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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“520” (see figure 5);
“600” (see figure 6);
“619” (see figure 6);
“700” (see figure 7).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because uses phrases which can be implied, such as, “Is disclosed herein” (see line 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 15 does not belong to one of the four categories of: a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Regarding claims 17-20, claim 17-20 are rejected because it is claiming a data structure that is not claimed as “embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, and data structures not claimed as embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory (see also “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media (26Jan2010)” 1351 OG 212 23 FEB 2010).
Computer programs claimed as computer listings (under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation a computer listing is a computer readable storage media having program instruction stored) per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer programs' functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) (present Application page 1 paragraph [0002]-[0003]) in view of Zhao (US 20240244414 A1).
Regarding claim 17, AAPA discloses determine that a first policy charging function (PCF) of a wireless network has failed (AAPA “Of these network functions, the policy charging function (PCF) is responsible for managing policy enforcement and Quality of Service (QoS) parameters for IMS sessions, ensuring adherence to service-level agreements, access control policies, and prioritization of multimedia traffic such as voice and video calls” … “To make the network more robust or more resilient in case of failure, networks may implement different types of redundant systems or mechanisms. However, implementing systems for redundancy can introduce additional complexity and cost in network design.”). AAPA also discloses to use a redundancy system like 1+1 or n+1. AAPA doesn’t specifically disclose in response to determining that the first PCF has failed, identify at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF and instruct the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF. Zhao discloses in response to determining that the first PCF has failed, identify at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF; and instruct the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 paragraphs [0038]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “That is, in a failure scenario of the PCF in the disaster-tolerant group, all user groups managed by the failed PCF are taken as the first user group to be migrated, and are migrated to another PCF in the disaster-tolerant group; and in a load balancing scenario of the PCF in the disaster-tolerant group, a part of the user groups managed by the PCF with the over-high load are taken as the first user group to be migrated, and are migrated to another PCF in the disaster-tolerant group” … “For clearly illustrating the solutions of the present disclosure, a session binding relationship processing process in a failure scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group and a session binding relationship processing process in a load balancing scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group are respectively illustrated below by specific examples with reference to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10. It should be noted that, in the specific examples of the present disclosure, one disaster-tolerant group includes two PCFs (PCF1 and PCF2), PCF2 is the PCF where the user group migration occurs, PCF1 is the PCF performing takeover and handles a PDU session binding relationship” … ”At operation S5, when PCF2 fails, PCF1 actively takes over a user group (i.e., a first user group) managed by PCF2 when detecting that PCF2 fails).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AAPA and Zhao are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA a PCF failure disaster- tolerant disclosed by Zhao. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to make the system more robust in case of failure (see AAPA paragraph [0003] and Zhao paragraph [0003] and [0093]). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claims 1 and 9, AAPA discloses by a network repository function (NRF) of the wireless network determining that a first policy charging function (PCF) has failed; in response to determining that the first PCF has failed (AAPA “IMS service hosted by wireless communication networks relies on the orchestration of a number of different network functions comprising the network infrastructure. The network repository function (NRF) of a wireless network stores information relating to the network infrastructure by which network functions can subscribe to other functions in support of IMS service. Of these network functions, the policy charging function (PCF) is responsible for managing policy enforcement and Quality of Service (QoS) parameters for IMS sessions, ensuring adherence to service-level agreements, access control policies, and prioritization of multimedia traffic such as voice and video calls. … “To make the network more robust or more resilient in case of failure, networks may implement different types of redundant systems or mechanisms. However, implementing systems for redundancy can introduce additional complexity and cost in network design.”) AAPA also discloses to use a redundancy system like 1+1 or n+1. AAPA doesn’t disclose identifying at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF, instructing the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF, by the one other network function, and in response to being instructed by the NRF sending, to the second PCF, session information for active sessions associated with the first PCF, along with a flag indicating that the active sessions remain active, by the second PCF receiving the session information from the one other network function, rebuilding the active sessions in a database of the second PCF based on the session information, and managing the active sessions based on the session information in place of the first PCF. Zhao discloses identifying at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF, instructing the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF, by the one other network function, and in response to being instructed by the NRF sending, to the second PCF, session information for active sessions associated with the first PCF, along with a flag indicating that the active sessions remain active, by the second PCF receiving the session information from the one other network function, rebuilding the active sessions in a database of the second PCF based on the session information, and managing the active sessions based on the session information in place of the first PCF (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 paragraphs [0038]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “That is, in a failure scenario of the PCF in the disaster-tolerant group, all user groups managed by the failed PCF are taken as the first user group to be migrated, and are migrated to another PCF in the disaster-tolerant group; and in a load balancing scenario of the PCF in the disaster-tolerant group, a part of the user groups managed by the PCF with the over-high load are taken as the first user group to be migrated, and are migrated to another PCF in the disaster-tolerant group” … “For clearly illustrating the solutions of the present disclosure, a session binding relationship processing process in a failure scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group and a session binding relationship processing process in a load balancing scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group are respectively illustrated below by specific examples with reference to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10. It should be noted that, in the specific examples of the present disclosure, one disaster-tolerant group includes two PCFs (PCF1 and PCF2), PCF2 is the PCF where the user group migration occurs, PCF1 is the PCF performing takeover and handles a PDU session binding relationship” … ”At operation S5, when PCF2 fails, PCF1 actively takes over a user group (i.e., a first user group) managed by PCF2 when detecting that PCF2 fails). AAPA and Zhao are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA a PCF failure disaster- tolerant disclosed by Zhao. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to make the system more robust in case of failure (see AAPA paragraph [0003] and Zhao paragraph [0003] and [0093]). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 1, 9 and 17, AAPA also discloses a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network (AAPA paragraph [0002]” For example, a PCF communicates with a session management function (SMF) to exchange session-related information, such as QoS requirements, policy rules, and session state updates. Similarly, an application function (AF) interacts with a PCF to provide context-specific policy requirements and session information, enabling the PCF to enforce policies tailored to the requirements of individual applications or services in a 5G network”). Zhao also discloses a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network (figures 9-10 SMF paragraph [0005] [0008] ” An embodiment of the present disclosure further provides a session binding relationship processing method, including: in response to receiving a session management policy update request message sent by a Session Management Function entity (SMF), acquiring a user address carried in the session management policy update request message; returning a session management policy update response message to the SMF”)
Regarding claim 19, AAPA and Zhao disclose claim 17, Zhao also discloses identify a second other network function subscribed to the first PCF and instruct the second other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the second other network function, with an identity of the second PCF (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 paragraphs [0038]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “For clearly illustrating the solutions of the present disclosure, a session binding relationship processing process in a failure scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group and a session binding relationship processing process in a load balancing scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group are respectively illustrated below by specific examples with reference to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10. It should be noted that, in the specific examples of the present disclosure, one disaster-tolerant group includes two PCFs (PCF1 and PCF2), PCF2 is the PCF where the user group migration occurs, PCF1 is the PCF performing takeover and handles a PDU session binding relationship” …” At operation S5, when PCF2 fails, PCF1 actively takes over a user group (i.e., a first user group) managed by PCF2 when detecting that PCF2 fails))
Regarding claims 3 and 11, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 1 and 9, Zhao also discloses identifying a second other network function subscribed to the first PCF, instructing the second other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the second other network function, with an identity of the second PCF, and by the second other network function, and sending, to the second PCF, second session information for the active sessions associated with the first PCF, along with a second flag indicating that the active sessions remain active (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 paragraphs [0038]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “For clearly illustrating the solutions of the present disclosure, a session binding relationship processing process in a failure scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group and a session binding relationship processing process in a load balancing scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group are respectively illustrated below by specific examples with reference to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10. It should be noted that, in the specific examples of the present disclosure, one disaster-tolerant group includes two PCFs (PCF1 and PCF2), PCF2 is the PCF where the user group migration occurs, PCF1 is the PCF performing takeover and handles a PDU session binding relationship” …” At operation S5, when PCF2 fails, PCF1 actively takes over a user group (i.e., a first user group) managed by PCF2 when detecting that PCF2 fails))
Regarding claims 4 and 12, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 3 and 11, Zhao also discloses receiving the second session information from the second other network function; rebuilding the active sessions in a database of the second PCF based on the second session information; and managing the active sessions based on the second session information in place of the first PCF (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 paragraphs [0038]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “For clearly illustrating the solutions of the present disclosure, a session binding relationship processing process in a failure scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group and a session binding relationship processing process in a load balancing scenario of a PCF in a disaster-tolerant group are respectively illustrated below by specific examples with reference to FIG. 9 and FIG. 10. It should be noted that, in the specific examples of the present disclosure, one disaster-tolerant group includes two PCFs (PCF1 and PCF2), PCF2 is the PCF where the user group migration occurs, PCF1 is the PCF performing takeover and handles a PDU session binding relationship” …” At operation S5, when PCF2 fails, PCF1 actively takes over a user group (i.e., a first user group) managed by PCF2 when detecting that PCF2 fails)”)
Regarding claims 5 and 13, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 4 and 12, AAPA also discloses an application function (AF) (paragraph [0002] “Similarly, an application function (AF) interacts with a PCF to provide context-specific policy requirements and session information, enabling the PCF to enforce policies tailored to the requirements of individual applications or services in a 5G network.”) Zhao also discloses an application function (AF) (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 AF paragraphs [0003], [0029]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “The present disclosure provides a session binding relationship processing method, which is applied to a system architecture shown in FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1, a system includes a PCF disaster-tolerant group, an SMF, a BSF, and an AF.”)
Regarding claims 6 and 14, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 1 and 9, Zhao also discloses receiving a notification from the second PCF including an indication to deregister the first PCF (figure 2, 3, 9, 10 AF paragraphs [0003], [0029]-[0047] [0093]-[0125] “Since an update message under current protocols can be merely used for updating a binding record of a single user, the PCF performing takeover in the disaster tolerance has to use, based on the current protocols, an unregistration message and a registration message for each of all users to change the user binding relationships.”)
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 1, 9 and 17, Zhao also discloses to register the second PCF in a network registry hosted by the computing device and deregister the first PCF from the network registry (figures 9-10 SMF paragraph [0002] [0049] [0109] “The present disclosure further provides a session binding relationship processing method. FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating registration of a PCF with a BSF, that is, a process of registering the PCF with the BSF. As shown in FIG. 4, the session binding relationship processing method includes the following operations S31 to S33” … “The process of registering the PCF with the BSF and the process of establishing/deleting the PDU session binding relationship in the failure scenario of the PCF in the disaster-tolerant group are the same as those in the load balancing scenario of the PCF in the disaster-tolerant group, and the two scenarios merely differ in triggering conditions of the process of establishing/deleting the PDU session binding relationship”)
Regarding claims 8 and 16, AAPA and Zhao disclose claims 1 and 9, AAPA also discloses storing the session information from the one other network function in a session database, including one or more of Quality of Service parameters and policy rules of the active sessions (paragraphs [0002] “Of these network functions, the policy charging function (PCF) is responsible for managing policy enforcement and Quality of Service (QoS) parameters for IMS sessions, ensuring adherence to service-level agreements, access control policies, and prioritization of multimedia traffic such as voice and video calls. For example, a PCF communicates with a session management function (SMF) to exchange session-related information, such as QoS requirements, policy rules, and session state updates”)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) (present Application page 1 paragraph [0002]-[0003]) in view of Krishan (US 20240284177 A1).
Regarding claim 17, AAPA discloses determine that a first policy charging function (PCF) of a wireless network has failed (AAPA “Of these network functions, the policy charging function (PCF) is responsible for managing policy enforcement and Quality of Service (QoS) parameters for IMS sessions, ensuring adherence to service-level agreements, access control policies, and prioritization of multimedia traffic such as voice and video calls” … “To make the network more robust or more resilient in case of failure, networks may implement different types of redundant systems or mechanisms. However, implementing systems for redundancy can introduce additional complexity and cost in network design.”). AAPA also discloses to use a redundancy system like 1+1 or n+1. AAPA doesn’t specifically disclose in response to determining that the first PCF has failed, identify at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF and instruct the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF. Krishan discloses in response to determining that the first PCF has failed, identify at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF and instruct the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”).
PNG
media_image2.png
507
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
AAPA and Krishan are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA a PCF failure disclosed by Krishan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to make the system more robust in case of failure (see AAPA paragraph [0003]). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, AAPA discloses by a network repository function (NRF) of the wireless network determining that a first policy charging function (PCF) has failed; in response to determining that the first PCF has failed (AAPA “IMS service hosted by wireless communication networks relies on the orchestration of a number of different network functions comprising the network infrastructure. The network repository function (NRF) of a wireless network stores information relating to the network infrastructure by which network functions can subscribe to other functions in support of IMS service. Of these network functions, the policy charging function (PCF) is responsible for managing policy enforcement and Quality of Service (QoS) parameters for IMS sessions, ensuring adherence to service-level agreements, access control policies, and prioritization of multimedia traffic such as voice and video calls. … “To make the network more robust or more resilient in case of failure, networks may implement different types of redundant systems or mechanisms. However, implementing systems for redundancy can introduce additional complexity and cost in network design.”) AAPA also discloses to use a redundancy system like 1+1 or n+1. AAPA doesn’t disclose identifying at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF, instructing the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF, by the one other network function, and in response to being instructed by the NRF sending, to the second PCF, session information for active sessions associated with the first PCF, along with a flag indicating that the active sessions remain active, by the second PCF receiving the session information from the one other network function, rebuilding the active sessions in a database of the second PCF based on the session information, and managing the active sessions based on the session information in place of the first PCF. Krishan discloses identifying at least one other network function subscribed to the first PCF, instructing the one other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the one other network function, with an identity of a second PCF, by the one other network function, and in response to being instructed by the NRF sending, to the second PCF, session information for active sessions associated with the first PCF, along with a flag indicating that the active sessions remain active, by the second PCF receiving the session information from the one other network function, rebuilding the active sessions in a database of the second PCF based on the session information, and managing the active sessions based on the session information in place of the first PCF (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”). AAPA and Krishan are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA a PCF failure disclosed by Krishan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to make the system more robust in case of failure (see AAPA paragraph [0003]). See also KSR above.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 1, 9 and 17, AAPA also discloses a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network (AAPA paragraph [0002]” For example, a PCF communicates with a session management function (SMF) to exchange session-related information, such as QoS requirements, policy rules, and session state updates. Similarly, an application function (AF) interacts with a PCF to provide context-specific policy requirements and session information, enabling the PCF to enforce policies tailored to the requirements of individual applications or services in a 5G network”). Krishan also discloses a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network (figures 9-10 SMF paragraph [0005] [0008] ” An embodiment of the present disclosure further provides a session binding relationship processing method, including: in response to receiving a session management policy update request message sent by a Session Management Function entity (SMF), acquiring a user address carried in the session management policy update request message; returning a session management policy update response message to the SMF.”) Krishan also discloses a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network (paragraph [0002]-[0003] [0030]” For example, network functions perform tasks such as session management (e.g., session management function (SMF)), policy control (e.g., policy control function (PCF)), access and mobility (e.g., access and mobility management function (AMF)), and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA and Krishan disclose claim 17, Krishan also discloses identify a second other network function subscribed to the first PCF and instruct the second other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the second other network function, with an identity of the second PCF (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”)
Regarding claims 3 and 11, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 1 and 9, Krishan also discloses identifying a second other network function subscribed to the first PCF, instructing the second other network function to replace an identity of the first PCF, in a PCF profile maintained by the second other network function, with an identity of the second PCF, and by the second other network function, and sending, to the second PCF, second session information for the active sessions associated with the first PCF, along with a second flag indicating that the active sessions remain active (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”)
Regarding claims 4 and 12, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 3 and 11, Krishan also discloses receiving the second session information from the second other network function; rebuilding the active sessions in a database of the second PCF based on the second session information and managing the active sessions based on the second session information in place of the first PCF (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”)
Regarding claims 5 and 13, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 4 and 12, AAPA also discloses an application function (AF) (paragraph [0002] “Similarly, an application function (AF) interacts with a PCF to provide context-specific policy requirements and session information, enabling the PCF to enforce policies tailored to the requirements of individual applications or services in a 5G network.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 1 and 9, Krishan also discloses receiving a notification from the second PCF including an indication to deregister the first PCF (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”)
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 20, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 1, 9 and 17, Krishan also discloses to register the second PCF in a network registry hosted by the computing device and deregister the first PCF from the network registry (figure 3, 4 paragraphs [0008] [0039]-[0056 “The BSF system may, in response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, set a routing indicator enabling rerouting the bundled audit request to an alternate PCF in the PCF set if the bundled audit request fails to reach the first PCF. In response to determining the first PCF is part of the PCF set, the BSF system may select the first PCF as a target of the bundled audit request based on a preferred locality relative to other PCFs in the PCF set”)
Regarding claims 8 and 16, AAPA and Krishan disclose claims 1 and 9, AAPA also discloses storing the session information from the one other network function in a session database, including one or more of Quality of Service parameters and policy rules of the active sessions (paragraphs [0002] “Of these network functions, the policy charging function (PCF) is responsible for managing policy enforcement and Quality of Service (QoS) parameters for IMS sessions, ensuring adherence to service-level agreements, access control policies, and prioritization of multimedia traffic such as voice and video calls. For example, a PCF communicates with a session management function (SMF) to exchange session-related information, such as QoS requirements, policy rules, and session state updates”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Steben (US 20230397021 A1) discloses systems and methods for premium session retainability in core networks.
Wu (US 20200252785 A1) discloses PCF determining method, apparatus, and system.
Song (US 20230292398 A1) discloses methods and apparatuses for policy control.
Afzal (US 20220030656 A1) discloses dynamic PCRF/PCF selection.
Belling (US 20250141704 A1) discloses technique for optimizing PCC rules updates for multiple PDU sessions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634