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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 05/27/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 9-10, 12 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-14 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed on 05/27/2026 have necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 5, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangsoo Jeong et al (US 20200389935 A1) in view of Yong Yang et al (WO 2020229409 A1).
For Claim 1, Jeong discloses a wireless communication method for use in a first session management function (SMF) (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0015, lines 1-4, a method, performed by a first Session Management Function (SMF), for providing a continuous service to a user equipment (UE)), the wireless communication method comprising:
receiving [information] related to a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0019, a context request response message may include … information about a User Plane Function (UPF) to be selected by the second SMF);
taking over control of the PDU, session from the second SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0096, lines 1-7, the SMF #2 440 determines whether a request is able to be processed … the SMF #2 440 may perform a process of searching for a UPF (PGW-U) 450 by using PGW-U Tunnel Information included in the received context and changing an N4 path to the changed SMF), and transmitting, to at least one network function associated with the PDU session, SMF change information associated with the PDU session (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0104, lines 1-4, the SMF #2 440 may perform an operation for changing an SMF to transmit or receive a session management (SM) message and process the SM message with the AMF 420), wherein the SMF change information comprises an identifier of the first SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0104, lines 5-9, To search for the AMF 420, the SMF #2 440 may use AMF information (AMF ID) included in the received UE context and may request an update for N2, and the update request may include a UE (subscriber) as a target, a PDU Session ID, and an ID/address of the SMF), wherein the at least one network function comprises at least one of an access and mobility management function, an intermediate SMF, or a visited SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0104, lines 1-4, the SMF #2 440 may perform an operation for changing an SMF to transmit or receive a session management (SM) message and process the SM message with the AMF 420).
Examiner notes that since SMF 2 searches for a UPF (PGW-U) 450 by using PGW-U Tunnel Information and changes an N4 path to the changed SMF, it is considered to have taken over the PDU session, absent specificity, in the claim, about what constitutes taking over a pdu session.
Jeong fails to expressly disclose receiving, from a user plane function, a request related to a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF, in response to user plane function detecting a failure of the second SMF.
However, Yang, in the analogous art, discloses receiving, from a user plane function, a request related to a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0004, that the UPF can initiate session-related signaling (e.g. PFCP Session Report Request) towards any other SMF instance of the SMF Set, when e.g. the SMF instance that currently serves the session is not responsive or not reachable e.g. due to path failure or internal hardware failure), in response to user plane function detecting a failure of the second SMF (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0040, that the UPF 420 detects that a path failure has occurred between SMF instance 410#1 and the UPF 420).
Yang also teaches, in ¶ 0042, that Step 506: The UPF 420 selects another SMF instance 410#2 from the stored SMF Set.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong with the SMF Set taught in Yang. The motivation is so that in case the [serving] SMF is not reachable, any alternative SMF can be selected [Yang: ¶ 0005].
For Claim 5, Jeong discloses a wireless communication method for use in session management function (SMF), the wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, from a first SMF, SMF change information associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF (Jeong teaches, in FIG. 4, step 406: the SMF #1 430 may know that the status of the UE 410 is appropriate to perform an operation for transferring an SMF, and may perform an operation for transmitting a context for a specific PDU session to a target SMF), and transmitting, to an access and mobility management function associated with the PDU session, the SMF change information (Jeong teaches, in FIG. 4, step 409-2: the SMF #2 440 may perform an operation for changing an SMF to transmit or receive a session management (SM) message and process the SM message with the AMF 420), wherein the SMF change information comprises an identifier of the first SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0104, lines 5-9, To search for the AMF 420, the SMF #2 440 may use AMF information (AMF ID) included in the received UE context and may request an update for N2, and the update request may include a UE (subscriber) as a target, a PDU Session ID, and an ID/address of the SMF).
Jeong fails to expressly disclose an intermediate session management function (SMF), in response to user plane function detecting a failure of the second SMF.
However, Yang, in the analogous art discloses an intermediate session management function (SMF) (Yang shows, in FIG. 5, that SMF instance 410#2, is intermediate between SMF instance 410#1 and UPF 420), in response to user plane function detecting a failure of the second SMF (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0040, that the UPF 420 detects that a path failure has occurred between SMF instance 410#1 and the UPF 420).
Yang also teaches, in ¶ 0004, that the UPF can initiate session-related signaling (e.g. PFCP Session Report Request) towards any other SMF instance of the SMF Set, when e.g. the SMF instance that currently serves the session is not responsive or not reachable e.g. due to path failure or internal hardware failure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong with the SMF Set taught in Yang. The motivation is so that in case the [serving] SMF is not reachable, any alternative SMF can be selected [Yang: ¶ 0005].
For Claim 7, Jeong discloses a wireless communication method for a network function, the wireless communication method comprising: receiving, from a first session management function (SMF), SMF change information associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF (Jeong teaches, in FIG. 4, step 406: the SMF #1 430 may know that the status of the UE 410 is appropriate to perform an operation for transferring an SMF, and may perform an operation for transmitting a context for a specific PDU session to a target SMF), and updating SMF information of at least one PDU session based on the SMF change information (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0105, In operation 410, the AMF 420 transmits a response for a process for updating SMF information to the SMF #2), wherein the SMF change information comprises an identifier of the first SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0104, lines 5-9, To search for the AMF 420, the SMF #2 440 may use AMF information (AMF ID) included in the received UE context and may request an update for N2, and the update request may include a UE (subscriber) as a target, a PDU Session ID, and an ID/address of the SMF), wherein the at least one network function comprises at least one of an access and mobility management function, an intermediate SMF, or a visited SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0104, lines 1-4, the SMF #2 440 may perform an operation for changing an SMF to transmit or receive a session management (SM) message and process the SM message with the AMF 420).
Jeong fails to expressly disclose in response to user plane function detecting a failure of the second SMF.
However, Yang, in the analogous art, discloses in response to user plane function detecting a failure of the second SMF (Yang teaches, in ¶ 0040, that the UPF 420 detects that a path failure has occurred between SMF instance 410#1 and the UPF 420).
Yang also teaches, in ¶ 0004, that the UPF can initiate session-related signaling (e.g. PFCP Session Report Request) towards any other SMF instance of the SMF Set, when e.g. the SMF instance that currently serves the session is not responsive or not reachable e.g. due to path failure or internal hardware failure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong with the SMF Set taught in Yang. The motivation is so that in case the [serving] SMF is not reachable, any alternative SMF can be selected [Yang: ¶ 0005].
For Claim 11, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claims 3-4, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangsoo Jeong et al (US 20200389935 A1) in view of Yong Yang et al (WO 2020229409 A1) as applied to claim 1, or 11 above, and further in view of 3GPP TS29.244 V17.0.0 (January 30, 2021).
For Claims 3, 13, Jeong and Yang disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of a Session Endpoint Identifier (SEID) and a Control Plane Fully Qualified SEID (CP F-SEID).
However, 3GPP, in the analogous art, discloses a Session Endpoint Identifier (SEID) and a Control Plane Fully Qualified SEID (CP F-SEID) (3GPP teaches, in 5.22.2, that When establishing a PFCP session, the SEID that the SMF assigns in the CP F-SEID of the PFCP Session Establishment Request may be unique or not within the SMF set. However the assigned CP F-SEID shall be unique within the SMF set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong and Yang with the Session Endpoint Identifier taught in 3GPP. The motivation is so that PFCP session can be successively controlled by different SMF(s) in the same SMF set.
For Claims 4, 14, Jeong and Yang disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the SEID is set to 0, and the CP F-SEID is assigned by the second SMF.
However, 3GPP, in the analogous art, discloses that the SEID is set to 0, and the CP F-SEID is assigned by the second SMF (3GPP teaches, in 5.22.2, that When sending the request to another PFCP entity pertaining to the same SMF or to the new SMF, the UPF shall set the SEID field to zero in the PFCP header of the PFCP request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong and Ryu with the Session Endpoint Identifier taught in 3GPP. The motivation is so that PFCP session can be successively controlled by different SMF(s) in the same SMF set.
Claims 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangsoo Jeong et al (US 20200389935 A1) in view of Yong Yang et al (WO 2020229409 A1) as applied to claim 5 or claim 7, and further in view of Jinsook Ryu et al (US 20210211960 A1).
For Claim 6, Jeong discloses updating the SMF information of the plurality of PDU sessions served by the second SMF based on the SMF change information (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0105, In operation 410, the AMF 420 transmits a response for a process for updating SMF information to the SMF #2).
Jeong & Yang fail to expressly disclose a plurality of PDU sessions served by the second SMF.
However, Ryu, in the analogous art, discloses a plurality of PDU sessions served by the second SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0280, that SMF provides session management function, and in the case that a UE has multiples sessions, each session may be managed by different SMF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong & Yang with the activated PDU session information taught in Ryu. The motivation is so that unnecessary signaling/process operation is minimized, and delay of handover procedure and release procedure may be prevented [Ryu: ¶ 0022].
For Claim 8, Jeong discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of a plurality of PDU sessions served by the second SMF.
However, Ryu, in the analogous art, discloses a plurality of PDU sessions served by the second SMF (Jeong teaches, in ¶ 0280, that SMF provides session management function, and in the case that a UE has multiples sessions, each session may be managed by different SMF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Jeong with the activated PDU session information taught in Ryu. The motivation is so that unnecessary signaling/process operation is minimized, and delay of handover procedure and release procedure may be prevented [Ryu: ¶ 0022].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-14
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statement that cited references fail to teach or suggest “a wireless device that receives a request related to a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF from a user plane function, takes control over the PDU, and transmits a network function that includes at least one of an access and mobility management function, an intermediate SMF, or a visited SMF,” (see remarks, pages 7-9).
The reason being Yang teaches, in ¶ 0004, that the UPF can initiate session-related signaling (e.g. PFCP Session Report Request) towards any other SMF instance of the SMF Set, when e.g. the SMF instance that currently serves the session is not responsive or not reachable e.g. due to path failure or internal hardware failure.
As can clearly be seen in the above citation, the prior art does in fact, teaches a wireless device that receives a request related to a protocol data unit (PDU) session served by a second SMF from a user plane function, takes control over the PDU, and transmits a network function that includes at least one of an access and mobility management function, an intermediate SMF, or a visited SMF.
Additionally, Yang also teaches, in ¶ 0040, that the UPF 420 detects that a path failure has occurred between SMF instance 410#1 and the UPF 420. Yang than teaches, in ¶ 0042, that Step 506: The UPF 420 selects another SMF instance 410#2 from the stored SMF Set.
Accordingly, Examiner believes that the combination of references does render
amended claim 1 obvious. Since the cited references teach or suggest each and every element of claims 1, 5, 7, and 11, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 as well as dependent claims 6, and 8 are not yet in condition for allowance.
Consequently, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, and 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, be maintained as proper.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 depend from and incorporate the subject matter of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Accordingly, Claims 3-4 and 13-14 have been rejected on their own merits, as well as for depending from rejected base claims. Again, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of Claims 3-4 and 13-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)2705629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at (571)2707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights