DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
II. This action is in response to applicants amendment/arguments filed on June 2, 2026. This action is made FINAL.
Allowable Subject Matter
III. Claims 21 and 32 may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections to the specification, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art found is Baek (US 2018/0317157 A1) and Lee (US 10,708,824).
Baek teaches at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network (see paragraph [0189], method by the PCF for transferring a DNAI list to the SMF reads on at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network)” receiving, from a policy control function (PCF), a request for a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE) to use a second data network, wherein the request comprises data network access information (DNAI) for the second data network (see paragraphs [0188] & [0189], The PCF transfers the location condition to the SMF (see paragraph [0188]). The SMF may determine the corresponding terminal is located in an area where the PDU session of the terminal needs to be steered to a local access identified by a new DNAI (see paragraph [0188]). The PCF may configure the DNAI information and location information indicating the corresponding location condition to be transferred to the SMF and the SMF receives the DNAI and the location information indicating the corresponding location condition. This reads on receiving, from a policy control function (PCF), a request for a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE) to use a second data network, wherein the request comprises data network access information (DNAI) for the second data network); determining whether the SMF is capable of steering or routing the first session to use the second data network based on the DNAI (see paragraph [0189], The SMF receives the DNAI and the location information indicating the corresponding location condition. The SMF discovers the DNAI from the PCF and then may steer the PDU session of the terminal to the corresponding DNAI. If the terminal moves to a location excluding the location condition allocated to the SMF, the SMF may notify the PCF in order to request a policy update. This reads on determining whether the SMF is capable of steering or routing the first session to use the second data network based on the DNAI).
Lee teaches when the SMF is capable of modifying the first session, transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), and indication the first session is to be modified (see col. 14, lines 43-54 & 64-67, The AMF generates and transmits, using the identification information of a PDU session, a modify PDU session request message to the source SMF. The source SMF may transmit a modify PDU session response message to the AMF. This reads on when the SMF is capable of modifying the first session, transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), and indication the first session is to be modified).
Specification
IV. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 21 recites “determining whether the SMF is capable of modifying the first session to use the second data network based on the DNAI” in lines 7-8. The claimed " determining whether the SMF is capable of modifying the first session" is not recited in the specification as filed. The specification describes the SMF may use the information (policy control notification) to determine whether the SMF is capable of routing a session to the requested DNAI (see the specification, page 16 at paragraph [0051]). Therefore, the specification and/or claims should be amended so that the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification.
Claim 32 recites “determine whether a session management function (SMF) is capable of modifying the first session using the second data network based on the DNAI” in lines 6-7. The claimed "determine whether a session management function (SMF) is capable of modifying the first session" is not recited in the specification as filed. The specification describes the SMF may use the information (policy control notification) to determine whether the SMF is capable of routing a session to the requested DNAI (see the specification, page 16 at paragraph [0051]). Therefore, the specification and/or claims should be amended so that the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification.
The following rejections are based on the best possible interpretation of the claim language in light of the above objection to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
V. Claims 21, 23-28, 30-32, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 21 recites “when the SMF is capable of modifying the first session to use the second data network, transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), an indication the first session is to be modified wherein the DNAI is included in the indication” in lines 9-11.
The specification as filed does not provide enablement for this limitation.
The specification describes: establishing a new PDU session or modifying an existing PDU session (see the specification, page 5 at paragraph [0022]); the AMF may be configured to modify and create a session from a first SMF to a second SMF (see the specification, page 10 at paragraph [0033]); and the AMF transmitting a message to a selected SMF which transfers the active PDU session from the previous session SMF to a new SMF, which may include modifying the ongoing PDU session or creating a new PDU session (see the specification, pages 16-17 at paragraph [0054]). The term “modify” or “modifying” is not mentioned elsewhere in the specification or drawing figures.
The specification describes the SMF determining whether the SMF is capable of routing a session to the requested DNA and an identification that the SMF is not currently configured with the requested DNAI (see the specification, page 16 at paragraph [0051]). The specification further describes the SMF indicating to the AMF that the SMF is not configured with the requested DNAI in for example a Nsfm_event_exposure_notify message to the AMF (see the specification, page 16 at paragraph [0052]).
However, the specification does not provide enablement for “when the SMF is capable of modifying the first session to use the second data network, transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), an indication the first session is to be modified wherein the DNAI is included in the indication”.
Claims 23-28 and 30-31 are dependent on clam 21 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement for the same reasons given above regarding claim 21.
Claim 32 contains limitations similar to the ones recited above in claim 21. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement for the same reasons given above regarding claim 21.
Claims 34-40 are dependent on claim 32 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement for the same reasons given above regarding claim 32.
The following rejection is based on the best possible interpretation of the claim language in light of the above rejection for lack of enablement under of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
VI. Claims 21, 23-28, 30-32, and 34-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “when the SMF is capable of modifying the first session to use the second data network, transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), an indication the first session is to be modified wherein the DNAI is included in the indication” in lines 9-11.
It is unclear how the phrases “modifying the first session to use the second data network” and “transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), an indication the first session is to be modified wherein the DNAI is included in the indication” are related to the SMF because the specification describes the SMF determining whether the SMF is capable of routing a session to the requested DNA (see the specification, page 16 at paragraph [0051]) and indicating to the AMF that the SMF is not configured with the requested DNAI (see the specification, page 16 at paragraph [0052]).
The limitations render the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23-28 and 30-31 are dependent on clam 21 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of enablement for the same reasons given above regarding claim 21.
Claim 32 contains limitations similar to the ones recited above in claim 21. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of enablement for the same reasons given above regarding claim 21.
Claims 34-40 are dependent on claim 32 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of enablement for the same reasons given above regarding claim 32.
Claim 32 recites “one or more processors configured to: receive, from a policy control function (PCF)” in lines 1-2 and “transmit to an access and mobility management function (AMF) in line 9. It is unclear how one or more processors receive from the policy control function (PCF) and transmit to the access and mobility management function (AMF) because the specification describes the processor at a UE for executing instructions (see the specification, paragraphs [0096] – [0100] and Fig. 11).
The limitation renders the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Response to Arguments
VII. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 23-28, 30-32, and 34-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
VIII. 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 BRANDON J MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/BRANDON J MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights