DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 8/20/2026, claims 1- 43 were cancelled and claims 47- 44 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the remarks on 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 of the remarks about, “Claim 44 specifically requires that the PFCP Node Report Response message itself comprises an acknowledgment that the remote F-TEID has been removed. The Non-Final Office Action acknowledges that ETSI does not disclose this but then relies on ETSI LTE to cure the deficiencies of ETSI. ETSI LTE section 7.4.5.2 defines the contents of the PFCP Node Report Response, stating that it "shall be sent over the Sxa, Sxb; Sxc and N4 interface by the CP function to the UP function as a reply to the PFCP Node Report Request." See ETSI LTE, section 7.4.5.2. The information elements in the PFCP Node Report Response, as shown in Table 7.4.5.2.1-1, are limited to Node ID, Cause, and Offending IE. The Cause IE "shall indicate the acceptance or the rejection of the corresponding request message," and the Offending IE "shall be included if the rejection cause is due to a conditional or mandatory IE missing or faulty." Id. Notably absent from the PFCP Node Report Response is any information element for acknowledging that remote F-TEID has been removed”.
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits that Claim 44 recites that no particular information element, field, or encoding for the acknowledgment. It recites a Node Report Response message, sent "as a response to the PFCP Node Report Request message," that "comprises an acknowledgment." During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP § 2111), and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Applicant's argument that a dedicated IE is needed to carry the acknowledged content is not commensurate with the claim.
The specification supports this reading. It describes the acknowledgment as the CP function acknowledging the report, such that it will not send a Session Modification Request to remove the remote F-TEID or change the Apply-Action, and as the CP function sending "a PFCP response message" (Spec. [0086], [0110]). The proposed changes to TS 29.244 add a Peer UP Restart Report IE, a Node Report Type bit, and feature bits to the Node Report Request and propose no new or modified IE in the Node Report Response (Spec. [0131]-[0149]). The accompanying Appendix 2 likewise proposes to report the restart "using PFCP Node Report procedure" ([0367]). Nothing in the specification requires the response to carry a dedicated IE.
Under this interpretation, the Node Report Response of ETSI LTE §7.4.5.2 [and Table 7.4.5.2.1-1], sent by the CP function "as a reply to the PFCP Node Report Request," with a Cause IE indicating acceptance of the request, is an acknowledgment of the report. Claim 44 defines the report as indicating that the second UP function has restarted and that the CP function need not send a Session Modification Request to change the DL FAR. The corresponding FAR and F-TEID parameters (Apply Action "BUFF," §8.2.26; §5.2.4; F-TEID, §8.2.3; Update FAR, §7.5.4) are taught by ETSI LTE, as set out in the rejection below.
On page 4, applicant argues, “Therefore, ETSI and ETSI LTE, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest sending, as a response to the PFCP Node Report Request message, a PFCP Node report Response message that comprises an acknowledgment that the Downlink FAR in all affected PFCP sessions associated with the restarted second UP function has been updated with apply-action set to buffering, and remote F-TEID from the second UP function has been removed as recited in claim 44, and so withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits that the Update FAR IE was not relied upon as the claimed Node Report Response. The response was mapped to ETSI LTE §7.4.5.2, and §§7.5.4 and 8.2.3 were cited for the FAR and F-TEID parameters referred to in the acknowledgment, which Applicant concedes are taught by the prior art (Remarks, p. 4). The claim does not require those parameters to be carried in the response message. Applicant's argument attacks the references individually, but the rejection rests on their combination. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ETSI TS 123 527 v16.4.0 (2020-10) “5G; 5G system restoration procedures (3PP TS 23.527 version 16.4.0 release 16), hereafter ETSI in view of ETSI TS 129 244 V15.2.0 (2018-07) LTE interface between the control plane and the user plane nodes; hereafter ETSI LTE.
Regarding claim 44, ETSI states a method performed by a Control Plane function, CP, function, in a telecommunication network to manage a restart of a second User Plane, UP, function in a user plane path for Protocol Data Unit, PDU, sessions that the CP function is managing (see section 5.2 5.2.1 wherein first UP function as a GTP-U entity and second UP function as a peer GTP-U entity and SMF as a CP function here; further see 5.2.2), the method comprises:
receiving a Packet Forwarding Control Protocol, PFCP, Node Report Request message from a first UP function comprising a report related to a restart of the second UP function (in context with section 4.3.2 (i.e. PSA UPF (i.e. second UPF) … restart) please refer to see 5.4 Upon detecting a GTP-U user plane path failure as specified in clause 5.2.2, the UPF shall report the user plane path failure to the SMF, by sending a PFCP Node Report Request (see 3GPP TS 29.244 [4]) including a User Plane Path Failure Report with the IP address of the remote GTP-U peer(s) towards which a failure has been detected. The UPF should also notify the GTP-U user plane path failure via the Operation and Maintenance system.), where the PFCP Node Report request message indicates:
(1) that the second UP function has restarted and GTP-U context associated with the list of IP addresses have been lost (already discussed above in context with section 4.3.2 (i.e. PSA UPF (i.e. second UPF) … restart) please refer to section 5.2…. including a User Plane Path Failure Report with the IP address of the remote GTP-U peer(s) towards which a failure has been detected); and
(2) that the CP function needs not to send a PFCP Session Modification Request message to change DL FAR per a PFCP session (here not sending);
sending, as a response to the PFCP Node Report Request message, a PFCP Node report Response message that comprises an acknowledgment that the Downlink FAR in all affected PFCP sessions associated with the restarted second UP function has been updated with apply-action set to buffering, and remote F-TEID from the second UP function has been removed; and
releasing PDU sessions affected by the remote GTP-U restart based on a local configuration (see section 5.4 … When the SMF receives the PFCP Node Report Request with a User Plane Path Failure Report, the SMF may: - -
delete the PDU session contexts associated with the path in failure; or
maintain the PDU session contexts associated with the path in failure during an operator configurable maximum
path failure duration. The SMF shall delete the PDU session contexts associated with the path in failure if the
path is still down when this duration expires…..); but fails to state about sending, as a response to the PFCP Node Report Request message, a PFCP Node report Response message that comprises an acknowledgment that the Downlink FAR in all affected PFCP sessions associated with the restarted second UP function has been updated with apply-action set to buffering, and remote F-TEID from the second UP function has been removed.
However ETSI LTE teaches sending, as a response to the PFCP Node Report Request message (see section 6.2.9 PFCP node report procedure; see 6.2.9.1; further see 7.4.5.2 page 69 last two lines … The PFCP Node Report Response shall be sent over the Sxa, Sxb; Sxc and N4 interface by the CP function to the UP function as a reply to the PFCP Node Report Request.);
further ETSI LTE teaches a PFCP Node report Response message that comprises an acknowledgment; see table 7.4.5.1-1 page 70 first table acceptance;
further ETSI LTE teaches the Downlink FAR in all affected PFCP sessions associated with the restarted second UP function has been updated with apply-action set to buffering,; see 8.2.26 apply action= buffering Bit 3 BUFF; further see section 5.2.4 page 27 regarding buffering action rule handling about apply action.. A BAR provides instructions to control the buffering behavior of the UP function for all the FARs of the PFCP session set with an Apply Action parameter requesting the packets to be buffered and associated to this BAR. The CP function may create a BAR for an PFCP session and associate it to the FAR(s) of the PFCP session in an PFCP Session Establishment Request or an PFCP Session Modification Request to request the UP function to apply a specific buffering behavior for packets requested to be buffered and associated to this BAR.
The CP function may modify the following buffering instructions provided in a BAR as follows:…
Further ETSI LTE teaches and remote F-TEID from the second UP function has been removed; see 7.5.4 “update FAR” see page 93 table regarding update FAR and section 8.2.3 page 123- 124 F-TEID see bit 3…bit shall be set by only CP function respectively vice versa.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of ETSI LTE with the teachings of ETSI to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein sending, as a response to the PFCP Node Report Request message, a PFCP Node report Response message that comprises an acknowledgment that the Downlink FAR in all affected PFCP sessions associated with the restarted second UP function has been updated with apply-action set to buffering, and remote F-TEID from the second UP function has been removed; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45- 47 are allowed.
Note: reason for allowance will be provided in the next office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights