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 Restriction
Applicant’s Restriction arguments, see remark on pages 1-2, filed on 08/07/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 15 and 29-30 have been acknowledged. The applicant elects, with traverse, Group I, claims 1, 3-8, 10, 29, 30. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are linked by a single general inventive concept as required by PCT Rule 13.1. Specifically, the claims of both groups are directed to coordinated handling of P-CSCF restoration information following detection of a failed P-CSCF. Group II recites a data management node (e.g., UDM) that receives failed P-CSCF information and sends a P-CSCF restoration indication together with the failed P-CSCF information to a session management node or access and mobility node. Group I recites the session management node (e.g., SMF) receiving that restoration indication and failed P-CSCF information and, based on the received information, triggering the P-CSCF restoration procedure for affected PDU sessions… (see remark pages 1-2).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and will further explain the restriction requirement. In PCT Rule 13.2, which defines how the requirement of PCT Rule 13.1 is to be fulfilled:
PCT Rule 13.2:
“Where a group of inventions is claimed in one and the same international application, the requirement of unity of invention referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.”
Unity of invention is said to exist a “priori” when the multiple claims (e.g., 1 and 11) share a technical feature: receiving/transmitting message…, wherein the message indicates P-CSCF restoration and information of a failed P-CSCF, as indicated in the restriction requirement. However, the shared technical feature is anticipated by the prior art: “3GPP” reference (See pages 45-46, section 5.8.2.4: “…when P-CSCF failure occurs, the SMF detects it or is informed of the event by another NF (e.g., AMF, UDM…)).
Thus, the inventions in claims 1 and 11 lack unity of invention since a “posteriori” (e.g., after prior art consideration) does not exist because the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature (e.g., not novel).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti (Pub No.: 2021/0266349) in view of Youn et al. (Pub No.: 2024/0323913).
Regarding claim 29, Foti discloses a session management node (see SMF server in fig. 1), comprising:
a processor (see processing circuitry 64 in fig. 1); and
a memory (see memory 66 in fig. 1) coupled to the processor, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor, whereby said session management node is operative to:
receive a message (read as the received restoration message in para. 0089) from a data management node (read as the HSS 16 in para. 0089) or a policy control node or an access and mobility node, wherein the message indicates proxy call session control function, P-CSCF, restoration indication and information of a failed P-CSCF (Foti see fig. 5, step s114; para. 0089; Processing circuitry 64 (and/or Session Manager 70) is configured to receive (via e.g., communication interface 62 (e.g., from a policy server 18, HSS 16 or other node in the system 10) a restoration message, the restoration message including an indication of a failed P-CSCF server (Block S114). Processing Circuitry 64 (and/or Session Manager 70) is configured to, as a result of at least the received restoration message, at least one of: tear down at least one session for at least one user equipment (UE) 14 associated with the failed P-CSCF server; and notify the at least one UE 14 of the failed P-CSCF server (Block S116).). The SMF receives the restoration message from the HSS, wherein the restoration message indicates the failed P-CSCF server;
derive address information of Gm interface of the failed P-CSCF from the information of the failed P-CSCF (Foti see para. 0010, 0086, 0090, the indication of the failed P-CSCF server includes at least an address of the P-CSCF server.). The SMF obtains/derives the address of the failed P-CSCF. The address of the P-CSCF is used to reach the P-CSCF through an interface, thus it is broadly interpreted that the address of the failed P-CSCF is the interface (e.g., Gm interface) address of the failed P-CSCF; and
for a protocol data unit, PDU, session, based on the received message, trigger a P-CSCF restoration procedure by sending a PDU session release command or a PDU session modification command (read as the notification of the tear down (e.g., session modification) and failed P-CSCF server to the UE in para. 0089) to a user equipment via the first or a second access and mobility node (Foti see fig. 5, step s116; Processing Circuitry 64 (and/or Session Manager 70) is configured to, as a result of at least the received restoration message, at least one of: tear down at least one session for at least one user equipment (UE) 14 associated with the failed P-CSCF server; and notify the at least one UE 14 of the failed P-CSCF server (Block S116)). Based on the received restoration message, the P-CSCF restoration procedure is triggered by having the UE tears down the session and notifying the failed P-CSCF server to the UE,
wherein the PDU session modification command comprises an updated P-CSCF list (read as the second P-CSCF) based on the information of the failed P-CSCF (Foti see fig. 5, step s116; para. 0090; the processing circuitry 64 is further configured to, communicate (via e.g., communication interface 62) an address of a second P-CSCF server for re-registration of the at least one UE 14, the second P-CSCF server being different from the failed P-CSCF server). The UE is notified of the failed P-CSCF and the updated second P-CSCF or P-CSCF list.
However, Foti does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the failed P-CSCF is detected by a service CSCF, S-CSCF.
Youn et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the failed P-CSCF is detected by a service CSCF, S-CSCF (Youn et al. see fig. 15, P-CSCF failure detection; para. 0172; P-CSCF failure may be detected based on at least any one of an S-CSCF 1570, an interconnection border control function (IBCF) 1560, and an access transfer control function (ATCF) 1570.). The S-CSCF 1570 detects the failed P-CSCF.
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 disclosure of Foti and to implement with the feature as taught by Youn et al. wherein a failed P-CSCF is detected by a S-CSCF.
The motivation would be to improve transmission efficiency.
Claim 1 is rejected similarly to claim 29.
Regarding claims 3, 30, Foti discloses the feature wherein when the message is received from the data management node, the message is an Nudm_UECM_PCscfRestoration notification (Foti see fig. 5, step s114; para. 0089; Processing circuitry 64 (and/or Session Manager 70) is configured to receive (via e.g., communication interface 62 (e.g., from a policy server 18, HSS 16 or other node in the system 10) a restoration message…). The restoration message is broadly interpreted as the Nudm_UECM_PCscfRestoration notification since the Nudm_UECM_PCscfRestoration notification is not specifically defined in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Foti discloses the feature wherein when the message is received from the policy control node (see policy server 18 in para. 0089), the message is an Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify Request (Foti see fig. 5, step s114; para. 0089; Processing circuitry 64 (and/or Session Manager 70) is configured to receive (via e.g., communication interface 62 (e.g., from a policy server 18, HSS 16 or other node in the system 10) a restoration message…). The restoration message from the policy server 18 is broadly interpreted as the Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify Request since the Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify Request is not specifically defined in the claim. The restoration serves as the Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify request to perform at least one of: tear down at least one session for at least one UE associated with the failed P-CSCF and notify the UE of the failed P-CSCF server.
Regarding claim 5, Youn discloses the feature wherein when the message is received from the first access and mobility node, the message is an Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request (Youn see para. 0167; the SMF 1030 may recognize the P-CSCF failure through another network function (e.g. AMF, UDM, etc) and perform a PDU session update procedure.). Thus, the SMF recognizes (e.g., signaling/notification) the P-CSCF failure through another network function such as an AMF. This recognition or notification is broadly interpreted as the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request, to request a PDU session update procedure.
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 disclosure of Foti and to implement with the feature as taught by Youn et al. wherein the message received from the AMF is an Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request, to request a PDU session update procedure.
The motivation would be to improve transmission reliability.
Regarding claim 6, Foti discloses the feature wherein the session management node comprises a session management function, SMF (see SMF1 or SMF2 in fig. 10), the first and second access and mobility nodes comprise an access and mobility management function, AMF (see AMF in fig. 10), the data management node comprises a unified data management, UDM (see UDM 16 in fig. 10), and the policy control node comprises a policy control function, PCF (Foti; see para. 0060, 0077; the policy server may be a PCF server).
Regarding claim 8, Foti discloses the feature wherein the PDU session modification command is sent to the user equipment when the user equipment supports P-CSCF re-selection (Foti see para. 0104, 0105; may locate all UEs 14 that are using the failed P-CSCF and, for each UE 14, may tear down the session forcing the UE 14 to reestablish a new Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session and where the SMF 20 returns the address of a new P-CSCF, as shown for example in step S158 of FIG. 9 and step S162 of FIG. 10.). The UE is then forced to create a new IMS session with a new P-CSCF (e.g., supports re-selection) based on the P-CSCF failure and the session tear down.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti (Pub No.: 2021/0266349) in view of Youn et al. (Pub No.: 2024/0323913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub No.: 2018/0234465).
Regarding claim 7, Foti in view of Youn et al. does not explicitly disclose the feature wherein the information of the failed P-CSCF comprises at least one of: an Internet protocol version 4 address of Mw interface of the failed P-CSCF, a network function instance identifier the failed P-CSCF, an Internet protocol version 6 address of Mw interface of the failed P-CSCF, or a fully qualified domain name of Mw interface of the failed P-CSCF.
Kim et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the feature wherein the information of the failed P-CSCF comprises at least one of: an Internet protocol version 4 address of Mw interface of the failed P-CSCF, a network function instance identifier the failed P-CSCF, an Internet protocol version 6 address of Mw interface of the failed P-CSCF, or a fully qualified domain name of Mw interface of the failed P-CSCF (Kim et al. see para. 0174; The P-CSCF address may be one of IPv4 address, IPv6 address and FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the address of the failed P-CSCF as taught by Foti (see para. 0089) with the address (e.g., FQDN) of the P-CSCF and the result would be reasonably predicted.
Examiner's Note
The Applicant is welcome to request a telephonic interview if the Applicant has any questions or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (Pub No.: 2020/0178336) discloses a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) failure recovery method. The method includes: sending, by a session management function (SMF), a SMF registration request to unified data management (UDM), where the SMF registration request carries Internet protocol multimedia core network subsystem (IMS) attribute information; receiving, by the SMF, a P-CSCF failure recovery indication sent by the UDM; registering, by the UDM, according to the IMS attribute information in the SMF registration request, the SMF; and initiating, by the SMF, according to the P-CSCF failure recovery indication, a P-CSCF failure recovery process. Further provided are a P-CSCF failure recovery method, a P-CSCF failure recovery apparatus, a P-CSCF failure recovery system, a storage medium and a processor.
Kunz et al. (Pub No.: 2016/0280802) discloses a method of facilitating P-CSCF restoration when a P-CSCF failure has occurred is disclosed. The method comprises a Proxy Call Session Control Function, ‘P-CSCF’ receiving a Session Initiation Protocol, ‘SEP’, message when said P-CSCF has been selected as an alternative P-CSCF to a failed P-CSCF and providing, to an associated Policy and Charging Rules Function, ‘PCRF’, a message comprising an indication that P-CSCF restoration is required.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am-7pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights