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 Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 5/11/2026.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the claim now requires that “the list of predefined multiple categories of UE devices includes a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) device category” (Page 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At issue, the “Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)” is one of the “list of predefined multiple categories of UE devices”, however it is not necessarily the “device type of the UE device”, which is then used to select an SMF from a plurality of SMFs. At the moment, “Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)” is being interpreted as non-functional descriptive material (NFDM) because FWA is not utilized by any other step recited or referred to again in the claim. “FWA” could be substituted for “PDA”, “handheld” or “green” and those device types would not change the determination of this limitation being NFDM because it is the “the device type” that determines which SMF to select.
The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.’” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arunachalam et al. (US-2024/0340976 hereinafter, Arunachalam) in view of Qiao et al. (US-2020/0092424 hereinafter, Qiao).
Regarding claim 1, Arunachalam teaches a system (Fig. 1 [100]) comprising one or more devices (Fig. 1 [130]), in a network (Fig. 1 [101]), configured to:
receive a request from a User Equipment (Fig. 1 [110]) (UE) device to establish a session with a network; (Fig. 2 [200])
obtain a device type of the UE device (Fig. 2 [220]), wherein the device type specifies a unique category, among predefined multiple categories of UE device (i.e. IPv4, IPv6 or both IPv4 and IPv6), to which the UE device belongs (Page 2 [0019] “The request from the UE may indicate the PDN-Type representing a particular protocol with which the UE may be configured to communicate (e.g., IPv4 or IPv6)” and Page 3 [0024] “The NRF may determine those SMFs associated with the indicated TAC and then eliminate from that set of SMFs those SMFs that do not support the UE PDN-Type provided by the AMF”), and wherein the list of predefined multiple categories of UE devices includes a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) device category; (Non-Function Descriptive Material, FWA does not have to be the device type that is used to select the SMF)
select, based on the device type, a Session Management Function (SMF), among a set of SMFs, which manages sessions for UE devices of the device type; (Fig. 5 [508]) and
send a message to the selected SMF to create a session context, (Fig. 2 [133])
wherein when the selected SMF receives the message, the selected SMF is configured to select a User Plane Function (UPF) based on the device type and cause the selected UPF to establish the session between the UE device and the session. (Pages 4-5 [0039-0040])
Arunachalam differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting obtain a device type of the UE device, from a Unified Data Management (UDM) and that the session is between the UE device and the network slice.
In an analogous art, Qiao teaches a charging control method at an SMF (Abstract) that includes receive a request from a User Equipment (Fig. 1 [110]) (UE) device to establish a session with a network slice in a network; (Page 11 [0222] a UE may send to an AMF a NAS message comprising at least one of “S-NSSAI”)
obtain a device type of the UE device from a Unified Data Management (UDM) (Page 3 [0115] i.e. IP4 or IP6 device type compatibility and Page 8 [0188]) and the SMF is configured to select a UPF to establish the session between the UE device and the network slice. (Page 9 [0192] and Fig. 17 [N4 Session request])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Arunachalam after modifying it to incorporate the ability to determine the device type from a UDM in order communicate via network slices of Qiao since network slicing enables providing additional services on shared physical infrastructures which can increase revenue.
Regarding claim 2, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches wherein when the one or more devices obtain the device type of the UE device, the one or more devices are configured to:
use a UE identifier (ID) provided in the request to look up the device type from a list of UE IDs and device types. (Qiao Page 11 [0222])
Regarding claim 3, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches wherein the one or more devices are further configured to:
store the device type of the UE device and the UE ID when the UE device registers with the device. (Qiao Pages 7-8 [0179] i.e. the context)
Regarding claim 4, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches wherein when the one or more devices obtain the device type of the UE device, the one or more devices are configured to:
send a message to the UDM to retrieve the device type from a subscription profile of a user of the UE device. (Qiao Page 3 [0115] and Pages 8-9 [0188] “the AMF 155 may retrieve the access and mobility subscription data and SMF 160 selection subscription data using Nudm_SDM_Get.”)
Regarding claim 5, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches wherein when the one or more devices select the SMF, the one or more devices are configured to:
send a message that includes the device type to a Network Repository Function (NRF) to obtain a reply that identifies the selected SMF. (Arunachalam Fig. 2 [131] and Page 4 [0036])
Regarding claim 8, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches wherein each SMF in the set of SMFs includes a flag that specifies whether the SMF uses the device type of the UE device to select the UPF. (Arunachalam Fig. 5 [508])
Regarding claim 9, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches wherein the network slice receives network traffic via multiple UPFs, and the multiple UPFs include the selected UPF. (Arunachalam Page 2 [0015])
Regarding claims 11-15, 18 and 19, the limitations of claims 11-15, 18 and 19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1-5, 18 and 19, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. See additionally Arunachalam Claim 15.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arunachalam in view of Qiao as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Long (US-12,075,496).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein when the selected SMF selects the UPF, the selected SMF is configured to:
send a message that includes the device type to a Network Repository Function (NRF) to obtain a reply that identifies the selected UPF.
In an analogous art, Long teaches a method and apparatus for network function managing of NIDD sessions (Abstract) that includes a SMF that sends a message that includes the device type to a Network Repository Function (NRF) to obtain a reply that identifies the selected UPF. (Fig. 6 [608] and Col. 11 lines 9-11)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Arunachalam in view of Qiao after modifying it to incorporate the ability to receive UPF information from an NRF of Long since NRF is a database within a 5G network for storing information about all network functions, their capabilities and availability within the network to be accessed and provide services.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Arunachalam in view of Qiao and Long teaches a Network Repository Function (NRF) (Arunachalam Fig. 1 [140]) that includes:
a first profile for the selected SMF (Arunachalam Page 2 [0020]), wherein the first profile specifies device types of UE devices whose sessions that the selected SMF manages; (non-functional descriptive material1 that is not being used actively by the system) and
a second profile for the selected UPF (Long Fig. 6 [608] and Col. 11 lines 9-11), wherein the second profile specifies device types of UE devices whose sessions that the selected UPF establishes. (non-functional descriptive material that is not being used actively by the system)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arunachalam in view of Qiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edge et al. (US-2022/0007150 hereinafter, Edge).
Regarding claim 10, Arunachalam in view of Qiao teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the selected SMF is configured to receive a Service Based Interface (SBI) call whose argument list includes the device type as one of input parameters.
In an analogous art, Edge teaches a system and method for 5G location support using service based interfaces (Abstract) that includes a Service Based Interface between an SMF and an AMF. (Page 16 [0180 and Table 2])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Arunachalam in view of Qiao after modifying it to incorporate the ability to utilize an SBI between an AMF and SMF of Edge since it is a common interface utilized in the 5G Core Network between access nodes. (Edge Page 3 [0037])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2020/0100303 to Sankar et al. discloses a UE that connected to the data network via a FWA, where the SMF selects a specific UPF that services FWA sessions.
US-2017/0195868 to Kotecha et al. which discloses utilizing a UE device type selected from a category of multiple device types, which each device type have a specific connection parameter to be utilized.
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 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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
1 The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff' d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.' ” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Prosecution Insights