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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2022072688, hereinafter Ryu) in view of 3GPP (TS 23.501 V17.1.1, hereinafter 3GPP) in further view of 3GPP (TS 123502, hereinafter 3GPP3) in further view of Zhang et al. (WO 2021227871, hereinafter Zhang)
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a session management function node, a response message related to an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Uncrewed Ariel System (UAS) Service Supplier (USS) Authorization/Authentication (UUAA) re-authentication (Par. 242: Lines 1-4; The SMF may receive a response message indicating that an AA (authorization and/or authentication) for an aerial service (i.e. UUAA) is revoked or failed; Par. 236: Lines 16-20; An authentication procedure is describes involving iterative EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol) message exchanges (e.g., success/failure), and explicitly indicates that re-authentication is triggered within the same procedure; Par. 290: Lines 1-5; Re-authentication is performed after failure or revocation of prior authentication; Because re-authentication is triggered and carried out within the same EAP-based AA procedure and no alternative procedure is disclosed, the re-authentication would reasonably use the same or similar signaling steps as the authentication process),
wherein the response message comprises information related to a UUAA result which is a failure (Par. 242: Lines 1-4; The SMF may receive a response message indicating that an AA (authorization and/or authentication) for an aerial service (i.e. UUAA) is revoked or failed), transmitting, by the session management function node, a session release request message related to the session to the user plane function node (Par. 38: Lines 1-4; The SMF manages sessions including session release and maintaining a tunnel between the UPF and AN node; Par. 43; The UPF is the user plane for PDU sessions; Par. 165: Lines 10-12; The SMF may send a N4 session release request to the old UPF), and receiving, by the session management function node, a session release response message related to the session from the user plane function node (Par. 166: Lines 1-2; The old UPF may send to the SMF a N4 session release response)..
Ryu does not disclose transmitting, by the session management function node, a request message for requesting a usage report for a session related to a UAS service to a user plane function node, and receiving, by the session management function node, a usage report from the user plane function node, wherein the usage report comprises information related to a usage of traffic for the session after the UUAA re-authentication fails.
3GPP, however, discloses transmitting a message for requesting a usage report for a Protocol Data Unit session (PDU) to a User Plane Function (UPF) node (Section 5.8.2.6.1: Par. 2; The SMF requests PDU session level and subscriber information from the UPF; Section 5.8.2.6.2: Par. 2; The SMF shall request the report for usage monitoring; Section 5.8.2.6.3: Par. 1: The UPF shall support reporting usage information to the SMF; Section 5.8.2.6.2: Par. 3; The SMF shall request report of usage information for billing, receiving a usage report for the PDU session from the UPF (Section 5.8.2.6.1: Par. 2; The SMF requests PDU session level and subscriber information from the UPF; Section 5.8.2.6.2: Par. 2; The SMF shall request the report for usage monitoring; Section 5.8.2.6.3: Par. 1: The UPF shall support reporting usage information to the SMF; Section 5.8.2.6.2: Par. 3; The SMF shall request report of usage information for billing; Section 5.8.2.6.3: Par. 1; The UPF shall support reporting to the SMF based on triggers), wherein the usage report includes information related to the usage of traffic related to a PDU session (Section 5.8.2.6.1: Par. 2; The SMF requests PDU session level and subscriber information from the UPF; Section 5.8.2.6.2: Par. 2; The SMF shall request the report for usage monitoring; Section 5.8.2.6.3: Par. 1: The UPF shall support reporting usage information to the SMF; Section 5.8.2.6.2: Par. 3; The SMF shall request report of usage information for billing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ryu to have the SMF request and receive from the UPF a usage report for the UAS-related PDU session, as taught by 3GPP, in order to monitor and account for traffic usage associated with the session. Ryu already teaches that the SMF receives information indicating that the authorization/authentication for the aerial service has failed and manages the associated PDU session, while 3GPP teaches that the SMF may request usage information from the UPF and that the UPF reports traffic-usage information for the corresponding PDU session. Accordingly, applying the known usage-reporting mechanism of 3GPP to Ryu’s UAS-related PDU session after receipt of the authentication-failure information would have predictably resulted in the SMF receiving information concerning traffic usage occurring for the session after the UUAA re-authentication failure.
Ryu in view of 3GPP does not disclose wherein the session release response message comprises a final usage report for the session.
However, 3GPP3 discloses the UPF collects and reports usage information to the SMF over N4 for a PDU session (Section 4.4.2.2: 1.; The UPF collects and reports usage information to the SMF via N4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the N4 release response message of Ryu in view of 3GPP with the usage reporting from the UPF to the SMF via N4. 3GPP3 teaches that the UPF collects and reports usage information to the SMF over N4 for a PDU session. Ryu in view of 3GPP teaches releasing the PDU session via an N4 Session Release procedure between the SMF and the UPF. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include usage reporting at the time of the N4 session release, since the release of the PDU session terminates the session and associated reporting context, and it would have been necessary to provide the SMF with the final usage information for purposes such as charging, billing, and resource accounting. Accordingly, the usage report would be provided in association with the N4 Session Release Response message.
Ryu in view of 3GPP and further in view of 3GPP3 collectively teach the SMF requesting and receiving usage information from the UPF for the UAS-related session and subsequently transmitting a session release request to the UPF and receiving a corresponding session release response. However, Ryu in view of 3GPP and 3GPP3 do not disclose or suggest transmitting the request for the usage report based on the UUAA re-authentication failure response not comprising information related to whether network resources associated with the UAS service can be released.
Zhang, however, discloses, in a UAS environment, receiving by an SMF an abnormal data detection request relating to a UAV session and, based on the abnormal data detection request, providing a rule to a UPF to detect traffic associated with the UAV session (Pars. 14-17; the SMF receives an abnormal data detection request and, based on the request, provides a rule to the UPF for detecting traffic of the UAV/UAVC session). Zhang further discloses that the UPF detects the traffic according to the rule and transmits a session report to the SMF (Pars. 12; the SMF provides the rule to the UPF, the UPF detects the target traffic, and the SMF receives a first session report from the UPF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ryu in view of 3GPP and 3GPP3 such that, when the SMF receives a UUAA failure response that does not itself resolve whether the UAS-related session resources are to be released, the SMF requests usage reporting from the UPF for the still-active session. Ryu teaches that receipt of an aerial-service authentication failure does not itself require automatic release, because the SMF separately determines whether the associated PDU session is to be released and may determine not to release the session, while Zhang teaches that, upon occurrence of an abnormal UAS-related condition, the SMF may cause the UPF to monitor the associated UAS traffic and report the resulting session information. In view of 3GPP’s known SMF-requested usage-reporting mechanism, such a modification would have predictably allowed the SMF to obtain traffic-usage information while the UAS-related session remained active pending the subsequent resource-release determination.
Regrading claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Ryu discloses wherein the response message is received from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), when the UUAA re-authentication is performed by the AMF (Par. 242: Lines 1-4; The SMF may receive a message from the AMF indicating if the AA for an aerial service (i.e. UUAA) is revoked or failed; Fig. 22; AMF revokes the AA for UAS).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Ryu discloses a request message being a session modification request message (Par. 147: Lines 1-3; The SMF may send to the old UPF a N4 session modification request).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 9. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed.
A SMF capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a transceiver, a processor, and a computer memory.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2022072688, hereinafter Ryu) in view of 3GPP (TS 23.501 V17.1.1, hereinafter 3GPP) in further view of 3GPP (TS 123502, hereinafter 3GPP3) in further view of Zhang et al. (WO 2021227871, hereinafter Zhang) in further view of 3GPP (Nokia CC0129 3/17/21, hereinafter 3GPP2)
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Ryu in view of 3GPP in further view of 3GPP3 in further view of Zhang discloses a SMF receiving a UUAA authentication response when performed by the SMF (as shown in the rejection of claim 1). Ryu in view of 3GPP in further view of 3GPP3 in further view of Zhang does not disclose wherein the response message is received from a UAS Network Function (NF) or a Network Exposure Function (NEF), when the UUAA re-authentication is performed by the session management function node.
3GPP2, however, discloses wherein the response message related to the UUAA re-authentication is received from the UAS NF or Network Exposure Function (NEF), when the UUAA re-authentication is performed by the SMF (Proposal 2: Section b and Page 3: Lines 4-5; The SMF uses NEF API(s) and receives from the NEF re-authentication-related signaling, including requests/notifications/results).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryu in view of 3GPP in further view of 3GPP3 in further view of Zhang so that the SMF receives the response message related to the UUAA re-authentication from the NEF, because 3GPP2 teaches that the SMF interfaces with external authentication/authorization entities via the NEF and receives re-authentication-related signaling (e.g., requests, notifications, and results) through NEF APIs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate such NEF-based signaling into Ryu in view of 3GPP in further view of 3GPP3 in further view of Zhang’s system to enable standardized interaction with external UAS/USS entities and to allow the SMF to obtain authentication results through established 5G service-based interfaces, thereby improving interoperability, scalability, and centralized handling of authentication procedures.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2022072688, hereinafter Ryu) in view of 3GPP (TS 23.501 V17.1.1, hereinafter 3GPP) in further view of 3GPP (TS 123502, hereinafter 3GPP3) in further view of Zhang et al. (WO 2021227871, hereinafter Zhang) in further view of Lee et al. (KR 20190018376, hereinafter Lee)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Ryu in view of 3GPP in further view of 3GPP3 in further view of Zhang discloses a request message (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose wherein the request message comprises a Packet Detection Rule (PDR) for distinguishing packets arriving at the user plane function node, and wherein the PDR comprises a Usage Reporting Rule (URR) comprising information related to at least one of a method or time for measuring the packets.
Lee, however, discloses a N4 Session Establishment Request including N4 session context which includes a Packet Detection Rule with information on a rule for distinguishing a packet arriving in the UPF, and a usage reporting rule for collecting information on a usage amount (Page 11: Last Par.: Lines 2-6 and Page 12: Lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the request message of Ryu in view of 3GPP in further view of 3GPP3 in further view of Zhang to include a Packet Detection Rule (PDR) and an associated Usage Reporting Rule (URR) as taught by Lee, since Lee teaches that such rules are included in N4 session request messages to enable packet detection and usage measurement at the UPF. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these rules in order to allow the UPF to distinguish packets and collect usage information associated with a PDU session, thereby supporting accurate monitoring, accounting, and management of network resources. Accordingly, the request message includes a PDR including a URR with information related to measuring packets, as recited.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights