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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on February 13, 2026 in which claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 19 is/are amended; and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240031806 A1) hereinafter “Lee” in view of Krishan et al. (US 20230007456 A1) hereinafter “Krishan”.
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a method (Lee, abstract, method for binding user and user device in a mobile system) comprising:
detecting, by a policy controller of a wireless communication network, a session binding request failure of a binding data store, wherein the session binding request failure corresponds to a session of a wireless user device (Lee [15-18, 187-191], discloses wherein a method and device for binding a user and a UE in a mobile communication system, receiving a binding request message including verification information and a digital user identifier related to a user equipment completing user authentication for the service provider, wherein the binding failure or success occurs as a result of user digital identifier);
indicating, by the policy controller, a retry timer to a session controller for the session of the wireless user device (Lee [200-205], discloses wherein the controller can control a series of procedures to allow for the UE to operate according to one or a combination of embodiments);
providing, by the policy controller, network policies to the session controller for the session of the wireless user device (Lee [16-19], discloses wherein the controller can be configured to perform digital user authentication with a service provider, receive provisioning information for a user from the service provider, transmit a binding request message including a digital user identifier and verification information to a network entity);
Lee is silent on receiving, by the policy controller, a policy update request from the session controller in response to expiration of the retry timer; and transferring, by the policy controller, a session binding request to the binding data store wherein the session binding request directs the binding data store to store a session binding between the policy controller and the wireless user device.
However, Krishan discloses receiving, by the policy controller, a policy update request from the session controller in response to expiration of the retry timer (Krishan [99-102, 118], discloses wherein the BSF send a notification about a potentially stale binding record to PCF and, if BSF does not receive a response from PCF, then BSF my initiate retry notification at alternate PCF instances); and
transferring, by the policy controller, a session binding request to the binding data store wherein the session binding request directs the binding data store to store a session binding between the policy controller and the wireless user device (Krishan [21-22, 39-43], discloses wherein the Management service allows the BSF to provide protocol data unit (PDU) session binding functionality, which can ensure that an application function (AF) request for a certain PDU session can reach the relevant policy control function (PCF) having the PDU session information, and wherein the PCF or RCM is configured for receiving, from a BSF, a notification indicating a binding record, wherein the notification includes context data associated with the binding record).
Lee and Krishan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods for binding communication session. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lee and Krishan before him or her, to modify the binding of user and user equipment in a mobile/wireless communication system of Lee to include the resource allocation for PDU session binding system of Krisha with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing the session processing method for transferring the session binding request to store a session when it is determined that no response is detected after a particular amount of time. This method of improving the binding services of Lee was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Krishan [99-102]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with Krisha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Lee-Krishan discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving, by the policy controller, a policy creation request from the session controller; and transferring, by the policy controller, an initial session binding request to the binding data store (Krishan, fig 4 [62-69], discloses wherein the SMF sends message to create of a binding record via create session request message, including wherein the embodiments, can store or transmit specific data objects associated with binding record request). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Lee and Krishan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, Lee-Krishan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the session binding request failure comprises one or more of a request timeout, a computing error in the policy controller, or a computing error in the binding data store (Krishan [74-78], discloses wherein the PCF can compare the binding record timestamp to a PCF recovery timestamp indicating when PCF recovered from a crash or failure, and if an error response is received for a particular session or network event a related UE detaches from the network). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Lee and Krishan as in claim 1 above.
Claims 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18 is/are corresponding non-transitory computer readable storage media claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 1-2, and 4 and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights