CTNF 18/764,623 CTNF 89152 DETAILED ACTION This communication is in responsive to Application 18/764623 filed on 9/25/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims: Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS)s comply with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “…the PDU session…” in claims 3-4 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4 is rejected because the limitation “… each of the UPF functionalities …” is not clear. The focus here is on the functionalities but none of the claims provide a list or details of those functionalities. 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn US 2022/0322152 A1 in view of 3GPP; TSG SA; System architecture for the 5G System; Stage 2 (Release 18), 3GPP TS 23 501 V18.2.1, June 29, 2023 (IDS entry 2 under NPL filed 1/6/2025) . Regarding Claim 1, Youn teaches a method performed by a session management function (SMF) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 8), the method comprising: receiving, from a united data management (UDM), information on user plane function (UPF) functionalities (¶0164 & Fig. 8; (4) Step 4: If session management subscription data for corresponding SUPI, DNN and S-NSSAI of the HPLMN is not available, then SMF may retrieve the session management subscription data from the UDM and subscribes to be notified when this subscription data is modified); selecting a UPF based on the information on UPF functionalities (¶0171 & Fig. 8; Step 8: The SMF selects one or more UPFs); and transmitting, to the selected UPF, a session establishment or modification request message (¶0174 & Fig. 8; sending N4 session establishment/modification request to the UPF). Youn does not expressly teach UPF “functionalities.” However, NPL teaches UP functionalities (p. 535-536 (section 6.3.3.3); following parameters and information may be considered by the SMF for UPF section and re-selection: UPF's dynamic load, UPF's relative static capacity among UPFs supporting the same DNN, UPF location available at the SMF, and Capability of the UPF and the funionality required for the particular UE session). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of NPL into the system of Youn in order to enable flexible traffic shaping, highly specific billing, and independent, cost-effective scalability of user and control plane resources (known in the art). Regarding Claim 2, Youn in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Youn further teaches further comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE) via an access and mobility management function (AMF), a protocol data unit (PDU) session create request message including information on requested (UPF) functionalities, wherein the selecting the UPF is performed further based on the information on requested functionality (see ¶0159 & Fig. 8; "Step 3: If the AMF does not have an association with an SMF for the PDU session ID provided by the UE (e.g., when Request Type indicates 'initial request'), the AMF invokes Create SM Context Request procedure (e.g., Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request). If the AMF already has an association with an SMF for the PDU session ID provided by the UE (when Request Type indicates 'existing PDU Session'), the AMF invokes Update SM Context Request procedure (e.g., Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request).") in view of NPL (p. 535-536 (section 6.3.3.3); the following parameter(s) and information may be considered by the SMF for UPF selection and re-selection: UPF's dynamic load, UPF's relative static capacity among UPFs supporting the same DNN, UPF location available at the SMF, and Capability of the UPF and the functionality required for the particular UE session). Regarding Claim 3, Youn in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, NPL further teaches wherein the session establishment or modification request message includes a list of UPF functionality functionalities associated with the PDU session (see NPL (p. 535-536 (section 6.3.3.3); the following parameter(s) and information may be considered by the SMF for UPF selection and re-selection: UPF's dynamic load, UPF's relative static capacity among UPFs supporting the same DNN, UPF location available at the SMF, and Capability of the UPF and the functionality required for the particular UE session). Regarding Claim 4, Youn in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, NPL further teaches wherein each of the UPF functionalities is required or preferred by the PDU session (see NPL (p. 535-536 (section 6.3.3.3); the following parameter(s) and information may be considered by the SMF for UPF selection and re-selection: UPF's dynamic load, UPF's relative static capacity among UPFs supporting the same DNN, UPF location available at the SMF, and Capability of the UPF and the functionality required for the particular UE session). Claims 7 and 15: Regarding claim 7, Youn teaches a method performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request message including information on requested user plane function (UPF) functionalities (Fig. 8 & ¶0148); selecting a session management function (SMF) based on the information on requested UPF functionalities and a list of supported UPF functionalities (Fig. 8 & ¶0151-¶0159); transmitting, to the selected SMF, a PDU session create request message including the information on requested functionalities (Fig. 8 & ¶0165); and receiving, from the selected SMF, a PDU session create response message (Fig. 8 & ¶0165). Youn does not expressly teach “…UPF f unctionalities and a list of supported UPF functionalities …” NPL teaches “…UPF f unctionalities and a list of supported UPF functionalities …” (p. 535-536 (section 6.3.3.3); following parameters and information may be considered by the SMF for UPF section and re-selection: UPF's dynamic load, UPF's relative static capacity among UPFs supporting the same DNN, UPF location available at the SMF, and Capability of the UPF and the funionality required for the particular UE session). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of NPL into the system of Youn in order to enable flexible traffic shaping, highly specific billing, and independent, cost-effective scalability of user and control plane resources (known in the art). Regarding Claim 8, Youn in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the PDU session create request message includes information on mandatory or optional status for each UPF functionality in the information on requested functionalities (see Create SM context Request procedure in ¶0159 & Fig. 8). Regarding Claim 9, Youn in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the PDU session create response message includes a PDU session rejection cause with information on at least one UPF functionality not allowed (Fig. 8 & ¶0157; obvious because Youn teaches “otherwise the AMF shall reject the PDU session establishment request with an appropriate rejection cause.” NPL also teaches in p. 255 “the AMF shall also provide the list of Rejected S-NSSAIs each of them with the appropriate rejection clause value”). Claims 10-13 and 15 are substantially similar to above claims, thus the same rationale applies . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Youn in view of NPL and further I view of Yang US 2026/0039731 A1 . Regarding Claim 5, Youn in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, but they do not expressly teach wherein the UPF functionalities includes one of UPF functionality for a deep packet inspection or UPF functionality for a firewall. Yang teaches wherein the UPF functionalities includes one of UPF functionality for a deep packet inspection or UPF functionality for a firewall (Yang in ¶0067, ¶0074 & ¶0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the system of Youn in view of NPL in order to determine the type of PDUs as having a greater importance while other types are identified as having less importance type (¶0067). Claim 14 is substantially similar to above claim, thus the same rationale applies. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM. 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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. MAHRAN ABU ROUMI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2455 /MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 2 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 3 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 4 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 5 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 6 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 7 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 8 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/764,623 Page 10 Art Unit: 2455
Prosecution Insights