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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
More specifically, it appears applicant begins arguing on page 7 that Huawei fails to teach “this feature”. However, the examiner relied on Huawei and 3GPP. In fact, the portion that applicant is arguing (which continues to page 8), is taught by 3GPP as is evidenced below (in the 103 Rejection) as well as the previous Office Action.
Particularly, 3GPP teaches wherein the PDU session information is at least one of an application start/stop event, an out of credit event, a reallocation of credit event or a usage report (S4.2.2 Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Create service operation and in S4.2.2.22 Subscription to Out of Credit, in S4.2.2.34 Subscription to Reallocation of Credit and in S4.2.3 Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Update service operation, in S4.2.3.22 Modification of Subscription to Out of Credit in S2.2.3.32 Modification of Subscription to Reallocation of Credit).
Applicant then argues that 3GPP fails to remedy the deficiencies of Huawei at least because 3GPP merely describes the existence or availability of certain session-related events or reports within a 3GPP architecture, and does not disclose or suggest that such events are obtained by a first policy control entity for handling UE polices and used to modify access and mobility policy as recited in claim 8. The examiner notes that Huawei was relied upon to show the obtaining of PDU session information at the first policy control entity (please see paragraphs 232, 235, 249). 3GPP was relied upon to show what the actual PDU session information may include. In addition, 3GPP suggests improving PDU session control, which Huawei would benefit from.
Applicant makes the same arguments for claims 14, 16, 25, 26, and 27.
Accordingly, the claims are written such that they read upon the cited references.
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 8-19, 25-27, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/253701 A1 (hereinafter Huawei, the examiner notes that EP 3 972 335 A1 is being used for the Rejection below as the Translation for WO 2020/253701) in view of 3GPP TS 29.514 V.16.7.0 (2020-12) (hereinafter 3GPP).
Consider claims 8 and 25 (and similarly applied to claims 14, 16, 26, 27). Huawei discloses a method for access and mobility policy control in a communications network, the method performed by a first policy control entity for handling UE policies (fig. 9), the method comprising:
receiving at the first policy control entity for handling UE policies from a network node a notification including access and mobility policy data for a user equipment, the notification further including an application identifier or a packet flow descriptor to which the access and mobility policy data applies (first policy control function network element, fig. 9; paragraph 226, s710 of fig. 9 discloses that a first PCF receives from a network node, namely NEF a first message including an application function identifier; paragraph 231: optionally, the first message includes information of the terminal, e.g. SUPI, GPSI or the like);
obtaining at the first policy control entity PDU session information for the user equipment relative to the application identifier or the packet flow descriptor (paragraphs 232, 235, 249), and
modifying at least one access and mobility policy at the first policy control entity based on the obtained PDU session information (paragraphs 292-294).
Huawei also teaches a second PCF (paragraph 153) providing polices to the first PCF (paragraphs 249, 300, 426) as is recited in claims 14 and 26.
Huawei further teaches claims 16 and 27 which contains the same subject matter as claim 1 in terms of a method by a network exposure entity, as the one disclosed in fig. 9.
Huawei substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach particularly wherein the PDU session information is at least one of an application start/stop event, an out of credit event, a reallocation of credit event or a usage report (claims 1, 16, 25, and 27) and that the PDU session information is at least one of an application start/stop even, an out of credit event a reallocation of credit event or a usage report (claims 14 and 26).
However, 3GPP teaches particularly wherein the PDU session information is at least one of an application start/stop event, an out of credit event, a reallocation of credit event or a usage report (claims 1, 16, 25, and 27) (S4.2.2 Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Create service operation and in S4.2.2.22 Subscription to Out of Credit, in S4.2.2.34 Subscription to Reallocation of Credit and in S4.2.3 Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Update service operation, in S4.2.3.22 Modification of Subscription to Out of Credit in S2.2.3.32 Modification of Subscription to Reallocation of Credit) and that the PDU session information is at least one of an application start/stop even, an out of credit event a reallocation of credit event or a usage report (claims 14 and 26) (S4.2.2. and FF).
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 3GPP into the invention of Huawei in order to improve PDU session control.
Consider claims 9 and as applied to claim 8. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein obtaining at the first policy control entity PDU session information comprises transmitting from the first policy control entity to a second policy control entity for handling PDU session policies a request for PDU session information including the application identifier or the packet flow descriptor; and transmitting from the second policy control entity to the first policy control entity the requested PDU session information (Huawei; paragraphs 153, 249, 300, 426, 3GPP; S4.2.2, 4.2.2.22, 4.2.2.34, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.22, 4.2.3.32).
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 3GPP into the invention of Huawei in order to improve PDU session control.
Consider claims 10 and as applied to claim 8. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the access and mobility policy data received at the first policy control entity is originated from an application server (Huawei; paragraphs 253-257).
Consider claims 11 and as applied to claim 8. Huawei and 3GPP disclose transmitting a notification from the first policy control entity to the application server or a network exposure entity indicating the successful modification of the at least one access and mobility policy (Huawei; paragraphs 323, 324).
Consider claims 12 and as applied to claim 8. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the access and mobility policy data and/or access and mobility policy relate to the service area coverage of the application (Huawei; paragraphs 249, 271).
Consider claims 13 and as applied to claim 8. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the first policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the UE, the second policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the PDU session, the network exposure entity is a Network Exposure Function, the network node is a User Data Repository, and the application server is an Application Function (Huawei; figs. 9, 10).
Consider claims 15 and as applied to claim 14. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the first policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the UE, the second policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the PDU session (Huawei; figs. 9, 10).
Consider claims 17 and as applied to claim 16. Huawei and 3GPP disclose receiving a notification from a first policy control entity for handling UE policies at the network exposure entity indicating the successful modification of at least one access and mobility policy based on the access and mobility policy data (Huawei; paragraphs 323, 324).
Consider claims 18 and as applied to claim 16. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the access and mobility policy data and/or access and mobility policy relate to the service area coverage of the application (Huawei; paragraphs 249, 271).
Consider claims 19 and as applied to claim 16. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the first policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the UE, the network exposure entity is a Network Exposure Function, the user data repository is a User Data Repository, and the application server is an Application Function (Huawei; figs. 9, 10).
Consider claims 30 and as applied to claim 25. Huawei and 3GPP disclose transmit a notification from the first policy control entity to the application server or a network exposure entity indicating the successful modification of the at least one access and mobility policy (Huawei; paragraphs 323, 324).
Consider claims 31 and as applied to claim 26. Huawei and 3GPP disclose wherein the first policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the UE, the second policy control entity is a Policy Control Function for the PDU session (Huawei; figs. 9, 10).
Consider claims 32 and as applied to claim 27. Huawei and 3GPP disclose receive a notification from a first policy control entity for handling UE policies at the network exposure entity indicating the successful modification of at least one access and mobility policy based on the access and mobility policy data (Huawei; paragraphs 323, 324).
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 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 mailing 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 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights