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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/26 has been entered.
Amendment Summary
Claims 1, 8, 14, 17, 18 are amended.
Claims 11, 21 are canceled herein
Claim 22 is new.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims # 1-10 and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used for the current rejection of the above claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Cheng (US 2020/0404107 A1) in view of Kumar (US 2020/0107401 A1) and further in view of Ninglekhu (US 2022/0272620 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 14
Cheng discloses a method (See [Abstract]; A method to receive UE policy from policy control function)), comprising:
receiving, by a mobility management entity (MME) device (Fig.5(408)), an attach request associated with a user equipment (UE) (See [0089]; UE sends an attach request to the MME),
wherein the attach request includes a UE state indication associated with the UE (See [0069]; [0076]; [0089]; an indication that the UE supports 5G NAS and a policy container comprising current policy)
wherein the UE state indication indicates that the UE supports a UE route selection policy (URSP) (See [0062]; [0076]; UE request URSP from network) ,
sending (See [0089]; an MME may access a PCF via an AMF), by the MME (Fig.5(408)), and to an access and mobility function (AMF) device (Fig.5(AMF)), a UE context request (See [0089]; UE policy container) , wherein the UE context request indicates (URSP) information request associated with the UE (See [0076]; [0090]; [0095-0096]; the policy container comprises request for URSP) based on the UE state indication (See [0069]; [0076]; [0089]; an indication that the UE supports 5G NAS and a policy container comprising current policy);
receiving, by the MME (Fig.5(408)), and from the AMF device (Fig.5(AMF)), a URSP information response indicating URSP information associated with the UE (See [0092]; [0096-0097]; MME received URSP from AMF according to UE context request) based on the URSP information request (See [0090]; [0096]; the policy container comprises request for URSP);
and
sending, by the MME the URSP information (See [0093]; [0096]; UE received URSP from MME) based on the UE state indication included in the attach request (See [0069]; [0089]; [0091]; an indication that the UE supports 5G NAS and a policy container comprising current policy).
But Cheng fails to explicitly recite
wherein the UE state indication further indicates a globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) of the UE;
sending, by the MME, an attach accept message based on receiving a UE context response from the AMF device;
However in an analogous art,
Kumar teaches about a UE state indication that indicates a globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) of the UE (See [0079]; the UE 100 may send an attach request with a native 5G GUTI details to the new MME 310b at step 640);
Cheng and Kumar are analog art because they all pertain to 4G and 5G internetwork operation technology. Cheng teaches about retrieving URSP for UE
from MME an 5G and 4G Core internetwork technology. Kumar teaches about a UE state indication that indicates a globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) of the UE. Cheng could use Kumar features to identify the UE to the 5G core network without using its permanent identifier. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the filing of the application to combine Cheng and Kumar as to obtain an efficient cellular internetworking system.
But Cheng and Kumar fail to explicitly recite
sending, by the MME, an attach accept message based on receiving a UE context response from the AMF device;
However in an analogous art,
Ninglekhu teaches about sending, by a MME, an attach accept message based on receiving a UE context response from a AMF device (See [0578-0579]).
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu are analog art because they all pertain to 4G and 5G internetwork operation technology. Cheng teaches about retrieving URSP for UE from MME an 5G and 4G Core internetwork technology. Kumar teaches about a UE state indication that indicates a globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) of the UE. Ninglekhu teaches about sending, by a MME, an attach accept message based on receiving a UE context response from a AMF device Cheng and Kumar could use Ninglekhu features as a confirmation that the policy is received from the AMF and acceptable and that UE attach request has been established by the MME. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the filing of the application to combine Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu as to obtain an efficient cellular internetworking system.
Note:
(Data transmission from UE and MME goes through a Base Station. Therefore any messages including USRP and accept message coming from the MME with go through the base station to reach the UE in the single communication channel)
Regarding Claim 2, 9, 15
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1, 8, 14 and Cheng further teaches
receiving a manage UE policy complete message (See [0092]; [0096]; UE received a UE Policy Container) .
(Data transmission from UE and MME goes through a Base Station)
Regarding Claim 3, 16
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1, 14 and Cheng further teaches
selecting the AMF device based on a distance between a location of the MME device and a location of the AMF device (See [0090]; Selecting AMF based on collocation between MME and AMF).
Regarding Claim 5, 18
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1, 14 and Cheng further teaches
wherein the URSP information is associated with an application executing on the UE (See [0096]; Alternatively, the PCF may include additional flags in the URSP rules to indicate which URSP rule(s) is suitable for the application in EPS).
Regarding Claim 6, 13, 19
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1, 8, 14 and Cheng further teaches
wherein the URSP information is associated with subscriber profile information associated with the UE (See [0061]; [0085]; [0091]; to facilitate the PCF obtaining the UE Policy from a unified data repository (UDR), the UE may provide, in the UE Policy Container, a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) of the UE).
Regarding Claim 7, 12, 20
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1, 8, 14 and Cheng further teaches
wherein the UE state indication further includes existing URSP information associated with the UE (See [0061]; [0070]; [0095-0097]; UE is provisioned with previous USRP included in policy container).
Regarding Claim 10,
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teaches all the features with respect to claim 8 and Cheng further teaches
wherein the UE state indication triggers retrieval of the URSP
information (See [0069-0070]; policy provisioning including URSP).
Regarding Claim 22,
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1 and Cheng further teaches
wherein the UE context response is received by the MME from the AMF device selected (See [0092]; when the AFF receives the UE Policy Container from the PCF, the AMF may forward that UE Policy Container to the
MME) based on the GUTI indicated by the UE state indication included in the attach request (See Kumar [0079]; the UE 100 may send an attach request with a native 5G GUTI details to the new MME 310b at step 640).
Claim(s) 4, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2020/0404107 A1) in view of Kumar (US 2020/0107401 A1) in view of Ninglekhu (US 2022/0272620 A1) and further in view of Atarius (US 2019/0335534 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, 17
Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu teach all the features with respect to claim 1, 14
But Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu fail to explicitly recite
selecting the AMF device based on a globally unique temporary identifier of the UE.
However in analogous art,
Atarius teaches about selecting the AMF device based on the GUTI of the UE (See [0222]; [0265]; AMF is selected based GUTI)
Cheng, Kumar, Ninglekhu and Atarius are analog art because they all pertain to 4G and 5G internetwork operation technology. Cheng teaches about retrieving URSP for UE from MME an 5G and 4G Core internetwork technology. Atarius teaches about selecting the AMF device based on a globally unique temporary identifier of the UE. Cheng, Kumar and Ninglekhu could use Atarius features as one procedure to identify the UE to the 5G core network with AMF. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the filing of the application to combine Cheng, Kumar, Ninglekhu and Atarius as to obtain an efficient cellular internetworking system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY LAFONTANT whose telephone number is (571)272-3037. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM -6:00PM.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at 571-2703647. 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.
/GARY LAFONTANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights