Status of the Claims
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 05/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully found to be not persuasive for at least the following reason(s).
In regard to applicant’s remarks 05/11/2026 (Remarks, pages 1-4), regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 with regards to claim 1, applicant asserts that
…Hua and Cutler, however, fail to teach or suggest "signaling, by the mobility management node, support for an alias for the master subscription profile to a subscription database", as is claimed in claim 1.
In claim 1, the mobility management node signals its support for an alias to the subscription database during UE registration. This is fundamentally different from Hua's approach. In Hua, the MME does not signal anything about alias support to the HSS. See Hua, paragraphs 39-40. Instead, the HSS unilaterally determines what to send by consulting its own internal "MME sharing list" to check whether the MME has previously stored the shared service profile. Id. The MME in Hua is passive-it simply receives whatever the HSS decides to send based on the HSS's own records.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Office cites Hua, paragraphs 50-56 as teaching "signaling, by the mobility management node, support for an alias for the master subscription profile to a subscription database." Office Action, page 5. However, these paragraphs describe the HSS checking its own MME sharing list and deciding what to send-not the MME signaling support for an alias. Paragraph 52 states that "HSS 130 may refer to MME sharing list 340 to determine whether MME 125 (e.g., the serving MME) already has stored the necessary shared profile." This is the HSS making a determination based on its own records, not the MME signaling support.
The distinction is significant. In the claimed invention, the mobility management node controls whether it receives an alias by actively signaling its support. This allows for scenarios where the mobility management node may choose not to signal alias support even if it has previously cached the master subscription profile-for example, based on cache utilization thresholds as described in dependent claim 8. In contrast, Hua's HSS-centric approach does not permit the MME to control this behavior; rather, the HSS makes the decision unilaterally. Cutler is cited for other passages of claim 1 and does not cure this deficiency. Thus, even if combinable, the references would not teach or suggest each and every element of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, however found to be not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding the arguments that cited prior art references of records Hua in view of Cutler fails to teach or suggest “signaling by the mobility management node, support for an alias for the subscription profile to a subscription database”, Applicant alleges that Hua discloses that the HSS unilaterally determines whether to send a shared profile identifier by consulting its own MME sharing list, rather than relying upon signaling from the MME. Applicant further argues that the MME is merely passive in Hua and therefore does not control whether an alias is used. Hua teaches a registration procedure in which the mobility management entity (MME) communicates with the HSS over an enhanced interface supporting shared service profiles. During registration, Hua teaches that the MME transmits an Update Location Request (ULR) to the HSS. In response to receiving the ULR, the HSS determines whether the requested subscriber profile contains a shared service profile and whether the requesting MME already stores the shared service profile. Accordingly, Hua discloses transmitting a shared profile identifier in place of the complete shared service profile after the profile has been cached by the MME (Hua, Pages 3-5, Paragraphs 21-22, 35-44 and 50-53).
Hua further discloses that once MME has stored shared service profile, subsequent registration procedures result in the HSS transmitting only the user identifier together with the shared profile identifier, rather than retransmitting the complete shared service profile (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 15, network device sends a response including a user profile with the user identifier, shared profile identifier; Page 5, Paragraphs 50-53; Page 6, Paragraph 63, storing of shared profile, subsequent ULRs receive user ID, shared profile ID without resending shared profile). Accordingly, Hua teaches receiving an alias (shared profile identifier) in place of the complete master subscription profile after the shared profile has been cached by the MME.
Applicant argues that the HSS of Hua makes this determination “unilaterally”, characterizing the MME as “passive”. However, Hua expressly teaches that the HSS performs this determination responsive to the ULR transmitted by the MME during the UE registration procedure. Therefore, the HSS’s performed determination as well as return of the shared profile identifier is performed in response to signaling from the MME during UE registration (Hua, Paragraph 30, HSS determines whether requesting MME already has shared profile based on received ULR; Paragraph 52, MME may transmit ULR message to HSS).
Hua does not expressly disclose transmitting a separate capability message indicating alias support. However, Applicant’s arguments focus primarily on Hua in isolation while overlooking the teachings of the secondary reference, Cutler. Cutler teaches interoperable signaling between network elements using subscriber profile requests containing subscriber identifiers. Multiple network devices exchange subscriber profile requests containing one or more subscription identifiers to identify subscribers (Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 30). Cutler further teaches that the SP interface receives subscriber profile requests from requesting network components and processes subscriber identifiers contained within those requests (Cutler, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 35-41). Additionally, Cutler expressly teaches that the use of such subscriber identifiers provides flexibility in messaging formats and interoperability between different network devices (Cutler, Page 6, Paragraph 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hua’s registration signaling to indicate support for use of the shared profile identifier (alias), as taught by the interoperable signaling techniques of Cutler, so that the HSS may determine whether to transmit the complete shared profile or only the shared profile identifier. Such a modification merely applies known signaling techniques to Hua’s existing registration procedure in order to improve interoperability between network elements (Cutler, Page 6, Paragraph 65) while preserving Hua’s reduction of redundant profile downloads and signaling overhead (Hua, Paragraphs 13-15).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention requires the mobility management node to control whether an alias is used, whereas Hua permits only the HSS to make that determination. However, claim 1 merely recites “signaling… support for an alias” and the requirement for the mobility management node to exclusively determine whether the alias will be used, prohibit the subscription database from making its own determination, or require a separate capability negotiation message is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Examiner gives the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of the ordinary skill in the art. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim encompasses registration signaling indication support for alias-based operation, even where the subscription database conditionally determines whether the cached profile already exists before returning only the alias. Accordingly, Hua’s disclosure that the HSS performs this determination after receiving the MME’s ULR is therefore consistent with the claimed language (Hua, Paragraphs 40, 52 and 63).
Applicant’s argument that claim 1 requires the mobility management node to selectively signal alias support based on cache utilization is not persuasive because such functionality is first recited in dependent claim 8 and therefore not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Applicant relies upon the cache threshold functionality described in dependent claim 8 to distinguish independent claim 1 from the cited prior art of record. Independent claim 1 contains no limitation requiring the mobility management node to conditionally enable or disable alias support based upon available cache space or threshold determination. The Examiner gives the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of the ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the conditional signaling based on a cache threshold recited in claim 8 is not properly imported into independent claim 1, which merely recites “signaling… support for an alias”.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior arts of record, Hua in view of Cutler, with regards to claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20, as well as Hua as modified by Cutler and further in view of Castellanos, with regards to claims 7 and 15, are remained proper and therefore maintained.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. US 2020 0008046 A1 (hereinafter “Hua”) in view of Cutler et al. US 2011 0302457 A1 (hereinafter “Cutler”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hua teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a mobility management node of a telecommunications network (Page 4, Paragraph 41, MME), a master subscription profile from a central repository of the telecommunications network (Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 22, 35-39, HSS, user profile database, shared service profile database, MME sharing list), the master subscription profile including data that is shared across subscribers (Page 3, Paragraphs 35-36, shared profile distribution manager, shared service profile contents);
caching, by the mobility management node in a cache of the mobility management node, the master subscription profile (Page 4, Paragraphs 41-44, MME, local profile manager, local user database, local shared service profile database, shared profile download or update, received complete profile data);
when registering a user equipment (UE) with the telecommunications network (Page 5, Paragraph 51, MME performs authentication procedure 610, retrieve UE profile data from HSS 130), signaling, by the mobility management node, support for an alias for the master subscription profile to a subscription database of the telecommunications network (Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 50-56, previously stored shared profile, update to shared service profile); and
receiving, by the mobility management node and from the subscription database, the alias in place of the master subscription profile (Paragraphs 59-64, providing user profile with shared service profile, shared profile identifier)
Hua fails to fully teach the limitation:
a cache of the mobility management node
However, Cutler teaches the limitation:
a cache of the mobility management node (Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 36, subscriber cache, collocated with policy and charging rules node [PCRN])
Although Hua addresses the remaining limitations of claim 1, Cutler demonstrates the following limitations of a method comprising:
receiving, by a mobility management node of a telecommunications network (Cutler, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 24, PCRN), a master subscription profile from a central repository of the telecommunications network (Cutler, Page 4, Paragraph 39, 330 network subscriber database), the master subscription profile including data that is shared across subscribers (Cutler, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 35, subscriber record requests; Paragraph 38-41, network subscriber database);
caching, by the mobility management node in a cache of the mobility management node, the master subscription profile (Cutler, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 34, SPR client may be PCRN or a component thereof, subscriber cache; Paragraph 36, subscriber cache management; Paragraph 40, update subscriber cache);
when registering a user equipment (UE) with the telecommunications network (Cutler, Pages 2-3, Paragraphs 23-25, PCRN 136, user equipment 110; Paragraph 35, PCRN, record requests, transmit subscriber records), signaling, by the mobility management node, support for an alias for the master subscription profile (Cutler, Page 4, Paragraph 40, subscriber record, subscriber identifier; Page 6, Paragraph 65, unique subscriber associated with a set of subscription identifiers) to a subscription database of the telecommunications network (Cutler, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 26, subscription profile repository [SPR]; Paragraph 37, subscriber database); and
receiving, by the mobility management node and from the subscription database, the alias in place of the master subscription profile (Cutler, Pages 3-5, Paragraph 37, subscriber database; Paragraphs 42-46, subscription ID, record ID; Paragraphs 59-60, format subscriber record, PCRN).
Cutler and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network data management and the processing of subscriber data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hua to incorporate the teachings of Cutler for caching, by the mobility management node in a cache of the mobility management node, the master subscription profile. Doing so would allow the system to quickly resolve requests through utilization of a cache and an alias for the master subscription profile.
Regarding Claim 10, Hua in view of Cutler teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a plurality of programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause a subscription database of a telecommunications network (Hua, Page 3, Paragraphs 29-30, HSS< processor; Cutler, Page 6, Paragraphs 66-67, processor) to perform operations including:
receiving a master subscription profile and an alias for the master subscription profile from a central repository of the telecommunications network, the master subscription profile including data that is shared across subscribers (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, subscriber profiles that include pointers to separate shared service profiles; Page 5, Paragraph 51, UE profile data, UE information and UE subscription information; Cutler, Page 4, Paragraphs 39-40, network subscriber database, subscriber cache, subscriber record, identifiers);
receiving, from a mobility management node of the telecommunications network, a plurality of messages from a corresponding plurality of user equipment (UE) (Hua, Page 5, Paragraphs 59-61, HSS receives message[s] from MME, determines if UE is associated with shared service profile; Cutler, Page 2-4, Paragraphs 22-25, PCRN 136, service request; Paragraphs 29-30, Fig. 2, PCRN receiving multiple messages from a plurality of devices; Paragraph 40, record request, subscriber database);
when one of the messages indicates support for the alias, providing the alias in place of the master subscription profile (Hua, Page 6, Paragraph 63, shared profile identifier; Cutler, Pages 3-5, Paragraph 37, subscriber database queries; Paragraphs 42-46, subscription ID, record ID; Paragraphs 59-60, format subscriber record to match format used by PCRN); and
when another of the messages does not indicate support for the alias, providing the master subscription profile (Hua, Page 6, Paragraph 64, complete set of profile data; Cutler, Page 6, Paragraph 75, unique subscribed associated with a set of subscription identifiers).
Regarding Claim 16, it differs from Claim 1 only in that it is non-transitory computer storage medium having a plurality of programming instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a mobility management node of a telecommunications network to perform the method of Claim 1 (Hua in view of Cutler teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in Hua, Page 3, Paragraph 33 and Cutler, Page 6, Paragraph 66-67). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and Hua in view of Cutler discloses them.
Regarding Claim 2, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the master subscription profile includes at least one of an access point name (APN), a quality-of-service (QoS), a radio access restriction type, a maximum bandwidth, a speed, steering of roaming (SOR), shared data, or context data (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, shared service profiles; Cutler, Page 2, Paragraph 26, subscription information).
Regarding Claim 3, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the master subscription profile is common to UEs associated with a common service plan or to UEs that are associated with a specific access point name (APN) and quality-of-service (QoS) pair (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, shared service profile, service data that may apply to multiple subscribers; Cutler, Page 4, Paragraphs 42-46, subscriber data).
Regarding Claim 4, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the alias comprises receiving both the alias and unique subscriber information associated with the UE from the subscription database, the unique subscriber information including at least one of a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) (Hua, Page 4, Paragraphs 44-45, user-specific data, identification information for the UE; Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 30, subscriber ID, IMSI, MSISDN).
Regarding Claim 5, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising periodically refreshing the cache with the master subscription profile from the subscription database or the central repository (Hua, Page 4, Paragraph 40-42, HSS, local profile manager 410, store or update shared profile data; Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 36, subscriber cache, store recently requested subscriber records).
Regarding Claim 6, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 5, wherein periodically refreshing the cache comprises pulling the master subscription profile from the subscription database or the central repository or receiving the master subscription profile in a push distribution from the subscription database or the central repository (Hua, Page 4, Paragraph 36, shared profile distribution manager, shared service profiles and/or shared service profile updates; Cutler, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 62-65, subscriber record request, subscriber cache query).
Regarding Claim 8, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 1. Hua does not teach the method of claim 8. Cutler teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising determining if remaining cache of the mobility management node is below a threshold,
wherein signaling the support for the alias is performed conditionally based on whether the remaining cache is below the threshold (Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 36, subscriber cache, data management for reduction of search time; Page 4, Paragraph 40, update subscriber cache).
Regarding Claim 9, Hua does not teach the method of claim 8. Cutler teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising receiving an indication of the threshold from the central repository with the master subscription profile (Cutler, Page 5, Paragraph 57, subscriber cache management).
Regarding Claim 11, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the master subscription profile includes at least one of an access point name (APN), a quality-of-service (QoS), a radio access restriction type, a maximum bandwidth, or a speed (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, shared service profiles; Cutler, Page 2, Paragraph 26, subscription information).
Regarding Claim 12, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the master subscription profile is common to UEs associated with a common service plan or to UEs that are associated with a specific access point name (APN) and quality-of-service (QoS) pair (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, shared service profile, service data that may apply to multiple subscribers; Cutler, Page 4, Paragraphs 42-46, subscriber data).
Regarding Claim 13, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the system of claim 10, wherein providing the alias or the master subscription profile comprises also providing unique subscriber information associated with the UE to the mobility management node, the unique subscriber information including at least one of a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) (Hua, Page 4, Paragraphs 44-45, user-specific data, identification information for the UE; Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 30, subscriber ID, IMSI, MSISDN).
Regarding Claim 14, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the operations include periodically refreshing the master subscription profile from the central repository (Hua, Page 4, Paragraph 40-42, HSS, local profile manager 410, store or update shared profile data; Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 36, subscriber cache, store recently requested subscriber records).
Regarding Claim 17, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 16, wherein the master subscription profile includes at least one of an access point name (APN), a quality-of-service (QoS), a radio access restriction type, a maximum bandwidth, or a speed (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, shared service profiles; Cutler, Page 2, Paragraph 26, subscription information).
Regarding Claim 18, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 16, wherein receiving the alias comprises receiving both the alias and unique subscriber information associated with the UE from the subscription database, the unique subscriber information including at least one of a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) (Hua, Page 4, Paragraphs 44-45, user-specific data, identification information for the UE; Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 30, subscriber ID, IMSI, MSISDN).
Regarding Claim 19, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise periodically refreshing the cache with the master subscription profile from the subscription database or the central repository (Hua, Page 4, Paragraph 40-42, HSS, local profile manager 410, store or update shared profile data; Cutler, Page 3, Paragraph 36, subscriber cache, store recently requested subscriber records).
Regarding Claim 20, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 16. Hua does not teach the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 20. Cutler teaches the non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 20, wherein the operations further comprise determining if remaining cache of the mobility management node is below a threshold, wherein signaling the support for the alias is performed conditionally based on whether the remaining cache is below the threshold (Cutler, Page 5, Paragraph 57, subscriber cache management).4. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua as modified by Cutler and further in view of Castellanos Zamora et al. US 2019 0394633 A1 (hereinafter “Castellanos”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hua in view of Cutler teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the telecommunications network is a fourth generation (4G) network, the mobility management node is a mobility management entity (MME), and the subscription database is a home subscriber server (HSS) (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, HSS device 130; Page 4, Paragraph 41, Fig. 4, MME 125).
Hua in view of Cutler fails to teach the limitation: wherein the telecommunications network is a fifth generation (5G) network, the mobility management node is an access and mobility management function (AMF), and the subscription database is a unified data management (UDM)
However, Castellanos teaches the limitation:
wherein the telecommunications network is a fifth generation (5G) network, the mobility management node is an access and mobility management function (AMF), and the subscription database is a unified data management (UDM) (Castellanos, Page 4, Paragraphs 83-84, first network node, UDM; second network node, AMF)
Castellanos, Cutler and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network data management and the processing of subscriber data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hua to incorporate the teachings of Castellanos wherein the telecommunications network is a fifth generation (5G) network, the mobility management node is an access and mobility management function (AMF), and the subscription database is a unified data management (UDM). Doing so would enable for the reduction of traffic caused by transmissions of redundant data to be adapted for 4G and 5G network technologies.
Regarding Claim 15, Hua as modified by Cutler and further in view of Castellanos teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the telecommunications network is a fifth generation (5G) network, the mobility management node is an access and mobility management function (AMF), and the subscription database is a unified data management (UDM) (Castellanos, Page 4, Paragraphs 83-84, first network node, UDM; second network node, AMF); or
wherein the telecommunications network is a fourth generation (4G) network, the mobility management node is a mobility management entity (MME), and the subscription database is a home subscriber server (HSS) (Hua, Page 2, Paragraph 22, HSS device 130; Page 4, Paragraph 41, Fig. 4, MME 125).
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 GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/ SPE, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights