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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the pending claims, applicant argues that 3GPP fails to teach and the error relating to the routing of the UE for the service selected from a group comprising: the UE has subscribed the service but a subservice of the service is barred; the UE has subscribed the service but a subservice of the service is not provisioned; and the UE has subscribed the service but the UE is unreachable for the service. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument.
Examiner notes that the phrase selected from a group comprising is not closed ended, and therefor is not believed to constitute a Markush group. For this reason, it is the examiner’s belief that 3GPP or other prior art needs to teach just one of these elements for the limitation as a whole to be met. 3GPP is believed to teach and the UE has subscribed the service but the UE is unreachable for the service (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, “UE reachability”/“USER NOT FOUND” may be a cause of error even if user has subscribed to service).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21, 23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Applicant submitted NPL titled “Definition of missing error conditions in SMSF registration information retrieval” (herein referred to as 3GPP).
As to claims 1 and 25, 3GPP teaches a first network function (NF Service Consumer that may be an NEF, see “Reason for change”), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor the memory containing instructions executable by the processor, whereby the first network function is operative to:
send a first request to a second network function, the first request requesting to receive at least one registration data set for a service for a user equipment, UE (Get request for SmsfRegistration information, see 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3);
receive a first response from the second network function (Get response from UDM, see 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3);
when there is an error related to routing of the UE for the service, the first response comprising a status code indicating the error related to routing of the UE for the service; and when there is no the error related to routing of the UE for the service, the first response comprising the at least one registration data set for the service for the UE (Get response can comprise SmsfRegistration data or if there is a detected error due to various causes, the Get response can comprises an HTTP status code indicating the error, see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3); and
the error relating to the routing of the UE for the service selected from a group comprising: the UE has subscribed the service but a subservice of the service is barred; the UE has subscribed the service but a subservice of the service is not provisioned; and the UE has subscribed the service but the UE is unreachable for the service (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, “UE reachability”/“USER NOT FOUND” may be a cause of error even if user has subscribed to service).
As to claims 11 and 27, 3GPP teaches second network function (UDM, see “Reason for change”), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory containing instructions executable by the processor, whereby the second network function is operative to:
receive a first request from a first network function, wherein the first request requests to receive at least one registration data set for a service for a UE (user equipment) (Get request for SmsfRegistration information, see 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3);
determine whether there is an error related to routing of the UE for the service; send a first response to the first network function (Get response can comprise SmsfRegistration data or if there is a detected error due to various causes, the Get response can comprises an HTTP status code indicating the error, see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3);
when there is the error related to routing of the UE for the service, the first response comprising a status code indicating the error related to routing of the UE for the service; and when there is ne not the error related to routing of the UE for the service, the first response comprising the at least one registration data set for the service for the UE (Get response can comprise SmsfRegistration data or if there is a detected error due to various causes, the Get response can comprises an HTTP status code indicating the error, see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3); and
the error relating to the routing of the UE for the service selected from a group comprising: the UE has subscribed the service but a subservice of the service is barred; the UE has subscribed the service but a subservice of the service is not provisioned; and the UE has subscribed the service but the UE is unreachable for the service (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, “UE reachability”/“USER NOT FOUND” may be a cause of error even if user has subscribed to service).
As to paragraphs 2, 12, 26 and 28, 3GPP further teaches wherein the status code indicating an error related to routing of the UE for the service comprises 404 Not Found of HTTP status code with a cause attribute to indicate the UE being short message service function (SMSF) registered but short message service (SMS) waiting data status indicates that the UE is not reachable for SMS. (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, “UE reachability”/“USER NOT FOUND” may be the indicated cause of error even if user is registered for SMSF but not reachable for SMS).
As to paragraphs 3 and 13, 3GPP further teaches wherein the error related to routing of the UE for the service is determined based on: the subscription data of the service of the UE; and the management subscription data of the service of the UE (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, whether the user/UE has subscribed to the service [~subscription data] and whether the subscriber is barred from said service [~management subscription data] determines if there is an error).
As to paragraphs 4 and 14, 3GPP further teaches wherein the subservice of the service comprises at least one of: mobile terminated service; or mobile originated service (claims 3 and 13 establish “subservice” as an optional alternative to “UE has subscribed the service but the UE is not reachable for the service” which is already addressed by 3GPP).
As to paragraphs 5 and 15, 3GPP further teaches wherein the service comprises short message service (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, service may be SMS).
As to paragraphs 6 and 16, 3GPP further teaches wherein the at least one registration data set for the service for the UE comprises at least one of: the UE's SMSF (Short Message Service Function), registration information for 3GPP (third Generation Partnership Project), access; or the UE's SMSF registration information for non-3GPP access (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, GET request can be for SmsfRegistration information in 3gpp or non-3gpp access network).
As to paragraphs 7 and 17, 3GPP further teaches when the error related to routing of the UE for the service indicates that the UE has subscribed the service but the UE is not reachable for the service, receiving a second request from the first network function, wherein the second request requests to alert a function of the service when the UE is reachable for the service; and sending an alerting message indicating that the UE is reachable for the service to the function of the service (see “Reason for change”, if UE is determined to be unreachable, the NF may subscribe to notifications from UDM to be notified when UE is available).
As to paragraphs 8 and 18, 3GPP further teaches wherein the first network function comprises at least one of: SMS-GMSC (Short Message Service-Gateway Mobile Switching Centre) IP-SM-GW(Internet protocol-Short Message-Gateway); SMS-router (Short Message Service Router);SCEF (Service Capability Exposure Function) or NEF (Network Exposure Function) (NF Service Consumer that may be an NEF, see “Reason for change”).
As to paragraphs 9 and 19, 3GPP further teaches wherein the second network function comprises at least one of: UDM (unified data management); HSS (home subscriber server) or HLR (home location register) (UDM, see “Reason for change”).
As to paragraphs 10 and 20, 3GPP further teaches wherein the first request is an HTTP GET request and the first response is an HTTP GET response (see 5.3.2.5.5 and 5.3.2.5.6).
As to paragraph 21, 3GPP further teaches determining whether there is an error related to routing of the UE for the service comprises: obtaining subscription data of the service of the UE, wherein the subscription data of the service of the UE comprises subscription information regarding whether the UE has subscribed the service; obtaining management subscription data of the service of the UE, wherein the management subscription data of the service of the UE comprises subscription information regarding whether the UE has subscribed a subservice of the service and/or a barring control policy; and determining whether there is an error related to routing of the UE for the service based on the subscription data of the service of the UE and the management subscription data of the service of the UE (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, error detection requires checking to see if the UE has subscribed for the service and also checking to see if the UE is barred from that service based on their current context).
As to paragraph 23, 3GPP further teaches wherein determining whether there is an error related to routing of the UE for the service comprises: obtaining registration data of a function of the service for the UE;obtaining waiting status data of the service for the UE, wherein the waiting status data of the service for the UE comprises information regarding whether the UE is reachable for the service; and determining whether there is an error related to routing of the UE for the service based on the registration data of the function of the service for the UE and the waiting status data of the service for the UE (see “Reason for change”, “Summary of change” and 5.3.2.5.5, 5.3.2.5.6 and 6.2.7.3, error detection requires checking to see if the UE is currently reachable and also knowing their registration status for SMSF).
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 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of US 2020/0053083 (Kunz et al.).
As to claim 22, what is lacking from 3GPP is wherein at least one of the subscription data of the service of the UE and the management subscription data of the service of the UE is obtained from UDR (Unified Data Repository).
In analogous art, Kunz teaches a UDM/UDR storing service subscription data for a UE (see Kunz, paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to apply this teaching to 3GPP, so as to reduce the storage burden on UDMs.
As to claim 24, what is lacking from 3GPP is wherein at least one of the registration data of the function of the service for the UE and the waiting status data of the service for the UE is obtained from UDR.
In analogous art, Kunz teaches a UDM/UDR storing service registration for a UE (see Kunz, paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to apply this teaching to 3GPP, so as to reduce the storage burden on UDMs.
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 examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641