that, given two bearer IDs, determines which respective bearer should be terminated before the other. Upon handover of a terminal to an access network supporting fewer bearers per terminal than the terminal has allocated, a network node can select a bearer based on respective QVs and RPVs of a set of allocated bearers. The network node can deallocate the selected bearer).
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 ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights