DETAILED ACTION
Response filed on 5/11/2026 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 .
Claims status
No claims are amended,
No new claims are added
Claims 1-28 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Re: 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
Applicant’s response received on 5/11/2026 has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s arguments and examiner’s response to the arguments.
Applicant argues: “claim 1 expressly recites that "the first request" in "the first request includes at least one session ID") is the same request as "a first request" in "sending, to a second core network node, a first request so that a User Plane resource is released." Accordingly, the Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the claim language, because it equates "the first request" and "a first request" with different messages, namely, "session-related message" and "session request message," respectively. Therefore, Youn fails to teach or suggest that the session request message includes a session ID.”
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0157], Youn states, “[0157] The UE may send the allocated network slice identity and PDU session ID through a session-related message whenever it sends the session-related message.”. In the office action , examiner mentioned that “user plane resource release message is session related”, and thus the session ID as claimed in the application is disclosed by Youn.
Applicant argues: “in FIGS. 8-10, Youn at most discloses that the MM Function allocates the
PDU session ID after receiving the session request message, as shown in steps S802, S902, and S1004. See Youn, paragraphs [0164], [0177], and [0191]. This clearly indicates that the UE does not transmit the session request message including the PDU session ID. Namely, the PDU session ID is allocated for the first time in S802, and as such, the session request message transmitted in S801 cannot and does not include the PDU session ID. Therefore, Youn fails to teach or suggest that the session request message (allegedly corresponding to the claimed "first request") includes a session ID.
Furthermore, in FIGS. 8-10 and paragraphs [0163]-[0164], Youn discloses "[r]eferring to
FIG. 8, UE sends a session request message to an MMF (or AMF) (S 801)" and "[w]hen the MMF (or it may be a separate independent function) within a common CNI receives the session request message from the UE, it may directly allocate a PDU session ID (S 802)." In paragraph [0128], Youn further discloses that "when UE sends a session request message (e.g., a PDU session establishment request message) to a network for a service (i.e., in order to establish a PDU session)." These cited portions of Youn clearly shows that the session request message transmitted in FIGS. 8-10 of Youn is a request message for establishing a session, not for releasing a User Plane resource as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the session request message is not "a first request so that a User Plane resource is released" as recited in claim 1”.
Examiner’s response: In the office action, examiner did not directly use Figs.8-10 in the rejection of the claim elements. Examiner merely stated “In Figs. 8-10, Youn shows that session related communications between the UE and SMF is happening through the MMF. The request to release PDU session and response is also received through the MMF”. This was just to show communication between SMF and MMF for session related message and not directly for rejection of claim elements. Examiner used [0157], [0135], [0379], [0331] of Youn and [0085] of Bharatia.
Applicant argues: “in paragraph [0157], Youn fails to teach or suggest that the session-related message is a message transmitted for releasing a resource”.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Message transmitted for releasing a resource is a session related message.
Applicant argues: “Youn cannot and does not teach or suggest that "the at least one session ID
corresponds to a first core network node different from the second core network node," because
the session request message (allegedly corresponding to the claimed "first request") does not
include the at least one session ID”.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The transmission of session ID is discussed above for rejection of the claim element.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is not withdrawn.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al. (US 2017/0339609 A1), hereinafter “Youn” in view of Bharatia et al. (US 2017/0332226 A1), hereinafter “Bharatia”.
(Note: There is no change compared to the last office action and is duplicated here from the last office action)
Claims 1 and 15:
Regarding claim 1, Youn teaches, a method performed in a User Equipment (UE) ([Abstract]), the method comprising:
receiving a Radio Resource Configuration (RRC) message (implied by disclosure in Youn: [0101], “The RRC layer controls a logical channel, a transport channel, and a physical channel in relation to a configuration, a re-configuration, and release of radio bearers.”, wherein the first request includes at least one session ID (implied by disclosure in Youn: [0157] “The UE may send the allocated network slice identity and PDU session ID through a session-related message whenever it sends the session-related message.”; user plane resource release message is session related), and
the at least one session ID corresponds to a first core network node (Youn: [0135] According to a conventional method, since the SMF manages a PDU session, a PDU session identity is allocated by the SMF, and it is used by UE and other network functions for session management (e.g., session modification and session termination); SMF of Youn may be considered as the first network node.).
Regarding the claim, sending, to a second core network node, a first request so that a User Plane resource is released, Youn teaches the following:
[0379], as disclosed above, “[0379] “At the set-up/modification/release of a PDU
session: the SMF interacts with RAN via MMF for setup, modification and release of radio and NG3 resources for the PDU session.” (see also Fig.10); and
[0331] “when the PDU session is released, the PDU session identity deallocation request/ response messages are exchanged between the MMF and the SMF.
In Figs. 8-10, Youn shows that session related communications between the UE and SMF is happening through the MMF. The request to release PDU session and response is also received through the MMF.
In the same field of endeavor, Bharatia teaches in [0085], “the user may initiate release of the session which is handled by the SM or the SM processes a session release request received from a peer.”. In Fig. 11, Bharatia discloses the request and response to PDU session release messages are sent from the UE to the SM.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Bharatia regarding request and release messages being handled by the SM and disclosure by Youn regarding PDU session related messages via MMF, and come up with the claimed invention motivated by separation of session management function (first core network node) and direct communication with the UE (MMF as the second core network node), the first core network node being different from the second core network node, by separate entities of the core network to simplify session management including PDU session establishment and release.
Claim 15 is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Presence of memory, processor and program instructions is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 16:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the RRC message is received to release an access node resource (implied by discussion above in claim 1 and related to disclosure by Youn: [0101], “The RRC layer controls a logical channel, a transport channel, and a physical channel in relation to a configuration, a re-configuration, and release of radio bearers.”).
Claim 16 is a change in category with respect to claim 2. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 17:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the User Plane resource is released by the first core network node (implied by disclosure in Youn: [0184] Furthermore, in addition to the example of FIG. 9, when the MMF (or AMF) receives a message that accepts the release of the PDU session from the SMF, the MMF may recognize the message and has to deallocate the PDU session ID allocated to a corresponding session”, and that the first core network node is the SMF, as discussed above in claim 1; see Fig. 9, steps 906 and 908 where the PDU session is released by SMF in combination of disclosure in [0379] “At the set-up/modification/release of a PDU session: the SMF interacts with RAN via MMF for setup, modification and release of radio and NG3 resources for the PDU session.”).
Claim 17 is a change in category with respect to claim 3. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 18:
Regarding claim 4, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the first core network node is a session management function (SMF) (discussed above in claim 1 and based on disclosures in Youn).
Claim 18 is a change in category with respect to claim 4. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 19:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the second core network node is a mobility management node (discussed above in claim 1 and based on disclosures in Youn).
Claim 19 is a change in category with respect to claim 5. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 20:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Youn and Bharatia discloses all the claim elements of this claim as discussed above in claim 1.
Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 20 is a change in category with respect to claim 6. Presence of memory, processor and program instructions is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 21:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 6 (discussed above), further comprising: receiving, from the first core network node, a protocol data unit (PDU) session release command; and sending, to an access node, information including the PDU session release command (discussed above in claim 2).
Claim 21 is a change in category with respect to claim 7. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 22:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 6 (discussed above), wherein the User Plane resource is released by the first core network node (discussed above in claim 3).
Claim 22 is a change in category with respect to claim 8. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 23:
Regarding claim 9, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 6 (discussed above), wherein the first core network node is a session management function (SMF) (discussed above in claim 4).
Claim 23 is a change in category with respect to claim 9. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 9.
Claims 10 and 24:
Regarding claim 10, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 6 (discussed above), wherein the second core network node is a mobility management node (discussed above in claim 5)
Claim 24 is a change in category with respect to claim 10. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 10.
Claims 11 and 25:
Regarding claim 11, combination of Youn and Bharatia discloses all the claim elements of this claim as discussed above in claim 1.
Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 25 is a change in category with respect to claim 11. Presence of memory, processor and program instructions is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 11.
Claims 12 and 26:
Regarding claim 12, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 11 (discussed above), further comprising: sending, to the second core network node, a protocol data unit (PDU) session release command (discussed above that SMF releasing the release command in claim 2).
Claim 26 is a change in category with respect to claim 12. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 12.
Claims 13 and 27:
Regarding claim 13, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 11 (discussed above), wherein the first core network node is a session management function (SMF) (discussed above in claim 4).
Claim 27 is a change in category with respect to claim 13. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 13.
Claims 14 and 28:
Regarding claim 14, combination of Youn and Bharatia teaches the method according to Claim 11 (discussed above), wherein the second core network node is a mobility management node (discussed above in claim 4)..
Claim 28 is a change in category with respect to claim 14. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights