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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 has been amended to recite, in part:
“wherein the network session element comprises a Session Management Function (SMF) and Packet Data Network Gateway Control (PGW-C), wherein the network session element is configured to selectively invoke the PGW-C functionality for the PDU session based on whether the UPF service type returned by the network element”.
The specification as filed does not disclose the underlined features.
Reviewing the PGPub (US 2026/0156692 A1) there is no explicit or implied teaching corresponding to the underlined subject matter above. At best the disclosure teaches that the network session element 122 comprises a SMF and PGW-C. There is no indication that the PGW-C is selectively invoked, as has been amended into the claims. The claims are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7 9-10, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puente Pestaña et al. (US 2022/0232369 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 2023/0247524 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, the disclosure of Puente Pestaña discloses:
a system (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications system) comprising:
a network session element (fig.1 the SMF, as it pertains to fig.7 wherein the SMF is a Session Management Function); and
a network element (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network, comprising a plurality of functions/modules configured to perform some function. For example, Network Repository Function is shown, element 114), comprising:
a memory (par.[0128] which discloses a memory) configured to store instructions (fig.1 implicit that the hardware would comprise a memory) and a plurality of User Plane Function (UPFs) registered with the network element (fig.1 it is known that the NRF enables registration and discovery of Network Functions (NF) such as User Plane Function, which register their profiles with the NRF. Par.[0069] and fig.5 element 502); and
wherein the network element is communicably coupled with network session element (fig.1 and 7 wherein the NRF is communicatively coupled with the SMF, and is able to transmit and receive messages from the SMF); and
a processor (par.[0022 – 0023] describes a processor) configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory (par.[0022 – 0023] describes a processor configured to perform a method) to:
receive a UPF request from a network session element for detecting one or more UPFs from the plurality of UPFs (fig.7 element 704, wherein the UPF request comprises at least a UPF service type, the NF Type = UPF allows for filtering of the repository for a particular type of UPF matching a service), wherein the UPF request comprises at least a UPF service type (fig.7 element 704, the UPF matching a service, thus the UPF comprises a service type);
identifying the one or more UPFs from the plurality of UPFs based on the UPF service type (fig.7 based on the transmission of element 704 the NRF can determine the particular UPF based on the request submitted); and
sending information related to the one or more UPFs to the network session element (fig.7 element 705 the NRF after identifying the particular UPFs which corresponds to the request, can send the response, which comprises a list of tuples corresponding to UPFs);
wherein the network session element is configured to identify a UPF from the one or more UPFs based on the information and one or more selection parameters for facilitating a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session (fig.7 element 706, and par.[0081 – 0082] which describes the SMF, (i.e. the network session element) which selects a UPF from the list for creating a PDU session as shown in element 709).
While the disclosure of Puente Pestana discloses the claimed subject matter, it may not disclose:
wherein the UPF request comprises at least a UPF service type comprising information element in UpInfo.
However, the use of the information element when requesting a service was known prior to the effective filing date of the instant application. For example, the disclosure of Lu teaches:
wherein the UPF request comprises at least a UPF service type comprising information element in UpInfo (par.[0008] “In some embodiments, the first request message is a request message for Nnrf_NFManagement service, and the first response message is a response message for Nnrf_NFManagement service. In some embodiments, the first indicator is an attribute of the data type “UpfInfo” comprised in the first request message.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Puente Pestaña for UPF service request with the disclosure of Ha for including the information element in the service request. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for the search of a UPF providing a specific service.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16, Puente Pestaña discloses:
receiving a registration request from an UPF (fig.6 wherein the UPF forwarding a Nnrf_NFManagement NFRegisterRequest toward the NRF, element 601), wherein the registration request comprises one or more UPF service types (par.[0071] which recites, in part, “NRF registration operation from the UPF is extended to allow the Event Exposure service, and the Event-IDs supported by that service, to be registered. One or more Event Exposure services could be registered by a single UPF, with each Event Exposure service supporting one or multiple Event-IDs.” The office notes that the NRF is the repository of UPF); and
register the UPF with the one or more UPF service types based on the registration request (fig.6 element 602 the response can confirm the registration of the UPF with the one or more services at the NRF so that different Network Functions (NF) can identify different NF by querying the NRF).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 18, Puente Pestaña discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the UPF request as part of a subscription for at least one service type of UPF (fig.7 element 701 and 702, and par.[0076 – 0077]).
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses:
Wherein the UPF service type is the information element in UPFInfo (par.[0008] as discussed above), and the UPF service type comprised in the UPF request is identified from a plurality of predetermined UPF service types (par.[0085] as different network functions (NF) provide different services, and different UPFs/NFs provide different services, thus a search for a one or more services corresponding to different NFS).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puente Pestaña in view of Long (US 2022/0225444 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17, Puente Pestaña discloses:
the SMF forwarding a UPF request to a repository, but may not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the UPF request from the network session element in response to a PDU session request from an User Equipment.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Long teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to receive the UPF request from the network session element in response to a PDU session request from an User Equipment (par.[0117] and step 708 which teaches that the SMF forwarding the request based on the AMF which receives a PDU session request from the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Puente Pestaña for UPF discovery for PDU session establishment, with the disclosure of Long for the same. The motivation/suggestion would have been the UE needs a certain service, and would request the service from the network.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puente Pestaña in view of Chou (US 2022/0086072 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Puente Pestaña discloses the independent claims, but does not disclose:
send a notification related to a new UPF registered with the at least one service type based on the subscription of the network session element.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Chou teaches:
send a notification related to a new UPF registered with the at least one service type based on the subscription of the network session element (par.[0032] which recites, in part, “3GPP management system configures SMF or NRF to add the newly instantiated UPF and may configure other NFs needed to support edge computing. It should be noted that the NRF may notify all SMFs with a subscription matching the UPF Provisioning Information of the new UPF (see clause 4.17.6.2 in TS 23.502).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Puente Pestaña with the disclosure Chou. The motivation/suggestion would have been to notify and update SMF of a specific subscription when a new network function is available to assist in supporting an edge computing application or other applications.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puente Pestaña in view of Landais (US 2021/0306211 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, Puente Pestaña discloses the independent claims, but does not disclose:
determine, prior to the identifying, whether a set of UPFs of the plurality of UPFs are in a suspended status; and
exclude the determined set of UPFs in the suspended status form the one or more UPFs.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Landais discloses:
determine, prior to the identifying, whether a set of UPFs of the plurality of UPFs are in a suspended status; and
exclude the determined set of UPFs in the suspended status form the one or more UPFs (par.[0028] which recites, in part, “Consequently the NRF can detect an NF instance failure using the NRF heartbeat mechanism, then responsively change a status indicator (such as by changing the NFStatus value of the NF instance to SUSPENDED, for example), and notify one or more subscribed NFs that the given NF instances is suspended and/or deregistered.” The UPF being a type of NF. Also, “removal of the corresponding service instance from the relevant NF profile.”. Thus, when the NF profile has removed the one or more NFs that are suspended prior to the identifying.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures Puente Pestaña with the disclosure of Landais. The motivation/suggestion would have been to inform other network functions of the status of particular network functions to ensure that the status of network functions are known throughout the network so that performance is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 15, 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.
With regard to claim 7, Puente Pestaña et al. (US 2022/0232369 A1) describes NF services or service types as discussed in the applicants response, which includes a one or more types of UPF services, see tuples at fig.7 element 705. Thus, the applicants arguments are overcome based on the disclosure of Puente Pestaña.
With regard to claim 8, the claim is rejected in view of 112(a) written description for lacking adequate support in the specification as filed. The applicants arguments concerning claim 8 are moot. Additionally in 5G the PGW-C would correspond to control plane signaling while the UPF would act as a PGW-U for forwarding user data. It is unclear how the specification teaches selective invocation of the PGW-C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chong et al. (US 2025/0016544 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Determining User Plane Function Network Element”
Ortenblad et al. (US 2021/0288886 A1) “Open Network Automation Platform (ONAP) – Fifth Generation Core (5GC) Interaction for Analytics”
Ha et al. (US 2023/0247101 A1) “Apparatus and Method for Applying Service-Based Interface for User Traffic Processing Wireless Communication System”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights