Detailed Action
This action is in response to communication filed 02/16/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 6-9, 11-20 of copending Application No. 19/282,749 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 6-9 of present application are similar to claims 1-10 and claims 1-4 are similar to claims 11-15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by DAO et al. (US 2018/0199398 A1).
As per claim 1, DAO discloses a computing session release method [Fig. 15], comprising:
obtaining, by a session management function (SMF) [fig. 15 item #220], a first message, wherein the first message is used for requesting release of computing resources of a computing session [fig. 15, item #1510a, [0182-183]: UE sends to the SMF a UE session release request message 1510a [thus releasing computing resources such as DRB resources], which is obtained by SMF];
sending, by the SMF, a third message to a computing management function [Fig. 15 item #204 or item #202] based on the first message, wherein the third message is used for requesting release of the computing resources [fig. 15 item #1510d: SMF decides to release a session, fig. 15 item #1540, [0184]: SMF sends to the AN 204, via AMF, a SMF-AN session release request message 1540 for releasing the session and resources associated with the session]; wherein
the computing management function is a network element added for managing computing resources on computing and storage resource nodes [fig. 15 item #204: AN is a network element that is added and manages computing resources on both AN and UE, [0184]. The AN manages the computing resources by requesting release of DRB or radio resources and session context from UE and releases AN DRB resources and PDU context. [236]: Shows how AN manages the radio resource allocation for PDU session]. Note: Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) is applied to the term “computing management function”.
As per claim 2, DAO discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first message is triggered in any one of the following manners:
triggered by a terminal via a mobility management function (AMF) [Fig. 15: item #1510a, [0182]];
triggered by an application function (AF) via the PCF;
triggered by the PCF;
triggered by a unified data management (UDM) device;
triggered by the SMF [[0182]];
triggered by the computing management function [Fig. 15 item #1510b, [0182]];
triggered by the AMF; and
triggered by an access network (AN) via the AMF [Fig. 15 item #1510b, [0182]].
As per claim 3, DAO discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the SMF, a fifth message from the computing management function, wherein the fifth message is used to indicate completion of release of computing resources [fig. 15, [0183-0184]: the AN removes the UE’s PDU context and release DRM resources and then sends to the SMF 220 a SMF-AN session release response message 1550 to confirm the release of AN resources for the released PDU session];
or,
wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the SMF, a sixth message, wherein the sixth message is used to respond to the first message.
As per claim 4, DAO discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the first message, the third message, the fifth message, and/or the sixth message comprises one or more of the following:
UE identifier [[0182]: UE sends a session release message 1510a to the SMF, wherein the message includes UE ID, session ID and SM-NSSAI];
computing session identifier [[0182]: UE sends a session release message 1510a to the SMF, wherein the message includes UE ID, session ID and SM-NSSAI];
protocol data unit (PDU) session identifier [[0182]: UE sends a session release message 1510a to the SMF, wherein the message includes UE ID, session ID and SM-NSSAI];
bearer identifier; and
quality of service (QoS) flow identifier.
As per claims 15 and 18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAO et al. (US 2018/0199398 A1) in view of DAO et al. (hereinafter DAO II, US 2019/0261260 A1).
As per claim 6, DAO discloses a computing session release method [fig. 15], comprising:
receiving, by a computing management function [fig. 15: AN 204], a third message from an SMF [fig. 15, [0183]: SMF 220 sends to AN 204 a SMF-AN session release request message 1540]; and
wherein the third message is sent by the SMF based on a first message [fig. 15, [0182]: release procedure is triggered by the UE, when the UE sends to the SMF 220 a UE session release request message 1510a and SMF sends release request message 1540 to AN], wherein the first message is used for requesting release of computing resources of a computing session [fig. 15, item #1510a, [0182-183]: UE sends to the SMF a UE session release request message 1510a [requesting release of PDU session and releasing computing resources such as DRB resources], which is obtained by SMF];
wherein the computing management function is a network element added for managing computing resources on computing and storage resource nodes [fig. 15 item #204: AN is a network element that is added and manages computing resources on both AN and UE, [0184]. The AN manages the computing resources by requesting release of DRB or radio resources and session context from UE and releases AN DRB resources and PDU context. [236]: Shows how AN manages the radio resource allocation for PDU session].
However, DAO does not teach sending, by the computing management function, a seventh message to a PCF based on the third message, wherein the seventh message is used for requesting deletion of a computing management policy [i.e. DAO does not teach sending policy delete request to the PCF after receiving session release request from SMF].
DAO II explicitly teaches the network management function sending a message to a PCF, wherein the message is used for requesting deletion of computing management policy [fig. 5: Network management 508 sends message delete request 511 to UDM which then sends delete request 514 to PCF, [0073-0076]: policy deletion request].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dao in view of Dao II in order to send a seventh message to the PCF based on the third message requesting deletion of computing management policy for the released session.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to remove UE’s stored session policies from policy database of the PCF due to released connection.
As per claim 7, DAO discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the first message is triggered in any one of the following manners:
triggered by a terminal via a mobility management function (AMF) [Fig. 15: item #1510a, [0182]];
triggered by an application function (AF) via the PCF;
triggered by the PCF;
triggered by a unified data management (UDM) device;
triggered by the SMF [[0182]];
triggered by the computing management function [Fig. 15 item #1510b, [0182]];
triggered by the AMF; and
triggered by an access network (AN) via the AMF [Fig. 15 item #1510b, [0182]].
As per claim 8, DAO-DAO II discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the method further comprises:
Receiving, by DAO II: fig. 5 item #519 in response to message 518 or item #512 in response to item 511];
Releasing, by the computing management function, computing resources of a computing node based on the eighth message [DAO: [0183]: AN releases the DRB resources]; and
Sending, by the computing management function, a fifth message to the SMF, wherein the fifth message is used to indicate completion of release of computing resources [DAO: [0183]: After deleting resources, AN sends to the SMF a SMF-AN session release response message to confirm the release of AN resources for the released PDU session].
However, DAO-DAO II does not teach receiving by the computing management function an eight message from the PCF used to respond to seventh message.
But, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify DAO-DAO II in order to receive by the computing management function a response to the policy delete request.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order acknowledge and confirm the received policy deletion request.
As per claim 9, DAO discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the first message, the third message, the fifth message, and/or the sixth message comprises one or more of the following:
UE identifier [[0182]: UE sends a session release message 1510a to the SMF, wherein the message includes UE ID, session ID and SM-NSSAI];
computing session identifier [[0182]: UE sends a session release message 1510a to the SMF, wherein the message includes UE ID, session ID and SM-NSSAI];
protocol data unit (PDU) session identifier [[0182]: UE sends a session release message 1510a to the SMF, wherein the message includes UE ID, session ID and SM-NSSAI];
bearer identifier; and
quality of service (QoS) flow identifier.
As per claims 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 , they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 6-9. Therefore, claims 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 6-9.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SON et al., US 2020/0053816 A1: Managing PDU session connection: Discloses connection release method
Song et al., US 12,574,985 B2: Methods and Apparatus for Policy Control
Qiao et al., US 2019/0109823 A1: Discloses Policy delete request sent to PCF.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 8am-4.30pm 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights