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 Amendment
This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on April 27, 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12 and 17-22 are now currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 8-12 and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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, 3, 8, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0344576 A1, hereinafter Li) in view of Dao et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0045753 A1, hereinafter Dao ‘753) in view of Dao et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0112907 A1, hereinafter Dao ‘907).
Consider claim 1. Li discloses an application function (AF) session processing method, performed by a first network device, comprising:
sending an update request for quality of service (QoS) of an AF session (paragraphs 199, 201, read as an AF triggers an update to an existing session based on a QoS change by sending a request),
wherein the update request for the QoS of the AF session comprises parameter information corresponding to a group of terminals (paragraph 201, read as the request may be to modify the connection with changed attributes for the group communication), and
wherein the group of terminals comprises one or more terminals (paragraph 199, read as UEs in an existing group); and
Li discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the parameter information of the group of terminals comprises at least one of: an AF identifier; a transaction reference identity; a flow description mapped to the group of terminals; a QoS reference mapped to the group of terminals; or alternative service requirements.
However, Dao ‘753 teaches wherein the parameter information of the group of terminals comprises at least one of: an AF identifier; a transaction reference identity; a flow description mapped to the group of terminals; a QoS reference mapped to the group of terminals; or alternative service requirements (paragraph 73; read AF Identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘753 into the invention of Li in order to reduce congestion by decreasing network resource usage.
The combination of Li and Dao ‘753 disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach the one or more terminals comprises a terminal supporting or having a multi-modal service.
However, Dao ‘907 teaches the one or more terminals comprises a terminal supporting or having a multi-modal service (paragraph 41, read as the UE is able to switch to different operating modes based on QoS requirements, where the applications on the UE are multi-modal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘907 into the invention of Li and Dao ‘753 in order to effectively notify QoS information to UE, users, and application server.
Consider claim 3. Li discloses an application function (AF) session processing method, performed by a second network device, comprising:
obtaining a first update request for quality of service (QoS) of an AF session (paragraphs 199, 201, read as an AF triggers an update to an existing session based on a QoS change by sending a request, which is received by the MBNF),
wherein the first update request for the QoS of the AF session comprises parameter information corresponding to a group of terminals (paragraph 201, read as the request may be to modify the connection with changed attributes for the group communication); and
wherein the group of terminals comprises one or more terminals (paragraph 199, read as UEs in an existing group).
However, Dao ‘753 teaches wherein the parameter information of the group of terminals comprises at least one of: an AF identifier; a transaction reference identity; a flow description mapped to the group of terminals; a QoS reference mapped to the group of terminals; or alternative service requirements (paragraph 73; read AF Identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘753 into the invention of Li in order to reduce congestion by decreasing network resource usage.
The combination of Li and Dao ‘753 disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach the one or more terminals comprises a terminal supporting or having a multi-modal service.
However, Dao ‘907 teaches the one or more terminals comprises a terminal supporting or having a multi-modal service (paragraph 41, read as the UE is able to switch to different operating modes based on QoS requirements, where the applications on the UE are multi-modal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘907 into the invention of Li and Dao ‘753 in order to effectively notify QoS information to UE, users, and application server.
Consider claim 8. Li discloses an application function (AF) session processing method, performed by a third network device, comprising:
obtaining an update request for application policy authorization (paragraphs 49, 199, 201, read as an AF triggers an update to an existing session based on a QoS change by sending a request, which is received by the MBNF, where paragraph 49 clearly shows “policy (e.g. QoS) and charging control enforced),
wherein the update request comprises parameter information corresponding to a group of terminals (paragraph 201, read as the request may be to modify the connection with changed attributes for the group communication); and
wherein the group of terminals comprises one or more terminals (paragraph 199, read as UEs in an existing group).
However, Dao ‘753 teaches wherein the parameter information of the group of terminals comprises at least one of: an AF identifier; a transaction reference identity; a flow description mapped to the group of terminals; a QoS reference mapped to the group of terminals; or alternative service requirements (paragraph 73; read AF Identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘753 into the invention of Li in order to reduce congestion by decreasing network resource usage.
The combination of Li and Dao ‘753 disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach the one or more terminals comprises a terminal supporting or having a multi-modal service.
However, Dao ‘907 teaches the one or more terminals comprises a terminal supporting or having a multi-modal service (paragraph 41, read as the UE is able to switch to different operating modes based on QoS requirements, where the applications on the UE are multi-modal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘907 into the invention of Li and Dao ‘753 in order to effectively notify QoS information to UE, users, and application server.
Consider claim 17. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses an application function (AF) session processing apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories for storing instructions executable by the one or more processors; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the AF session processing method according to claim 1 (Li; paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 18. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein instructions in the storage medium, when executed by one or more processors of a network device, make the network device be capable of performing the application session (AF) session processing method according to claim 1 (Li; paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 19. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses an application function (AF) session processing apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories for storing instructions executable by the one or more processors; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the AF session processing method according to claim 3 (Li; paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 20. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses an application function (AF) session processing apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories for storing instructions executable by the one or more processors; wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the AF session processing method according to claim 8 (Li; paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 21. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein instructions in the storage medium, when executed by one or more processors of a network device, make the network device be capable of performing the application session (AF) session processing method according to claim 3 (Li; paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 22. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein instructions in the storage medium, when executed by one or more processors of a network device, make the network device be capable of performing the application session (AF) session processing method according to claim 8 (Li; paragraphs 227, 228).
Claims 4-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0344576 A1, hereinafter Li) in view of Dao et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0045753 A1, hereinafter Dao ‘753) in view of Dao et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0112907 A1, hereinafter Dao ‘907) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 8, and further in view of Dao et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0261260 A1, hereinafter Dao ‘260).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach performing an authorization process for the first update request.
However, Dao ‘260 teaches performing an authorization process for the first update request (paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 4. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753, Dao ‘907 and Dao ’260 discloses sending, in response to a successful authorization for the first update request, a second update request for application policy authorization to a third network device, wherein the second update request comprises the parameter information (Dao ‘260; paragraphs 67, 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 5. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753, Dao ‘907 and Dao ’260 discloses receiving an update response for application policy authorization from the third network device (Dao; paragraph 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining, in response to a successful authorization, a quality of service (QoS) parameter set.
However, Dao ‘260 teaches determining, in response to a successful authorization, a quality of service (QoS) parameter set (paragraphs 67, 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 9. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753, Dao ‘907 and Dao ’260 discloses wherein the update request comprises the alternative service requirements that comprises one or more QoS reference parameter sets (Dao ‘260; paragraph 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 10. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753, Dao ‘907 and Dao ’260 discloses determining, in response to the successful authorization, the QoS parameter set from the one or more QoS reference parameter sets (Dao ‘260; paragraph 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach sending an update response for application policy authorization.
However, Dao ‘260 teaches sending an update response for application policy authorization (paragraph 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dao ‘260 into the invention of Li, Dao ‘753 and Dao ‘907 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
References Cited But Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Narkar et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0242903 A1) – Is directed to applying network based policies to allocate specific bandwidth/QoS for multi-modal communication application modalities such as voice, video, application share etc. after comparing against the database.
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 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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M Brandt whose telephone number is (571) 270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights