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 .
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, 3-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWASAKI et al PG PUB 2023/0397147 in view of BAEK et al PG PUB 2018/0270781.
Re Claims 1, 10 and 15, KAWASAKI et al teaches in figure 8, S900, an AMF (a first network element comprising a transceiver, memory and processor) receiving a NAS message (a first container) transmitted by UE (a first device) containing a PDU session establishment request (a first request message) being configure to request invocation of a service of a SMF (a second device a network element in a core network); S904 transmit the NAS message to the SMF (the second device) wherein the AMF extracts the PDU session establishment request and selects the SMF based each piece of identification information contained in a message header of the NAS message (the first container) [0356-0361].
KAWASAKI et al fails to explicitly teach “wherein the identification information of the second device is used to indicate the second device.”.4
However, BAEK et al teaches the AMF using the DNN information or S-NSSAI in the PDU session establishment to determine the address information of discovered SMF [0075-0076]. The address information indicates the SMF (the second device) as claimed. By combining the teachings, AMF would have determined a suitable SMF supporting the PDU session type [0078]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to be adaptive to PDU session types. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 17, KAWASAKI et al teaches in S910, the AMF receiving a PDU session establishment accept (a second container...a first reply message) based on the PDU session establishment request and S912 transmit the PDU session establishment accept (the second container) to the UE (the first device) wherein the PDU session establishment request is recognizable by the SMF (the second device) [0293].
Re Claim 4, KAWASAKI et al the AMF determines the UE according to identification information of the UE contained in the PDU session establishment accept (a message header of the second container) [0367-0368].
Re Claim 7, KAWASAKI et al teaches S904, the AMF for generating and transmitting a PDU establishment request (a second request message) used to request invocation of the service to SMF (the second device) based on S900 (the first container).
Re Claims 12, 18, KAWASAKI et al teaches in figure 8, S912, the UE (the first device) receive PDU session establishment accept (a second reply message) generated the AMF (the first network element) according to S910 (a first reply message) wherein S910 is a reply message received by AMF (the first network element) from SMF (the second device) wherein S912 is generated by AMF (the first network element) according to S900 (the first request message) wherein S904 (the second request message) is used to request invocation of the service of the SMF (the second device).
Re Claims 13 and 19, KAWASAKI et al teaches in figure 8, S910/922 (the first/second reply message) is unrecognizable/recognizable by the UE [0292]. Re Claims 14 and 20, KAWASAKI et al teaches S900 (the first request message) contains identification information of the SMF (the second device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
