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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/26/2023, 02/20/2025, 08/21/2025, and 12/05/2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
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).
Consider claim 1. Li discloses an application function (AF) session processing method, applied to 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 of a group of terminals (paragraph 201, read as the request may be to modify the connection with changed attributes for the group communication), and
the group of terminals comprises one or more terminals (paragraph 199, read as UEs in an existing group).
Consider claim 3. Li discloses an application function (AF) session processing method, applied to 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 of a group of terminals (paragraph 201, read as the request may be to modify the connection with changed attributes for the group communication), and
the group of terminals comprises one or more terminals (paragraph 199, read as UEs in an existing group).
Consider claim 8. Li discloses an application function (AF) session processing method, applied to 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 of a group of terminals (paragraph 201, read as the request may be to modify the connection with changed attributes for the group communication), and
the group of terminals comprises one or more terminals (paragraph 199, read as UEs in an existing group).
Consider claim 17. Li 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 (paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 18. Li 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 (paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 19. Li 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 (paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 20. Li 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 (paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 21. Li 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 (paragraphs 227, 228).
Consider claim 22. Li 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 (paragraphs 227, 228).
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 2, 7, and 13 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).
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1. 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).
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.
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 3. Li discloses the claimed invention but fail 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).
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.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 8. 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).
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.
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 2019/0261260 A1, hereinafter Dao ‘260).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 3. Li discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach performing an authorization process for the first update request which is mapped to the group of terminals.
However, Dao ‘260 teaches performing an authorization process for the first update request which is mapped to the group of terminals (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 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. Li and Dao ’260 disclose sending, in response to a successful authorization for the first update request, a second update request for application policy authorization, wherein the second update request comprises the parameter information of the group of terminals (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 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. Li and Dao ’260 disclose receiving an update response for application policy authorization, the update response being mapped to the group of terminals (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 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. Li discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining, in response to a successful authorization, a quality of service (QoS) parameter set mapped to the group of terminals.
However, Dao ‘260 teaches determining, in response to a successful authorization, a quality of service (QoS) parameter set mapped to the group of terminals (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. Li and Dao ’260 disclose wherein the update request comprises an alternative service request that comprises one or more QoS reference parameter sets mapped to the group of terminals (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 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. Li and Dao ’260 disclose 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 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. Li discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach sending an update response for application policy authorization, the update response being mapped to the group of terminals.
However, Dao ‘260 teaches sending an update response for application policy authorization, the update response being mapped to the group of terminals (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 in order to provide management of UE contexts and PDU session contexts, such that UEs are provided with the desired functionality.
Conclusion
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 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 at 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 February 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights