CTNF 18/734,321 CTNF 85916 Detailed Action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Objection to the Abstract The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains (MPEP 608.01 (b)). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract merely repeats the claim language and does not enable the reader thereof to determine the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre- AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 1: The term "associated" in lines 5, 7 & 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 8: The term "associated" in lines 5, 7 & 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 3: The term "associated" in line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 5: The term "associates" in line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associates" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 10: The term "associated" in line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 12: The term "associates" in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associates" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 15: The term "associated" in lines 5 & 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 16: The term "associated" in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 18: The term "associated" in line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associated" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 Claim 20: The term "associates" in line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "associates" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cakulev et al. (US 2021/0037375 A1) in view of Velev et al. (US 2020/0059989 A1) . Regarding 15, Cakulev discloses ne of more non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instruction, when executed by a computing system, direct the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: transferring a policy update request to a session controller for a session associated with the wireless user device (see receive from a PCF, 510 fig 5, regarding update); receiving a message from the session controller that indicates the session associated with the wireless user device (see 520 discloses determining on the binding request and association); and Cakulev does not specifically disclose however Velev discloses detecting a stale session condition for a wireless user device of a wireless communication network (see fig. 8, determine session is unavailable); Cakulev does not specifically disclose however Velev discloses indicates the session associated with the wireless user device does not exist (see fig. 8, determine session is unavailable) Cakulev does not specifically disclose however Velev discloses deleting session data for the wireless user device in response to the message (see “deleted” “sessions” [0068], and fig. 8, sessions unavailable are released). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Velev with that of Cakulev. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques expectations to delete old, terminated data to save storage space, reduce data corruption or improve processing speeds and efficiency . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 17, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not disclose a stale session condition, deleting session data, or deleting session data in response to message from the session controller, does not disclose directing by a policy controller or policy control function a binding data store. Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not disclose a stale session condition, deleting session data, or deleting session data in response to message from the session controller, does not disclose directing by a policy controller or policy control function a binding data store. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US 2015/0222710 A1) discloses binding request and managing session policy, does not disclose a stale session condition, deleting session data, or deleting session data in response to message from the session controller, does not disclose directing by a policy controller or policy control function a binding data store. Ni et al. (US 2020/0154515 A1) – discloses session processing, does not disclose a stale session condition, deleting session data, or deleting session data in response to message from the session controller, does not disclose directing by a policy controller or policy control function a binding data store. Pancorbo Marcos et al. (US Patent 12,016,068 B2) – discloses session management, does not disclose a stale session condition, deleting session data, or deleting session data in response to message from the session controller, does not disclose directing by a policy controller or policy control function a binding data store. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 2 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 3 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 4 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 5 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 6 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 7 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 8 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/734,321 Page 9 Art Unit: 2643
Prosecution Insights