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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 1/18/2024 and 5/2/2025 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 1/18/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ninglekhu et al. (US-2022/0272620 hereinafter, Ninglekhu).
Regarding claim 11, Ninglekhu teaches a method comprising:
processing a policy section indicator (PSI) received from a policy control function (PCF); (Page 15 [0227] “The UE processes the UE policy sections, each identified by the UPSI, received from the PCF”)
processing an instruction received from the PCF associated with the PSI; (Page 16 [0234] “the “MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND” is used by the network to install, remove, or update a UE Policy Section”) and
determining a decision to either ignore or reject the instruction based on the PSI and the instruction. (Page 16 [0235] “Receipt of an instruction associated with a UPSI which has a PLMN ID part that is not equal to the PLMN ID of the UE's HPLMN and the instruction contains a UE policy part with a UE policy part type set to “URSP”. The UE shall set the UE policy delivery service cause to #111 (Protocol error, unspecified) for the instruction in the UE policy section management result IE of the MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND REJECT message”)
Regarding claim 13, Ninglekhu teaches determining a failure to execute the instruction; (Page 16 [0235-0236] “Receipt of an instruction associated with a UPSI which has a PLMN ID part that is not equal to the PLMN ID of the UE's HPLMN and the instruction contains a UE policy part with a UE policy part type set to “URSP”) and
rejecting the instruction. (Page 16 [0235-0236] “The UE shall set the UE policy delivery service cause to #111 (Protocol error, unspecified) for the instruction in the UE policy section management result IE of the MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND REJECT message.”)
Regarding claim 14, Ninglekhu teaches encoding the PSI associated with the rejected instruction to generate encoded PSI; (Page 21 [0369-0370]) and
generating a message to be sent to the PCF using a non-access stratum transport procedure (note: MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND REJECT message is a NAS message, see additionally Page 20 [0354]), the message including the encoded PSI, or an indication of a cause of said rejecting the instruction. (Page 15 [0227] and Page 16 [0235-0236])
Regarding claim 15, Ninglekhu teaches generating a message to be sent to the PCF, the message including a UE policy section identifier (UPSI), an access network discovery and selection policy (ANDSP) indicator, or an operating system (OS) identifier. (Page 29 [0495-0496] and Fig. 20 [2004])
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 11. See additional structure (Fig. 1F [102] ~ apparatus, Fig. 1F [118] ~ processing circuitry, interface circuitry described in Page 8 [0106-0107] and component Fig. 1F [120, 136, 128])
Regarding claims 18-20, the limitations of claims 18-20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 13-15.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP “S2-2208349” UE Policy determination at AMF relocation with PCF change Oct. 10, 2022 hereinafter, Ericsson (as found on the IDS) in view of Ninglekhu et al. (US-2022/0272620 hereinafter, Ninglekhu).
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson teaches a process a request from an access and mobility management function (AMF) to create a policy association for a user equipment (UE); (Page 2 “Upon AMF relocation procedure the new AMF includes in the UE Policy Association establishment request towards the PCF a new indication of the scenario which triggers such establishment” and Fig. 4.16.11-1 [2 & 3])
generate, based on the request from the AMF, a response to indicate a creation of the policy association for the UE; (Fig. 4.16.11-1 [5])
determine an absence of a UE state indication having a UE policy section identifier (UPSI), an access network discovery and selection policy (ANDSP) indicator, or an operation system (OS) identifier; (Page 1 “During AMF relocation with PCF change, at the reception of the UE Policy Association establishment, the AMF does not provide either the list of stored PSIs, or the ANDSP support indication or the UE OSId. Therefore, without any other indication, the new selected PCF interprets that the UE does not have any UE Policy Section stored for the HPLMN and/or serving PLMN” and Page 3 “In the case of AMF relocation with PCF change no UE Policy Container is received by the AMF from the UE”) and
generate, based on said determination of the absence of the UE state indication, a query to obtain the UE state indication. (Page 4 “In the case of AMF relocation with PCF change in handover procedure and registration procedure, the AMF includes an indication of AMF relocation.” And “If the indication of AMF relocation with PCF change in handover and registration is received the (H-)PCF may get the PEI, the OSId or the indication of UE support for ANDSP in the UDR using Nudr_DM_Query including DataSet "Policy Data" and Data Subset "UE context policy control data" if available and the (H-)PCF may get the list of stored PSIs in the UDR if available and use it as the list of currently stored PSIs in the UE.” i.e. querying the UDR for the missing state indications)
Ericsson differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions that cause the processing circuitry to perform the steps listed above.
In an analogous art, Ninglekhu teaches an apparatus and method for enhancements to network slicing in a 5G network that includes core network elements of an AMF and a PCF (Fig. 1D [172 & 184]) that implement process steps by executing instructions stored on memory by circuitry (Page 6 [0085], Page 29 [0488] and Fig. 1G [82, 93, 91]) and the ability to process a request from an access and mobility management function (AMF) to create a policy association for a user equipment (UE); (Fig. 16 [1602])
generate, based on the request from the AMF, a response to indicate a creation of the policy association for the UE; (Fig. 20 [2002] and Page 33 [0549])
determine an absence of a UE state indication having a UE policy section identifier (UPSI), an access network discovery and selection policy (ANDSP) indicator, or an operation system (OS) identifier; (Page 16 [0229] i.e. what is current and Page 19 [0322-0324] i.e. anything missing is not installed) and
generate, based on said determination of the absence of the UE state indication, a query to obtain the UE state indication. (Page 22 [0382-0386] i.e. ability to request state information to determine if the UE is operating properly and if not, to update the policy and Page 30 [0500] “the PCF may send a new command to the UE to request that the UE Send the PCF a list of UPSI's that are installed on the UE. The new procedure may be a network-initiated UE STATE INDICATION or may be MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND with a new instruction. The command, instruction, or procedure may cause the UE to send a UE STATE INDICATION and the command, instruction, or procedure may indicate to the UE that the UE STATE INDICATION needs to indicate all UPSC's or if the UE may instead include only the UPSC-CRC. Of course, if the PCF has already detected that the UE does not have all necessary policies, then the PCF will indicate to the UE that it must send all installed UPSC's to the PCF.”)
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 Ericsson after modifying it to incorporate the ability to implement the instructions on non-transitory computer readable media when executed by processing circuitry of Ninglekhu since it enables the execution by computer executable instructions with deployment and implementation by computers in the core network. (Ninglekhu Page 6 [0085] and Page 29 [0488])
Regarding claim 2, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches generate a message that includes a query and a command to the UE, the message to be sent from a policy control function (PCF) to the UE via the AMF. (Ninglekhu Page 22 [0382-0386] i.e. ability to request state information to determine if the UE is operating properly and if not, to update the policy and note the message flow seen in Fig. 20 [2001-2003] goes through AMF)
Regarding claim 3, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches wherein the message is to be sent based on a service operation of a service provided by an interface of the AMF to transfer the message from the PCF to the UE. (Ninglekhu Page 33 [0541-0542] “Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer” and “Manage UE POLICY COMMAND”)
Regarding claim 4, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches wherein the interface is an Namf interface, the service is a communication service, or the service operation is a message transfer operation on an N1 interface. (Ninglekhu Page 33 [0541-0542] “Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer”)
Regarding claim 5, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches wherein the command is to request the UE to send the UE state indication to the PCF. (Ninglekhu Page 30 [0500] “the PCF may send a new command to the UE to request that the UE Send the PCF a list of UPSI's that are installed on the UE. The new procedure may be a network-initiated UE STATE INDICATION or may be MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND with a new instruction. The command, instruction, or procedure may cause the UE to send a UE STATE INDICATION and the command, instruction, or procedure may indicate to the UE that the UE STATE INDICATION needs to indicate all UPSC's or if the UE may instead include only the UPSC-CRC. Of course, if the PCF has already detected that the UE does not have all necessary policies, then the PCF will indicate to the UE that it must send all installed UPSC's to the PCF.”)
Regarding 6, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches process a second message received from the AMF in response to the query, wherein the second message is of a notification service operation of a communication service provided by an interface of the AMF to PCF used to notify the PCF of a communication from the UE. (Ninglekhu Fig. 20 [2005] and Page 33 [0544])
Regarding claim 7, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches wherein the query is to be sent from a policy control function (PCF) to a unified data repository (UDR) on an interface between the PCF and the UDR. (Ninglekhu Page 7 [0093] and Page 34 [0556-0559] i.e. requesting the appropriate information from the UDR to determine if the UE is properly applying the policies)
Regarding claim 8, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches process a message received from the UDR based on the query, wherein the message is to include the UE state indication. (Ninglekhu Page 34 [0565-0566] i.e. PCF receives changes to the stored data in the UDR and can pre-emptively send the appropriate policy to the UE)
Regarding claim 9, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches wherein the query is to be sent from a first policy control function (PCF) to a second PCF with which the UE was previously associated. (Ericsson Fig. 4.16.11-1 [V-PCF & H-PCF, 3 & 4])
Regarding claim 10, Ericsson in view of Ninglekhu teaches process a message received from the second PCF based on the query, wherein the message is to include the UE state indication. (Ericsson Page 4 Steps 3 and 4)
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninglekhu in view of Owens et al. (US-2005/0086256 hereinafter, Owens).
Regarding claim 12, Ninglekhu teaches wherein the instruction is to delete a policy section (Page 34 [0566]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting determining an absence of the policy section and ignoring the instruction.
In an analogous art, Owens discloses a data structure and management of data (Abstract) that includes receiving a command (Page 9 [0133] “instructions contained in link”), determining an absence of data (Page 9 [0133] “empty fields”) and ignoring the instruction. (Page 9 [0133] “skip the empty fields”)
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 Ninglekhu after modifying it to incorporate the ability to ignore an instruction when dealing with empty data fields of Owens because like skipping empty fields when searching results in a faster search speed and greater efficiency; when there is no data to delete, there is no reason to implement the deletion command, thereby saving processing power.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11,160,123 to Huang-Fu et al. regarding 5G session management handling when there is a PSI mismatch between the network and the UE
US-11,844,141 to Lee et al. regarding a method and apparatus for providing policies to a UE in a wireless network that includes updating policy sections, adding new policy section and deleting stored PSIs.
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