DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 1-13 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Drawings
Replacement drawings sheets were received on November 12, 2025. These replacement drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: On line 2 of claim 10, replace “the” with --a-- before “third” in order to provide proper antecedent basis to “third network element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification
when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim
limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely
perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
first network element is configured to provide … in claims 1 and 6-8;
second network element is configured to provide … in claims 1, 7, and 9; and
third network element is configured to provide … in claims 5 and 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof which for:
first network element, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the first network element described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. First network element is only mentioned on paragraph 0022 but no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed;
second network element, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the second network element described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Second network element is only mentioned on paragraph 0022 but no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed; and
third network element, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the third network element described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Third network element is only mentioned on paragraph 0022 but no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Applicant’s specification discussed a "first network element" in paragraph 0022. However, this paragraph does not describe any structure for a "first network element".
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, Applicant’s specification discussed a "second network element" in paragraph 0022. However, this paragraph does not describe any structure for a "second network element".
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Applicant’s specification discussed a "third network element" in paragraph 0022. However, this paragraph does not describe any structure for a "third network element".
Therefore, the claimed elements that are configured to perform the recited functions were
not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claim limitations “first network element”, “second network element”, and “third network element” in claims 1 and 5-10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gao et al. (CN 111405567 A) (referring to the previously attached machine translation) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0413210 A1) and further in view of Bulakci et al. (5G Mobile Network Architecture for Diverse Services, Use Cases, and Applications in 5G and Beyond - Final Overall Architecture) (from IDS filed on 11/22/2024).
Consider claim 1, Gao et al. show and disclose a core network system (in the form of a divided AMF – see, for example, the abstract and page 3 6th full paragraph), comprising: a first network element (ACF access management module – see, for example, the abstract and page 2 3rd paragraph under summary of the invention section) and a second network element (mobility management module set MF - see, for example, the abstract and page 2 3rd paragraph
under summary of the invention section), wherein
the first network element is configured to provide an access control-related service using an Access Control Function (ACF) (ACF access management module is responsible for access management hence it provides access control-related services – see page 3 6th full paragraph) and,
the second network element is configured to provide a mobility management-related
service using a Mobility management function (MF) (mobility management module set MF is
responsible for mobility management hence it provides mobility management-related services –
see page 3 6th full paragraph).
Gao et al. further disclose that its solution of dividing and expanding the AMF is as part of the Service-Oriented Architecture (SBA) 5G core network (5GC) (see background section on pages 1 and 2) and that the ACF access management module communicates with the mobility management module set MF through an SBA interface using the HTTP2 protocol, which is also the protocol used by the 5GC SBI communication interface (see paragraph at the end of page 4 to the beginning of page 5 - 5GC SBI communication interface is a known interface designed as a communication bus using the HTTP/2 protocol for a Control Plane Network (as disclosed on sections 4 of 5 and 3GPP TS 29.500)).
Nonetheless, Gao et al. do not specifically disclose that the second network element is also configured to provide a network service support service, and that the mobility management module MF is a Mobility management and service Support Function (MSF).
Lee et al. show and disclose a scheme of uniformly embodying the functions of all equipment including the core of 5G as network function elements (figure 3 – CU-CP and CU-UP and figure 4 (R)AN CP (RANF)) that are connected through a Service-Based Architecture (SBA) configuration (Figure 3 shows CU-CP and CU-UP connected in an SBA. Figure 4 shows the RANF as an SBA in the core network. See also paragraphs 0058, 0059, 0062, and 0063) and one of the network function elements (e.g., RANF/CU-CP 100 (second network element) in figures 3-5) is configured to provide a mobility management related service and a network service support service using a Mobility management and service Support Function (MSF) (Figure 7 shows and paragraphs 0097-0110 disclose the services provided by the RANF/CU-CP (second network element) which is on the core network (as shown in figure 4) and the services include, among others, UE Mobility Management Procedures (i.e., mobility management related service) and Paging Procedures (i.e., network service support service). The RANF/CU-CP is considered as a Mobility management and service Support Function (MSF)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically provide both mobility management related services and network service support services via a network element in the core network as disclosed by Lee et al. in the system of Gao et al. in order to simplify procedures and improve performance (see, for example, paragraph 0055 of Lee et al.).
However, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., do not specifically disclose that the network functions are connected through a core network Service-Based Architecture (SBA) bus.
Bulakci et al. clearly show and disclose network functions connected through a core network Service-Based Architecture (SBA) bus (Figures 2-3 and section 2.1.3 encompassing pages 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically utilize an SBA bus to connect the network functions as disclosed by Bulakci et al. in the system of Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., in order to provide agility, flexibility in deployment, testability, scalability, performance, and simplicity in the system (see page 20 second full paragraph of Bulakci et al.).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., further disclose wherein the access control-related service comprises at least one of the following:
receiving a second interface N2 control plane message, and locally processing the N2
control plane message, or sending first target information in the N2 control plane message to a first target network element;
receiving second target information from a second target network element, and sending an N2 control plane message comprising the second target information to an access network device;
sending an N2 control plane message to the access network device;
a ciphering and integrity protection service of a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message;
a NAS connection management service;
a registration management service (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – see figure 7 and page 7 step 2) – ACF receives the register request message hence it starts a registration management service);
a security-related service; or
a non-3rd Generation Partnership Project (non-3GPP) access support service.
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 2 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., also disclose wherein the security-related service comprises at least one of the following: an access authentication service; an access authorization service; a security anchor functionality; or a network slice-specific authentication and authorization service (Since the claim (i.e., claim 2) upon which this claim depends recites options for services written in the alternative (i.e., at least one of … or …) and the option to which this claim is further directed and limiting (i.e., security-related service) is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim and the combination of Gao et al., Lee et al, and Bulakci et al. is considered to meet the option selected).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., further disclose wherein the mobility management-related service and the network service support service comprise at least one of the following:
a reachability management service;
a mobility management service – (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art - mobility management module set MF is responsible for mobility management hence it provides a mobility management-related service – see page 3 6th full paragraph of Gao et al. and UE Mobility Management Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a terminal mobility event notification service;
a lawful intercept service;
a Session Management (SM) service support service (PDU Session Management Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a Short Message Service (SMS) support function;
a location service support function (Location Reporting Procedures - see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a Cellular Internet of Things (CIoT) service support function; or
an external parameter configuration function.
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., also disclose wherein the first network element provides at least one of the following interface functions:
an initial terminal message (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – see figure 7 and page 7 steps 1 and 2) – ACF receives the register request message (UE initiates the registration (i.e., it is an initial terminal message));
downlink Non-Access Stratum (NAS) transport;
uplink NAS transport;
a NAS non-delivery indication;
a reroute NAS request;
a terminal Transport Network Layer Association (TNLA) binding procedure;
a configuration transfer procedure;
a warning message transmission procedure; or
a Radio access network Information Management (RIM) information transfer procedure.
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., also disclose wherein the second network element provides at least one of the following interface functions:
a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session management procedure;
a terminal mobility management procedure (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art - mobility management module set MF is responsible for mobility management hence it provides a terminal mobility management procedure – see page 3 6th full paragraph of Gao et al. and UE Mobility Management Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a paging procedure (Paging Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a new radio positioning protocol;
a transport procedure (Transport of NAS Messages Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a trace procedure (Trace Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.);
a location reporting procedure (Location Reporting Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.); or
a data usage reporting procedure (Data Usage Reporting Procedures – see figure 7 of Lee et al.).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., do not specifically disclose wherein the first network element is connected to at least one of the following in the core network system: a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF); an AUthentication Server Function (AUSF); a Network Slice-Specific Authentication and Authorization Function (NSSAAF); or a Unified Data Management (UDM).
Bulakci et al. clearly show and disclose network elements connected to at least one of the following in the core network system: a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF); an AUthentication Server Function (AUSF); a Network Slice-Specific Authentication and Authorization Function (NSSAAF); or a Unified Data Management (UDM) (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – see figures 2-2 and 2-3, page 18 – AUSF, and page 26 – CN with NSSF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect to a NSSF or a AUSF as disclosed by Bulakci et al. in the system of Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., in order to provide agility, flexibility in deployment, testability, scalability, performance, and simplicity in the system (see page 20 second full paragraph of Bulakci et al.).
Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified in claim 1 by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., do not specifically disclose wherein the second network element is connected to at least one of the following in the core network system: a Session Management Function (SMF); a Network Exposure Function (NEF); a Short Message Service Function (SMSF); or a Location Management Function (LMF).
Lee et al. also show and disclose that the RANF/CU-CP 100 (second network element) is connected to at least one of the following in the core network system: a Session Management Function (SMF); a Network Exposure Function (NEF); a Short Message Service Function (SMSF); or a Location Management Function (LMF) (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – see figure 4 – SMF and NEF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect to a SMF or a NEF as also disclosed by Lee et al. in the system of Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., in order to simplify procedures and improve performance (see, for example, paragraph 0055 of Lee et al.).
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 11 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., do not specifically disclose wherein both the first network element and the second network element are connected to at least one of the following in the core network system: a Policy Control Function (PCF); or a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF).
Bulakci et al. clearly show and disclose network elements connected to at least one of the following in the core network system: a Policy Control Function (PCF); or a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – see page 26 – CN with PCF and NWDAF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect to a PCF or a NWDAF as disclosed by Bulakci et al. in the system of Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., in order to provide agility, flexibility in deployment, testability, scalability, performance, and simplicity in the system (see page 20 second full paragraph of Bulakci et al.).
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gao et al. (CN 111405567 A) (referring to the attached machine translation) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0413210 A1) further in view of Bulakci et al. (5G Mobile Network Architecture for Diverse Services, Use Cases, and Applications in 5G and Beyond – Final Overall Architecture) (from IDS filed on 11/22/2024), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bulakci et al. (US 2024/0056509 A1), hereinafter Bulakci 2.
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., do not specifically disclose a third network element, wherein the third network element is connected to the core network SBA bus, and the third network element is configured
to provide a terminal context management service.
In the same field of endeavor, Bulakci 2 shows and disclose a third network element
(Network Repository Function (NFR) – figure 9), wherein the third network element is connected to the core network SBA bus (NFR is in the core network (CN) and it is connected to other functions via an SBA interface (i.e., bus) – figures 2 and 3), and the third network element is configured to provide a terminal context management service (figure 9 and paragraphs 0204 and 0206 – NRF provides context service of a terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a terminal context management service in a network element as disclosed by Bulakci 2 in the system of Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al. in order to provide, among other benefits, flexibility, scalability, and embedded security in the system (see paragraphs 0095-0101 of Bulakci 2).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al., Bulakci et al., and Bulakci 2, further disclose wherein the first network element is further configured to receive an uplink Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message, and locally process the uplink NAS message, or
send third target information in the uplink NAS message to a third target network element; or
the first network element is further configured to send a downlink NAS message to a terminal (note the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – ACF sends a NAS message to the UE through the base station – see steps 7 and 8 on page 7).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 5 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al.,
Bulakci et al., and Bulakci 2, also disclose wherein the second network element is further configured to send fourth target information to the first network element (mobility management module set MF sends 5G-GUTI allocated to the UE to the ACF – step 6 on page 7), and the first network element is further configured to send a downlink Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message comprising the fourth target information to a terminal (ACF sends a NAS message with the allocated 5G-GUTI to the UE through the base station – see steps 7 and 8 on page 7).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., do not specifically disclose wherein the third network element provides at
least one of the following interface functions:
a terminal context management procedure; or
a terminal radio capability management procedure.
In the same field of endeavor, Bulakci 2 shows and disclose that the third network element provides at least one of the following interface functions:
a terminal context management procedure (note the at least one and the alternative “or” language requiring only one of the alternatives to be met by the prior art – see figure 9 and paragraphs 0204 and 0206 – NRF provides context service of a terminal hence providing a terminal context management procedure); or
a terminal radio capability management procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a terminal context management procedure in a network function as disclosed by Bulakci 2 in the system of Gao et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Bulakci et al., in order to provide, among other benefits, flexibility, scalability, and embedded security in the system (see paragraphs 0095-0101 of Bulakci 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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
Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose
telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:15 am - 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights