DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to application number 18/388,530 filed on November 10th 2023. 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
In the arguments dated 03/09/2026 the applicant states “Sivavakeesar describes Dedicated Core Networks (DCNs) that contain MMEs-not a plurality of lists of MMEs where each list is associated with a respective current index.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as paragraph 008 discloses “Each DCN comprises of one or more MME/SGSN and it may comprise one or more serving gateway (S-GW), packet data network (PDN) gateway (P-GW), and/or policy and charging rules function (PCRF), as appropriate. Each subscriber can be allocated to and served by a DCN based on their respective subscription information (“UE Usage Type”). Networks deploying DCNs may have a default DCN (or default core network nodes of a common core network) for managing UEs for which a DCN is not available and/or if sufficient information (e.g. an associated UE Usage Type) is not available in order to assign a UE to a particular DCN. One or more DCNs may be deployed together with a default DCN (or default core network nodes) that all share the same RAN”. Here each of the one ore more DCNs deployed contains one ore more MMEs, whereby MMEs in a DCN support a particular UE usage Type. Hence each DCN is equivalent to a list of MME’s supporting a service type. Further more the one or more DCNs is equivalent to and corresponds to the plurality of MME lists. Sivavakeesar Paragraph 0010 discloses “3GPP work item (WI) document no. RP-151048 discusses the so-called NAS node selection function (NNSF) and signalling support for MME/SGSN (re)selection functionality for DECOR. Further, S2-152107 describes a possible NAS message redirection procedure, in which a NAS message is redirected from one MME/SGSN (e.g. a default MME/SGSN) to a dedicated MME/SGSN based on UE usage type. This may be necessary, for example, upon the UE first attempting to connect to the core network and establishing a connection with a default MME in the core network (selected by the UE's serving base station for the UE) that does not support the UE usage type associated with this UE. Therefore, NAS message redirection is initiated by the UE's currently selected (e.g. default) serving MME/SGSN by sending, to the UE's serving base station, a request to reroute the UE's NAS message to the dedicated MME/SGSN. The request includes a parameter (e.g. an identifier of an MME group) which corresponds to a DCN that is assigned to that UE usage type. When the serving base station receives the request to reroute the UE's NAS message to the dedicated MME/SGSN, it performs a NNSF procedure for selecting a suitable dedicated MME/SGSN corresponding to the received parameter, and forwards the NAS message (for example, the so-called ‘Initial UE message’) to the selected dedicated MME/SGSN. This establishes the dedicated MME/SGSN as the new serving MME/SGSN for the UE. Here the NAS message redirection procedure executed by the default MME demonstrates the identification and selection by the default MME of the dedicated of MMEs based on the UE usage type. This shows that the default MME is able to indicate a current member of a corresponding list of the plurality of list of MMEs.
With regards to the second amendment of claim 1 stating that “the node selection algorithm advances the current index associated with the single list without advancing current indices associated with lists of the plurality of lists other than the single list”, Ziegler et al. Paragraph 0091 discloses “The source node 510 may determine the first unresolved request message descriptor by using the first unresolved pointer. In one example implementation, when it is time to restart the stream, the source node may examine the DSM of the request message descriptor pointed to by the first unresolved pointer. If the DSM indicates that no destination nodes are unresolved, the source node may advance the first unresolved pointer to the next request message descriptor in the list. The process is then repeated until a request message descriptor is found that is unresolved for at least one destination node. As shown in FIG. 5(b), the first unresolved pointer may have pointed to request message descriptor 522. In FIG. 5(c), the source node may have examined request message descriptor 522 and determined that the DSM was not set for any destination node and advances to request message descriptor 524. Likewise, request message descriptor 524 does not have the DSM set for any destination node, so the source node advances the first unresolved pointer to request message descriptor 526. As shown, request message descriptor has the DSM set for destination node 517, as indicated by the zero-one-zero in the unresolved field. As expected, request message descriptor 526 is associated with data packet B1, which was the first data packet that was refused by any destination node, as was shown in FIG. 5(b). It is from this point that reissuing request messages should begin.” Sivavakeesar discloses NNSF and Ziegler et al. discloses the known concept of advancing a pointer in a list.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2,5-9,12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivavakeesar (US 20220201461 A1) further in view of Ziegler et al. (US 20130024541 A1).
Regarding claims 1,8 and 15,Sivavakeesar discloses a system for selecting a mobile management entity (MME) comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions thereon; and a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for: determining a pool of MMEs available for connecting to a user equipment(UE) (US 20220201461 A1 Paragraph 0016 discloses “a controller adapted to control communications of at least one communication device located within an associated communication cell, via said communication apparatus; and a transceiver operable to communicate with said at least one communication device within said associated communication cell and to communicate with at least one mobility management entity (MME); ”); identifying, from the pool of MMEs, a plurality of lists of MMEs, wherein each of the plurality of lists of MMEs includes only MMEs having a same service type (US 20220201461 A1 Paragraph 0008 discloses “Each DCN comprises of one or more MME/SGSN and it may comprise one or more serving gateway (S-GW), packet data network (PDN) gateway (P-GW), and/or policy and charging rules function (PCRF), as appropriate. Each subscriber can be allocated to and served by a DCN based on their respective subscription information (“UE Usage Type”).” Whereby the Abstract states that “…the dedicated MME having a supported service type corresponding to the usage type associated with the mobile device.”); wherein each of the plurality of lists of MMEs is associated with a respective current index indicating a current member of a corresponding list of the plurality of lists of MMEs (US 20220201461 A1 Paragraph 0010 discloses “3GPP work item (WI) document no. RP-151048 discusses the so-called NAS node selection function (NNSF) and signalling support for MME/SGSN (re)selection functionality for DECOR. Further, S2-152107 describes a possible NAS message redirection procedure, in which a NAS message is redirected from one MME/SGSN (e.g. a default MME/SGSN) to a dedicated MME/SGSN based on UE usage type. This may be necessary, for example, upon the UE first attempting to connect to the core network and establishing a connection with a default MME in the core network (selected by the UE's serving base station for the UE) that does not support the UE usage type associated with this UE. Therefore, NAS message redirection is initiated by the UE's currently selected (e.g. default) serving MME/SGSN by sending, to the UE's serving base station, a request to reroute the UE's NAS message to the dedicated MME/SGSN. The request includes a parameter (e.g. an identifier of an MME group) which corresponds to a DCN that is assigned to that UE usage type. When the serving base station receives the request to reroute the UE's NAS message to the dedicated MME/SGSN, it performs a NNSF procedure for selecting a suitable dedicated MME/SGSN corresponding to the received parameter, and forwards the NAS message (for example, the so-called ‘Initial UE message’) to the selected dedicated MME/SGSN. This establishes the dedicated MME/SGSN as the new serving MME/SGSN for the UE. Here the NAS message redirection procedure executed by the default MME demonstrates the identification and selection by the default MME of the dedicated of MMEs based on the UE usage type. This shows that the default MME is able to indicate a current member of a corresponding list of the plurality of list of MMEs.); determining a service type of the UE (US 20220201461 A1 Paragraph 15 discloses “to receive, from a communication device having an associated usage type, signalling for establishing a communication connection via said communication apparatus; to send signalling for setting up said communication connection to a default MME; to receive, responsive to said signalling for setting up said communication connection, from said default MME, a message identifying a dedicated MME, to which said signalling for setting up said communication connection should be re-routed, said dedicated MME having at least one supported service type corresponding to the usage type associated with the communication device that sent said signalling for establishing a communication connection;” Additionally paragraph 0040); selecting a first MME from the pool of MMEs using a node selection algorithm, wherein the node selection algorithm is executed for a single list of the plurality of lists of MMEs, and the service type of the single list matches the service type of the UE (US 20220201461 A1 Paragraph 10 discloses “When the serving base station receives the request to reroute the UE's NAS message to the dedicated MME/SGSN, it performs a NNSF procedure for selecting a suitable dedicated MME/SGSN corresponding to the received parameter, and forwards the NAS message (for example, the so-called ‘Initial UE message’) to the selected dedicated MME/SGSN.” Additionally paragraph 0077); and connecting the UE to the first MME (US 20220201461 A1 Paragraph 10 discloses “This establishes the dedicated MME/SGSN as the new serving MME/SGSN for the UE.”).
Sivavakeesar fails to disclose the node selection algorithm advances the current index associated with the single list without advancing current indices associated with lists of the plurality of lists other than the single list; and connecting the UE to the first MME.
However in an analogous art Ziegler et al. teaches the node selection algorithm advances the current index associated with the single list without advancing current indices associated with lists of the plurality of lists other than the single list (US 20130024541 A1 Paragraph 0091 discloses “The source node 510 may determine the first unresolved request message descriptor by using the first unresolved pointer. In one example implementation, when it is time to restart the stream, the source node may examine the DSM of the request message descriptor pointed to by the first unresolved pointer. If the DSM indicates that no destination nodes are unresolved, the source node may advance the first unresolved pointer to the next request message descriptor in the list. The process is then repeated until a request message descriptor is found that is unresolved for at least one destination node. As shown in FIG. 5(b), the first unresolved pointer may have pointed to request message descriptor 522. In FIG. 5(c), the source node may have examined request message descriptor 522 and determined that the DSM was not set for any destination node and advances to request message descriptor 524. Likewise, request message descriptor 524 does not have the DSM set for any destination node, so the source node advances the first unresolved pointer to request message descriptor 526. As shown, request message descriptor has the DSM set for destination node 517, as indicated by the zero-one-zero in the unresolved field. As expected, request message descriptor 526 is associated with data packet B1, which was the first data packet that was refused by any destination node, as was shown in FIG. 5(b). It is from this point that reissuing request messages should begin.” Examiner Note – Sivavakeesar discloses NNSF and Ziegler et al. discloses the known concept of advancing a pointer in a list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sivavakeesar to incorporate the teachings of Ziegler et al. to implement advancing the current index associated with the single list without advancing current indices associated with lists of the plurality of lists other than the single list, in order to allocate the UE to the next MME in the current list of MMEs serving a specific service type, thereby distributing the load withing the current list of MMEs.
Regarding claim 2,9 and 16, Sivavakeesar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lists of MMEs comprises: a first list including MMEs configured to provide long term evolution (LTE) service, and a second list including MMEs configured to provide narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) service (US 2022020146 A1 Paragraph 006 discloses “In summary, the DECOR feature enables a network operator to deploy multiple dedicated core networks (DCNs) within its network (along with a common (i.e. non-dedicated) core network). Each DCN may be dedicated to serve specific type(s) of subscribers and/or specific type(s) of services. DCNs are optional and can be deployed, selectively, for various types of radio access technologies (RATs), such as GERAN (GSM EDGE Radio Access Network), UTRAN, and/or E-UTRAN. For example, a network operator may deploy dedicated MMEs (in order to support E-UTRAN) but no dedicated SGSNs (thus without supporting GERAN/UTRAN), or vice versa. The motivations for deploying DECOR might include, amongst others, the provision of DCNs with specific characteristics/functions or scaling, to isolate specific UEs or subscribers (e.g. machine-to-machine (M2M) subscribers, subscribers belonging to a specific enterprise or a separate administrative domain, subscribers belonging to a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), etc.) from other UEs or subscribers, etc.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Sivavakeesar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for determining whether prior MME information exists (US 2022020146 A1 Paragraph 0083 discloses “In response to this, the default MME 9A attempts to obtain a UE context associated with the mobile device 3D from the mobile device's 3D previous serving MME 9C (which is indicated in the received NAS message, e.g. in the form of an associated GUTI and/or GUMMEI). In order to do so, the MME 9A generates and sends, in step S604, an appropriately formatted context request message to the old MME 9C. The old MME 9C responds by generating and sending, in step S606, an appropriately formatted context request response to the default MME 9A, and includes in this message the UE context and information identifying the UE usage type associated with this mobile device 3D (originally obtained from the HSS 11).”).
Regarding claims 6,13 and 19, Sivavakeesar discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for selecting an MME from the pool of MMEs in response to existence of the prior MME information (US 2022020146 A1 Paragraph 0083 discloses “In response to this, the default MME 9A attempts to obtain a UE context associated with the mobile device 3D from the mobile device's 3D previous serving MME 9C (which is indicated in the received NAS message, e.g. in the form of an associated GUTI and/or GUMMEI). In order to do so, the MME 9A generates and sends, in step S604, an appropriately formatted context request message to the old MME 9C. The old MME 9C responds by generating and sending, in step S606, an appropriately formatted context request response to the default MME 9A, and includes in this message the UE context and information identifying the UE usage type associated with this mobile device 3D (originally obtained from the HSS 11).”).
Regarding claims 7,14 and 20, Sivavakeesar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for determining the node selection algorithm based on a connection capacity of each of the MMEs in a list of the plurality of lists corresponding to the service type of the UE (US 2022020146 A1 Paragraph 0070-0071 disclose respectively “Optionally, the base station 5 may also obtain (using its S1AP module 65) information identifying an availability of the MME 9D, for example, whether or not the MME 9D is overloaded. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the base station 5 receives an appropriately formatted S1 message indicating that the MME 9D is overloaded.[0072] The base station 5 is configured to add an entry for each connected MME 9 to the list of entries stored in its MME availability information storing module 69 with an appropriate indication whether or not that MME is currently available (and potentially including information identifying a reason why a particular MME is unavailable: e.g. not connected, overloaded, etc.).”).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3,10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivavakeesar (US 2022020146 A1) in view of Ziegler et al. (US 20130024541 A1) further in view of Palnati et al. (US 20190261213 A1).
Regarding claims 3,10 and 17, Sivavakeesar discloses the system of claim 1.
Sivavakeesar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the node selection algorithm comprises a Round Robin algorithm.
However in an analogous art Palnati et al. teaches wherein the node selection algorithm comprises a Round Robin algorithm (US 20190261213 A1 Paragraph 0003 discloses “In 3GPP, existing network elements such as MME, SGW, and PGW network elements are selected based on the operator configuration selection criteria, which are based on Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) configuration. Typical selection of a network element is done by using a method (such as round-robin) that takes into account statically known features of the network element.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sivavakeesar to incorporate the teachings of Palnati et al. to implement a node selection algorithm based on the round robin algorithm, in order to distribute the traffic load amongst the available MME equally and fairly.
Claims 4,11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivavakeesar (US 2022020146 A1) in view of Ziegler et al. (US 20130024541 A1) further in view of Guo et al. (US 20100080186 A1).
Regarding claims 4,11 and 18, Sivavakeesar disclose the system of claim 1.
Sivavakeesar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the node selection algorithm comprises a Weight Based algorithm.
However in an analogous art, Guo et al. teaches wherein the node selection algorithm comprises a Weight Based algorithm (US 20100080186 A1 Paragraph 0104 discloses “Alternatively, during the process of selecting an MME or serving SAE gateway by the ENB or selecting a serving SAE gateway by the MME, a pool where the MME belongs to is helpful for the selection of an MME, that is, a selection algorithm of an MME is weighted by the pool where the MME belongs to.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sivavakeesar to incorporate the teachings of Guo et al. to implement a node selection algorithm based on a weighted algorithm, in order to distribute the traffic load amongst the available MME in a manner that favors certain MME features or characteristics through the allocation of weights.
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 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 Samuel Dilan Rutnam whose telephone number is 703-756-1374. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30am-5:00pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586.
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).
/Samuel Dilan Rutnam/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights