DETAILED ACTION
I. This office action is in response to the correspondence filed on May 22, 2024. Claims 21-40 are pending and being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
II. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
III. 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 1 recites “servicing a first session” in line 3 and claim 32 recites “service a first session” in line 2. The claimed "servicing a first session" and “service a first session” is not recited in the specification as filed.
Therefore, the specification and/or claims should be amended so that the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
IV. Claims 21-40 are 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 “at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: servicing a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE)” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by the term “servicing” and/or how it relates to the SMF and “first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE)”. The specification provides no clarification on at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: servicing a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE). 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.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will treat the following quotation from claim 1, “at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: servicing a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE)” as
“at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: providing a service for a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE)”.
Claims 22-31 depend on claim 21 and are rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons given above regarding claim 21.
Claims 33-40 depend on claim 32 and are rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons given above regarding claim 32.
The following prior art rejection is based on the best possible interpretation of the claim language in light of the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
V. Claims 21, 24-27, 32, and 35-38 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 10,708,824 B2).
Regarding claim 21 Lee teaches a method, comprising: at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: servicing a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE) (see col. 8, lines 15-19 & col. 13, line 18 and Fig. 2, The terminal receives a service from a SMF. A PDU session is currently being used by the UE. This reads on at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: servicing a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE); receiving a request for the first session to use a second data network (see col. 13, lines 11-28 and Fig. 8A, A target RAN is selected for handover of the UE PDU session. A handover request message is transmitted to the AMF. The AMF may deliver the PDU session handover message to a source SMF that controls the PDU session being used by the UE. The source SMF receives the PDU session handover request message. This reads on receiving a request for the first session to use a second data network); and determining whether the SMF is capable of servicing the first session using the second data network (see col. 13, liens 25-30, If the source SMF that receives the PDU session handover request message determines that the target RAN has no connectivity with UPFs managed by the source SMF, the source SMF may perform a procedure for selected a new SMF. This reads on determining whether the SMF is capable of servicing the first session using the second data network).
Regarding claim 24 Lee teaches wherein, when the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network, the method further comprises: sending, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), a message indicating the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network (see col. 13, lines 26-30 and col. 14, lines 7-11 & 23-25, If the source SMF that receives the PDU session handover request message determines that the target RAN has no connectivity with UPFs managed by the source SMF, the source SMF may perform a procedure for selected a new SMF. The source SMF creates a new PDU session with the target SMF and the target SMF provides the source SMF a PDU session identification information in a create PDU session response. The source SMF transmits to the AMF, a PDU session handover response message including the PDU session identification information. The PDU session identification information from the target SMF indicates that the source SMF is not capable of continuing the session with the target RAN and reads on wherein, when the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network, the method further comprises: sending, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), a message indicating the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network).
Regarding claim 25 Lee teaches wherein the first session is a protocol data unit (PDU) session (see col. 13, lines 17-19, PDU session IDs of a PDU session being currently used by the UE reads on wherein the first session is a protocol data unit (PDU) session).
Regarding claim 26 Lee teaches wherein the message indicating the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network comprises an indication that the PDU session is to be modified (see col. 8, lines 59-62; col. 10, lines 1-2; and Fig. 4A & Fig. 4B, If the SMF that receives the PDU session handover request message determines that there is no connectivity between the target RAN and the anchor UPF, the SMF may select an intermediate UPF. As part of the process to update the data transmission path for the PDU session a modify PDU session request and response message may be transmitted to/from the AMF and SMF. This reads on wherein the message indicating the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network comprises an indication that the PDU session is to be modified).
Regarding claim 27 Lee teaches wherein the message indicating the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network comprises an indication that a new PDU session is to be established (see col. 13, lines 26-30 and col. 14, lines 7-11 & 23-25, If the source SMF that receives the PDU session handover request message determines that the target RAN has no connectivity with UPFs managed by the source SMF, the source SMF may perform a procedure for selected a new SMF. The source SMF creates a new PDU session with the target SMF and the target SMF provides the source SMF a PDU session identification information in a create PDU session response. The source SMF transmits to the AMF, a PDU session handover response message including the PDU session identification information. The PDU session identification information from the target SMF indicates that an indication that a new PDU session is to be established and reads on wherein the message indicating the SMF is not capable of servicing the first session using the second data network comprises an indication that a new PDU session is to be established).
Regarding claim 32 Lee teaches one or more processors (see col. 20, lines 3-7 and Fig. 15, The controller 1510 reads on one or more processors) configured to: service a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE) (see col. 8, lines 15-19 & col. 13, line 18 and Fig. 2, The terminal receives a service from a SMF. A PDU session is currently being used by the UE. This reads on at a session management function (SMF) of a cellular network: servicing a first session between a first data network and a user equipment (UE); receive a request for the first session to use a second data network (see col. 13, lines 11-28 and Fig. 8A, A target RAN is selected for handover of the UE PDU session. A handover request message is transmitted to the AMF. The AMF may deliver the PDU session handover message to a source SMF that controls the PDU session being used by the UE. The source SMF receives the PDU session handover request message. This reads on receiving a request for the first session to use a second data network); and determine whether the SMF is capable of servicing the first session using the second data network (see col. 13, liens 25-30, If the source SMF that receives the PDU session handover request message determines that the target RAN has no connectivity with UPFs managed by the source SMF, the source SMF may perform a procedure for selected a new SMF. This reads on determining whether the SMF is capable of servicing the first session using the second data network).
Regarding claim 35 Lee teaches limitations as recited in claim 24 and therefore claim 35 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
Regarding claim 36 Lee teaches limitations as recited in claim 25 and therefore claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
Regarding claim 37 Lee teaches limitations as recited in claim 26 and therefore claim 37 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
Regarding claim 38 Lee teaches limitations as recited in claim 27 and therefore claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
VI. Claims 22-23, 28-31, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 10,708,824 B2) in view Dao et al. (US 2019/0261260 A1).
Regarding claim 22 Lee teaches the method of claim 21 including the second data network (see Lee, col. 13, lines 15-18, Target RAN reads on second data network) and except for wherein the request comprises a data network access information (DNAI)
Dao teaches a data network access information (DNAI) (see paragraph [0024] and claims 1- 4, The information of a data network access information (DNAI) reads on a data network access information (DNAI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the request in Lee adapt to include data network access information (DNAI) for the second data network because DNAI is well known to be used when servicing PDU sessions for the UE (see Dao, paragraph [0024] & claims 1-4).
Regarding claim 23 Dao teaches an application function (AF) identification (ID) of an AF that initiated the request and an application identifier (see claim 1 & claim 4, Information is obtained by an AF. The AF (ID) and Application ID(s) reads on an application function (AF) identification (ID) of an AF that initiated the request and an application identifier).
Regarding claim 28 Lee teaches a PDU session ID of the PDU session (see Lee, col. 13, lines 17-18, PDU session ID(s) of a PDU session being currently used reads on a PDU session ID of the PDU session) and the second data network (see Lee, col. 13, lines 15-18, Target RAN reads on second data network). Dao teaches data network access information (DNAI) (see Dao, paragraph [0024] and claims 1- 4, The information of a data network access information (DNAI) reads on a data network access information (DNAI)).
Regarding claim 29 Lee teaches the method of claim 21 except for wherein the request is received from a policy control function (PCF).
Dao teaches a policy control function (PCF) (see paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the request in Lee adapt to include being received from a policy control function (PCF) because PCF are well-known to be used when servicing PDU sessions for the UE including creating and modifying PDU Sessions (see Dao, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 30 Lee teaches wherein the request comprises a policy control notification (see paragraph [0071], The PCF may transmit a policy update notification to the SMF. This reads on wherein the request comprises a policy control notification).
Regarding claim 31 Lee teaches the method of claim 21 except for wherein the request is initiated by an application function (AF).
Dao teaches an request initiated by an application function (AF) (see paragraph [0066], The AF sends an AF request and this reads on request initiated by an application function (AF)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the request in Lee adapt to include being request initiated by an application function (AF) because AF are well-known to be used when UE data sessions including creating and modifying PDU Sessions (see Dao, paragraphs [0024] & [0066]).
Regarding claim 39 Lee and Dao teach limitations as recited in claim 28 and therefore claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
Regarding claim 40 Lee and Dao teach limitations as recited in claims 29-30 and therefore claim 40 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
VII. 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
February 21, 2026