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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0059564, filed on 05/07/2021.
In this office action:
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 17-18 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 17-18 are rejected.
Summary of Previous Office Action
In the Non-Final Office Action mailed on August 6th, 2025,
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 17-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann (Patent No. US 11,985,535); in view of Gebert et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0022088), hereinafter Gebert.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on November 6th, 2025 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 12 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 6th, 2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered by the Examiner, but are moot in view of Alvarez Dominguez et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0137290).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann (Patent No. US 11,985,535); in view of Alvarez Dominguez et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0137290), hereinafter Alvarez.
Claim 1. Hoffmann discloses a method performed by a session management function (SMF) entity in a wireless communication system (See Col. 3 lines 16-21; Process 1 (See Fig. 2A) is executed on the control plane of the communication system by SMF), the method comprising:
receiving, from an application function (AF) entity via a policy control function (PCF) entity, a message including at least one requirement of user plane latency (UPL) (See Col. 3 lines 23-54; In step S2A01, a parameter of service quality for a session between a user equipment (UE) and a data network is received; the parameter of service quality comprises at least one of latency, jitter and packet error rate … upon receipt of a QoS modification with changed parameter of service quality issued by a policy control function (PCF) sent to the SMF (receiving via a policy control function (PCF) entity), in a non-roaming case it may be sufficient that the SMF decides on its own to re-select the UPF to match at least one of new latency/delay, jitter and packet error rate requirements as indicated by the changed parameter of service quality. See Col. 7 lines 45-67; the AF (application function (AF) entity) issues a request to change the QoS delay parameter. Upon receipt of the AF request at the PCF, the PCF invokes a session management policy modification towards the H-SMF/SMF. See also Col. 4 lines 34-45; the parameter has been changed in QoS information issued e.g. by an application function (AF) ... See also Claim 1; receiving, at a session management function, a parameter of service quality for a session between a user equipment and a data network via a user plane of a communication system; evaluating, at the session management function, the parameter; and based on the evaluation, initiating, at the session management function, re-location of a user plane function on the user plane for the session, wherein the initiating re-location of the user plane function comprises re-selecting, for the session, at least one user plane function of a plurality of user plane functions on the user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality for the session, and wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (at least one requirement of user plane latency (UPL)) for the session);
in response to determining that a serving protocol data unit session anchor (PSA) does not satisfy allowed UPL of the at least one requirement of the UPL (See Col. 6 lines 1-17; the SMF instructs the UPF (serving protocol data unit session anchor (PSA)) during session establishment to report any change of the latency/delay, jitter and/or PER/BER parameter in the QoS information. Upon receipt of such changed parameter, the UPF does not forward related packets and reports the whole QoS information to the SMF. The SMF upon receipt of such indication may decide to re-locate the UPF. See Claim 1; evaluating, at the session management function, the parameter; and based on the evaluation, initiating, at the session management function, re-location of a user plane function on the user plane for the session, wherein the initiating re-location of the user plane function comprises re-selecting, for the session, at least one user plane function of a plurality of user plane functions on the user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality for the session, and wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (UPL) for the session. See also Col. 9 lines 30-52; the parameter has been changed compared to a former value of the parameter ... Examiner’s note: A PDU Session Anchor (PSA) is a User Plane Function (UPF) that acts as the anchor point for a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session) and that a target PSA user plane function (UPF) entity satisfies the allowed UPL, determining to perform PSA UPF relocation (See Col. 3 lines 28-54; In step S2A02, the parameter is evaluated. In step S2A03 it is determined based on the evaluation, whether or not re-location of a user plane network function is required e.g. for enforcing the parameter in the communication network. If Yes in step S2A03, the process proceeds to step S2A04 in which re-location is initiated … the SMF initiates re-location by re-selecting at least one user plane network function (target PSA UPF entity) (e.g. by selecting at least one new user plane network function). For example, the user plane network function comprises a UPF … content relating to “re-location” and “re-selection” also covers inserting a new user plane function. According to the first example embodiment, upon receipt of a QoS modification with changed parameter of service quality issued by a policy control function (PCF) sent to the SMF, in a non-roaming case it may be sufficient that the SMF decides on its own to re-select the UPF to match at least one of new latency/delay, jitter and packet error rate requirements as indicated by the changed parameter of service quality. See Col. 10 lines 25-30; initiating re-location of the user plane network function comprises means for re-selecting at least one user plane network function of a plurality of user plane network functions on a user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality… See Claim 1; wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency for the session. See also Col. 5 lines 17-53 and Col. 9 lines 23-29), and
performing the PSA UPF relocation to the target PSA UPF entity, wherein the target PSA UPF entity is selected from a plurality of PSA UPF entities satisfying the allowed UPL (See Col. 3 lines 28-54; In step S2A02, In step S2A03 it is determined based on the evaluation, whether or not re-location of a user plane network function is required e.g. for enforcing the parameter in the communication network. If Yes in step S2A03, the process proceeds to step S2A04 in which re-location is initiated ... See Col. 10 lines 25-30; initiating re-location of the user plane network function comprises means for re-selecting at least one user plane network function (the target PSA UPF entity) of a plurality of user plane network functions (a plurality of PSA UPF entities) on a user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality… See Claim 1; wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (UPL) for the session).
Hoffmann doesn’t explicitly disclose the selected UPF (i.e., the target PSA UPF entity) from the plurality of UPFs (i.e., PSA UPF entities) has a shortest UPL, and the allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL.
However, Alvarez discloses: allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL, wherein the target PSA UPF entity that has a shortest UPL is selected from a plurality of PSA UPF entities satisfying the maximum allowed UPL (See Parag. [0147-0148]; the SMF 114 asks for a UPF 106 using an NF discovery process towards the NRF 120. In this example, the SMF 114, knowing that the end user needs a low latency (from UDR subscription data) asks for a UPF 106 with the following characteristics: a latency in the network being less than 0.5 ms (the maximum allowed UPL) ... the NRF 120 answers to the SMF 114 with a list of UPF instances (plurality of PSA UPF entities) matching the requested NF (UPF) profile. See Parag. [0149]; The SMF 114 then selects the UPF instance based both on the data provided by UDR 502 in step S514 and the UPF instances retrieved from the NRF 120 in step S528. In this example, if the UPF 106 is for a subscriber that belongs to a URLLC slice, it selects the UPF 106 with a lowest latency (target PSA UPF entity that has a shortest UPL). The SMF 114 establishes, at step S532, a session with the selected UPF instance. Examiner’s Interpretation: The latency associated with the User Plane Function (UPF) is interpreted as a user plane latency).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the selection of the one user plane network function of a plurality of user plane network functions for re-location, taught by Hoffmann, to include allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL, wherein the target PSA UPF entity that has a shortest UPL is selected from a plurality of PSA UPF entities satisfying the maximum allowed UPL, as taught by Alvarez. This would be convenient to guarantee the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for each subscriber and per application that may need to be provided by the network (Alvarez, Parag. [0010]).
Claim 3. Hoffmann in view of Alvarez discloses the method of claim 1,
Hoffmann discloses the method further comprising: in response to determining that the serving PSA satisfies the allowed UPL, determining not to perform the PSA UPF relocation (See Col. 3 lines 28-37 and Fig. 2A; the parameter is evaluated. In step S2A03 it is determined based on the evaluation, whether or not re-location of a user plane network function is required e.g. for enforcing the parameter in the communication network. If Yes in step S2A03, the process proceeds to step S2A04 in which re-location is initiated … If No in step S2A03, process 1 ends (determining not to perform the PSA UPF relocation). See Claim 1; wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (UPL) for the session. See also Col. 3 lines 23-27).
Hoffmann doesn’t explicitly disclose the allowed UPL is the maximum allowed UPL.
However, Alvarez discloses the allowed UPL is the maximum allowed UPL (See Parag. [0147-0149]; the SMF 114 asks for a UPF 106 using an NF discovery process towards the NRF 120. In this example, the SMF 114, knowing that the end user needs a low latency (from UDR subscription data) asks for a UPF 106 with the following characteristics: a latency in the network being less than 0.5 ms (the maximum allowed UPL) ... Examiner’s Interpretation: The latency associated with the User Plane Function (UPF) is interpreted as a user plane latency).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the selection of the one user plane network function of a plurality of user plane network functions for re-location, taught by Hoffmann, to include allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL, as taught by Alvarez. This would be convenient to guarantee the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for each subscriber and per application that may need to be provided by the network (Alvarez, Parag. [0010]).
Claim 8. Hoffmann discloses a session management function (SMF) entity in a wireless communication system (See Col. 3 lines 16-21; Process 1 (See Fig. 2A) is executed on the control plane of the communication system by SMF), the SMF entity comprising:
a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver (See Fig. 6) and configured to:
receive, from an application function (AF) entity via a policy control function (PCF) entity, a message including at least one requirement of user plane latency (UPL) (See Col. 3 lines 23-54; In step S2A01, a parameter of service quality for a session between a user equipment (UE) and a data network is received; the parameter of service quality comprises at least one of latency, jitter and packet error rate … upon receipt of a QoS modification with changed parameter of service quality issued by a policy control function (PCF) sent to the SMF (receiving via a policy control function (PCF) entity), in a non-roaming case it may be sufficient that the SMF decides on its own to re-select the UPF to match at least one of new latency/delay, jitter and packet error rate requirements as indicated by the changed parameter of service quality. See Col. 7 lines 45-67; the AF (application function (AF) entity) issues a request to change the QoS delay parameter. Upon receipt of the AF request at the PCF, the PCF invokes a session management policy modification towards the H-SMF/SMF. See also Col. 4 lines 34-45; the parameter has been changed in QoS information issued e.g. by an application function (AF) ... See also Claim 1; receiving, at a session management function, a parameter of service quality for a session between a user equipment and a data network via a user plane of a communication system; evaluating, at the session management function, the parameter; and based on the evaluation, initiating, at the session management function, re-location of a user plane function on the user plane for the session, wherein the initiating re-location of the user plane function comprises re-selecting, for the session, at least one user plane function of a plurality of user plane functions on the user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality for the session, and wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (at least one requirement of user plane latency (UPL)) for the session); and
in response to determining that a serving protocol data unit session anchor (PSA) does not satisfy allowed UPL of the at least one requirement of the UPL (See Col. 6 lines 1-17; the SMF instructs the UPF (serving protocol data unit session anchor (PSA)) during session establishment to report any change of the latency/delay, jitter and/or PER/BER parameter in the QoS information. Upon receipt of such changed parameter, the UPF does not forward related packets and reports the whole QoS information to the SMF. The SMF upon receipt of such indication may decide to re-locate the UPF. See Claim 1; evaluating, at the session management function, the parameter; and based on the evaluation, initiating, at the session management function, re-location of a user plane function on the user plane for the session, wherein the initiating re-location of the user plane function comprises re-selecting, for the session, at least one user plane function of a plurality of user plane functions on the user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality for the session, and wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (UPL) for the session. See also Col. 9 lines 30-52; the parameter has been changed compared to a former value of the parameter ... Examiner’s note: A PDU Session Anchor (PSA) is a User Plane Function (UPF) that acts as the anchor point for a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session) and that a target PSA user plane function (UPF) entity satisfies the allowed UPL, determine to perform PSA UPF relocation (See Col. 3 lines 28-54; In step S2A02, the parameter is evaluated. In step S2A03 it is determined based on the evaluation, whether or not re-location of a user plane network function is required e.g. for enforcing the parameter in the communication network. If Yes in step S2A03, the process proceeds to step S2A04 in which re-location is initiated … the SMF initiates re-location by re-selecting at least one user plane network function (target PSA UPF entity) (e.g. by selecting at least one new user plane network function). For example, the user plane network function comprises a UPF … content relating to “re-location” and “re-selection” also covers inserting a new user plane function. According to the first example embodiment, upon receipt of a QoS modification with changed parameter of service quality issued by a policy control function (PCF) sent to the SMF, in a non-roaming case it may be sufficient that the SMF decides on its own to re-select the UPF to match at least one of new latency/delay, jitter and packet error rate requirements as indicated by the changed parameter of service quality. See Col. 10 lines 25-30; initiating re-location of the user plane network function comprises means for re-selecting at least one user plane network function of a plurality of user plane network functions on a user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality… See Claim 1; wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency for the session. See also Col. 5 lines 17-53 and Col. 9 lines 23-29), and
perform the PSA UPF relocation to the target PSA UPF entity, wherein the target PSA UPF entity is selected from a plurality of PSA UPF entities satisfying the allowed UPL (See Col. 3 lines 28-54; In step S2A02, In step S2A03 it is determined based on the evaluation, whether or not re-location of a user plane network function is required e.g. for enforcing the parameter in the communication network. If Yes in step S2A03, the process proceeds to step S2A04 in which re-location is initiated ... See Col. 10 lines 25-30; initiating re-location of the user plane network function comprises means for re-selecting at least one user plane network function (the target PSA UPF entity) of a plurality of user plane network functions (a plurality of PSA UPF entities) on a user plane of the communication system, that meets the parameter of service quality… See Claim 1; wherein the parameter of service quality comprises user plane latency (UPL) for the session).
Hoffmann doesn’t explicitly disclose the selected UPF (i.e., the target PSA UPF entity) from the plurality of UPFs (i.e., PSA UPF entities) has a shortest UPL, and the allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL.
However, Alvarez discloses: allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL, wherein the target PSA UPF entity that has a shortest UPL is selected from a plurality of PSA UPF entities satisfying the maximum allowed UPL (See Parag. [0147-0148]; the SMF 114 asks for a UPF 106 using an NF discovery process towards the NRF 120. In this example, the SMF 114, knowing that the end user needs a low latency (from UDR subscription data) asks for a UPF 106 with the following characteristics: a latency in the network being less than 0.5 ms (the maximum allowed UPL) ... the NRF 120 answers to the SMF 114 with a list of UPF instances (plurality of PSA UPF entities) matching the requested NF (UPF) profile. See Parag. [0149]; The SMF 114 then selects the UPF instance based both on the data provided by UDR 502 in step S514 and the UPF instances retrieved from the NRF 120 in step S528. In this example, if the UPF 106 is for a subscriber that belongs to a URLLC slice, it selects the UPF 106 with a lowest latency (target PSA UPF entity that has a shortest UPL). The SMF 114 establishes, at step S532, a session with the selected UPF instance. Examiner’s Interpretation: The latency associated with the User Plane Function (UPF) is interpreted as a user plane latency).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the selection of the one user plane network function of a plurality of user plane network functions for re-location, taught by Hoffmann, to include allowed UPL is a maximum allowed UPL, wherein the target PSA UPF entity that has a shortest UPL is selected from a plurality of PSA UPF entities satisfying the maximum allowed UPL, as taught by Alvarez. This would be convenient to guarantee the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for each subscriber and per application that may need to be provided by the network (Alvarez, Parag. [0010]).
Claim 10 is taught by Hoffmann in view of Alvarez as described for claim 3.
Claim 17. Hoffmann in view of Alvarez discloses the method of claim 1,
Hoffmann further discloses wherein the at least one requirement of the UPL is authorized by the PCF entity (See Col. 4 lines 28-33; PCF decides whether to inform SMF about the changed parameter of service quality via a message, thereby invoking the SMF to execute process 1 based on the content of the changed parameter of service quality).
Claim 18 is taught by Hoffmann in view of Alvarez as described for claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takano (Pub. No. US 2022/0022091) – Related art in the area of controlling network deployment, (Parag. [0103]; FIG. 13 is a sequence diagram that illustrates one example of a processing procedure as an implementable example according to the first embodiment of the present technology. In this example, both the information regarding the latency time between the base station apparatus 30 and the UPF 201 and the information regarding the latency time between the AF 104 and the UPF 201 are compared with the foregoing “Max Allowed End-to-end latency” of 5 ms, and a UPF in which a latency between the UPF 201 and another node falls below the allowable latency is deployed as the UPF 201 for the equipment 40).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Examiner, Art Unit 2445