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 claim(s) 1-10 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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 were formerly rejected under 35 USC 103 (a). Pursuant to applicant’s amendments, these rejections have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0270715 A1, hereinafter ‘Lee’) in view of 3GPP TS 23.502 V16.7.0 (Release 16, hereinafter ‘3GPP’).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses: “A method for a Session Management Function (SMF) comprising,” because Lee discloses a method performed by an SMF in a network including a session established via a first user plane function (UPF) (Lee, ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0018]–[0019]; claims 1–2). Lee discloses “providing, to a first network function handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session … a session timer value,” because the SMF transmits, via an access and mobility management function (AMF), a first message including a maintain time of the session established via the first UPF when the first UPF needs to be changed (Lee, ¶¶ [0010], [0018]; claim 1). Lee further discloses “receiving” a second message to establish a session using a second UPF and performing a procedure for releasing the session established via the first UPF when the maintain time of the session has expired (Lee, ¶¶ [0011], [0019]; claim 2). Lee also discloses starting a procedure to establish a replacement PDU session through the second UPF in connection with release of the session through the first UPF (Lee, ¶¶ [0062]–[0063]).
Lee does not disclose “providing, to a first network function handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session in a network slice, a session timer value for Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI)”; “receiving, from the first network function, a report related to release of the PDU session based on expiration of the session timer value”; and “wherein a process related to the S-NSSAI is started based on a release cause of the release of the PDU session.”
3GPP discloses: “providing, to a first network function handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session in a network slice, a session timer value for Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI),” because 3GPP teaches that a PDU session is established and managed in association with an S-NSSAI and that, during N4 Session Establishment, the SMF determines an Inactivity Timer and provides the Inactivity Timer to the UPF for the PDU session (3GPP, § 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a). The UPF is a network function handling user-plane traffic and resources for the PDU session. Thus, the Inactivity Timer is provided for a PDU session managed in association with its S-NSSAI.
3GPP further discloses “receiving, from the first network function, a report related to release of the PDU session based on expiration of the session timer value,” because, when an Inactivity Timer for a PDU session is provided by the SMF during an N4 Session Establishment or Modification procedure, the UPF detects that the PDU session has no data transfer for the period specified by the Inactivity Timer and reports PDU Session Inactivity to the SMF (3GPP, § 4.4.2.2, item (5)). The inactivity report is related to the subsequent deactivation or release handling of the PDU session (3GPP, §§ 4.3.7 and 4.4.2.2).
3GPP further discloses “wherein a process related to the S-NSSAI is started based on a release cause of the release of the PDU session,” because a PDU Session Release Command includes a Cause and the Cause may indicate a trigger to establish a new PDU session with the same characteristics (3GPP, § 4.3.4.2, step 3). Because the released PDU session is associated with an S-NSSAI, establishment of a new cause.
3GPP also identifies network-slice conditions as triggers for PDU-session-release handling, including a change in the set of network slices where a network-slice instance is no longer available (3GPP, § 4.3.4.2, step 1f).
Reason to combine: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s SMF-controlled maintain-time and PDU-session-relocation procedure according to 3GPP by associating the PDU session with an S-NSSAI, providing the timer to the UPF handling the PDU session, receiving the UPF’s report when the timer-defined inactivity period expires, and using the release cause to trigger establishment of a replacement PDU session having the same characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to implement Lee’s session-relocation and timer-expiration functions using 3GPP’s standardized 5G N4 inactivity-detection, reporting, slicing, and PDU-session-release procedures, thereby enabling coordinated resource handling and continued session service through the predictable use of known 5G network functions and signaling procedures.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses: All limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lee does not disclose “wherein the release cause is related to a slice inactivity.” 3GPP discloses: “wherein the release cause is related to a slice inactivity,” because the UPF detects inactivity of the PDU session associated with the S-NSSAI and reports that inactivity to the SMF when the PDU session has no data transfer for the period specified by the Inactivity Timer (3GPP, § 4.4.2.2, item (5)). 3GPP further teaches PDU-session-release handling arising from network-slice conditions, including a change in the set of network slices where a network-slice instance is no longer available (3GPP, § 4.3.4.2, step 1f). Thus, in the combination, the release cause is related to inactivity of the PDU session operating in the network slice and therefore is related to a slice inactivity.
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply 3GPP’s standardized inactivity reporting and slice-related release handling to Lee’s timer-based PDU-session release for the reasons stated regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses: All limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lee further discloses “configuring the session timer value,” because Lee’s SMF determines and communicates the maintain time applied to the session (Lee, ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0048]–[0051]). Lee does not disclose: Expressly configuring the session timer value as an inactivity timer provided to a UPF for a PDU session associated with an S-NSSAI.
3GPP discloses: “configuring the session timer value,” because the SMF determines the Inactivity Timer and provides the Inactivity Timer to the UPF during N4 Session Establishment (3GPP, § 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a). Determining and supplying the Inactivity Timer constitutes configuring the session timer value.
Thus, It would have been obvious to configure Lee’s session timer value according to 3GPP’s standardized SMF-to-UPF Inactivity Timer procedure for the reasons stated regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lee further discloses a session timer in the form of the maintain time governing how long the session established through the first UPF is maintained (Lee, ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0018]–[0019]).
Lee does not disclose: “wherein the session timer value is a timer for a session inactivity timer.”
3GPP discloses: “wherein the session timer value is a timer for a session inactivity timer,” because 3GPP expressly discloses an Inactivity Timer for a PDU session. The UPF applies the Inactivity Timer to determine whether the PDU session has no data transfer for the specified period and then reports PDU Session Inactivity to the SMF (3GPP, §§ 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a, and 4.4.2.2, item (5)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to implement Lee’s maintain-time functionality using 3GPP’s standardized session Inactivity Timer to detect inactive PDU sessions and improve user-plane resource management.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Lee further discloses “wherein the session timer value is related to a PDU session,” because the maintain time applies to the session established through the first UPF and the SMF releases that session when the maintain time expires (Lee, ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0018]–[0019]; claims 1–2).
Lee does not disclose: Expressly identifying the maintain time as the standardized 3GPP Inactivity Timer provided to the UPF for the PDU session.
3GPP discloses “wherein the session timer value is related to a PDU session,” because the SMF determines and provides the Inactivity Timer to the UPF for the PDU session and the UPF applies that timer to detect and report PDU Session Inactivity (3GPP, §§ 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a, and 4.4.2.2, item (5)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply 3GPP’s PDU-session-specific Inactivity Timer to Lee’s PDU session for the reasons stated regarding claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses: “A Session Management Function (SMF) comprising: a memory; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and configured to,” because Lee discloses an SMF having a transceiver, a controller coupled to the transceiver, and a memory, wherein the controller performs the disclosed SMF operations (Lee, ¶¶ [0018]–[0019], [0046]–[0052], [0064]; claims 9–12). Lee further discloses that the processor is configured to “provide, to a first network function handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session … a session timer value,” by transmitting a first message including a maintain time of the session established via the first UPF (Lee, ¶¶ [0018]–[0019]; claims 9–10). Lee also discloses receiving a second message concerning establishment of a replacement session and releasing the session established via the first UPF when its maintain time expires (Lee, ¶ [0019]; claim 10), and starting a procedure to establish the replacement session through the second UPF (Lee, ¶¶ [0062]–[0063]). Lee does not disclose: the processor configured to “provide, to a first network function handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session in a network slice, a session timer value for Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI)”; “receive, from the first network function, a report related to release of the PDU session based on expiration of the session timer”; and “wherein a process related to the S-NSSAI is started based on a release cause of the release of the PDU session.”
3GPP discloses: the processor configured to “provide, to a first network function handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session in a network slice, a session timer value for Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI),” because the SMF determines an Inactivity Timer and provides the Inactivity Timer to the UPF handling the PDU session, which is associated with an S-NSSAI (3GPP, § 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a). 3GPP discloses the processor configured to “receive, from the first network function, a report related to release of the PDU session based on expiration of the session timer,” because the UPF detects no data transfer for the period specified by the Inactivity Timer and reports PDU Session Inactivity to the SMF (3GPP, § 4.4.2.2, item (5)). 3GPP further discloses “wherein a process related to the S-NSSAI is started based on a release cause of the release of the PDU session,” because a PDU Session Release Command includes a Cause that may trigger establishment of a new PDU session with the same characteristics (3GPP, § 4.3.4.2, step 3). Because the released PDU session is associated with its S-NSSAI, the resulting establishment procedure is a process related to that S-NSSAI. 3GPP also identifies slice-related release triggers (3GPP, § 4.3.4.2, step 1f).
Thus, It would have been obvious to configure Lee’s SMF processor to perform 3GPP’s standardized slice-aware inactivity detection, reporting, and release-cause-triggered replacement-session procedures for the same reasons stated regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses: All limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Lee does not disclose: “wherein the release cause is related to a slice inactivity.”
3GPP discloses: “wherein the release cause is related to a slice inactivity,” because 3GPP teaches detection and reporting of inactivity for a PDU session associated with an S-NSSAI and release handling resulting from network-slice conditions (3GPP, §§ 4.3.4.2, step 1f, and 4.4.2.2, item (5)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply 3GPP’s standardized inactivity reporting and slice-related release handling to Lee’s processor-controlled PDU-session release for the reasons stated regarding claims 1, 2, and 6.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses: all l limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Lee further discloses “wherein the processor is configured to configure a session timer value,” because Lee’s SMF controller determines and transmits the maintain time of the session (Lee, ¶¶ [0018]–[0019], [0048]–[0051]; claims 9–10). Lee does not disclose expressly configuring the session timer value as an inactivity timer provided to a UPF for a PDU session associated with an S-NSSAI. 3GPP discloses: “wherein the processor is configured to configure a session timer value,” because the SMF determines the Inactivity Timer and provides the Inactivity Timer to the UPF (3GPP, § 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a).
Thus, It would have been obvious to configure Lee’s SMF processor to determine and provide 3GPP’s standardized Inactivity Timer for the reasons stated regarding claims 1, 3, and 6.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses: All limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Lee further discloses a session timer in the form of the maintain time governing how long the session established through the first UPF is maintained (Lee, ¶¶ [0018]–[0019]).
Lee does not disclose: “wherein the session timer value is a timer for a session inactivity timer.”
3GPP discloses: “wherein the session timer value is a timer for a session inactivity timer,” because the SMF provides an Inactivity Timer for the PDU session and the UPF applies that timer to detect and report PDU Session Inactivity (3GPP, §§ 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a, and 4.4.2.2, item (5)).
Thus, It would have been obvious to implement Lee’s processor-controlled maintain time using 3GPP’s standardized session Inactivity Timer for the reasons stated regarding claims 4 and 6.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Lee further discloses “wherein the session timer value is related to a PDU session,” because the maintain time governs the session established through the first UPF (Lee, ¶¶ [0018]–[0019]; claims 9–10).
Lee does not disclose identifying the maintain time as the standardized 3GPP Inactivity Timer provided to the UPF for the PDU session.3GPP discloses: “wherein the session timer value is related to a PDU session,” because the Inactivity Timer is determined and provided for the PDU session and the UPF applies that timer to detect and report PDU Session Inactivity (3GPP, §§ 4.3.2.2.1, step 9a, and 4.4.2.2, item (5)).Thus, it would have been obvious to apply 3GPP’s PDU-session-specific Inactivity Timer to Lee’s processor-controlled PDU session for the reasons stated regarding claims 5, 6, and 9.
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 ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 570-270-7191.. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights