DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 7, 9-13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Pub. 20230199595 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20250031166 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (WO 2024027630 A1).
For claims 1, 10, and 17, Lu discloses one or more network devices, comprising:
one or more processors (710) configured to execute instructions to [0064-66]:
wherein the SMF profile associates the H-SMF with one or more visited network identifiers (an SMF registers its NF profile into an NRF and that the profile includes information permitting the NRF to match or filter SMF instance) [0038, 0074-76, 0080-81];
receive, in a home network and from a second network device (Fig. 5, step 2 or 6; an AMF queries a vNRF, which queries an hNRF), a first discovery message, the first discovery message including a visited Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier for a roaming session (the discovery request includes the PLMN ID of the serving PLMN and is forwarded through the vNRF to the hNRF for H-SMF discovery) [0074-76, 0083-90, 0094];
match the visited PLMN identifier to a visited network identifier of the one or more visited network identifiers in the SMF profile (TABLE 6.2.3.2.3.1-1; matching NF service identifier from a visited network against a network identifier within that SMF profile during a roaming discovery sequence) [0136-138, 0127-130]; and
a first identifier of the H-SMF for the roaming session based on the matching visited PLMN identifier [0127-133, 0094-96].
But Lu doesn’t explicitly teach send, to the second network device, a first identifier of the H-SMF for the roaming session based on the matching visited PLMN identifier.
However, Gupta discloses send, to the second network device, a first identifier for a home SMF (H-SMF) for the roaming session based on the visited network identifier (Figs. 5-8, and 10a; S802–S804 or steps 6-11; the hNRF receives an NF-discovery request through the vNRF, uses the serving-PLMN ID and DNN to determine the target SMF, and returns an NF profile identifying the T-SMF, which acts as the H-SMF) [0084-88, 0241, 0258].
Gupta also discloses match the visited PLMN identifier to a visited network identifier of the one or more visited network identifiers in the SMF profile [0173, 0143-46, 0151-55];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing a roaming scheme used in a mobile communication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lu with Gupta to enhance data transmission, thus, improving processing speed.
But Lu, as modified by Gupta, doesn’t explicitly teach store a Session Management Function (SMF) profile of a home SMF (H-SMF),
However, Wang discloses store a Session Management Function (SMF) profile of a home SMF (H-SMF) (Figs. 1b and 2b; “maintain the NF profile”; “H-SMF may register … with NF profile … ‘perPlmnOauth2ReqList’”; “PLMN identifier (ID) … present in the second information”) [0086, 0089, 0103, 0104, 0112, 0114, 0117, 0118],
wherein the SMF profile associates the H-SMF with one or more visited network identifiers (Figs. 1b and 2b; “maintain the NF profile”; “H-SMF may register … with NF profile … ‘perPlmnOauth2ReqList’”; “PLMN identifier (ID) … present in the second information”) [0086, 0089, 0103, 0104, 0112, 0114, 0117, 0118].
Since all are analogous arts addressing NF registration, NF discovery, and SMF selection for roaming in a mobile communication system, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Lu and Gupta with Wang to enhance network functions, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of SMF discovery and avoiding selection of an SMF that does not support the roaming network.
Claim 1 differs from claim 10 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Lu further discloses a method (Figs. 5-8) [0043-63, 0073-90, 0102-03]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 17 differs from claim 10 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Lu further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor of a device, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions for [0043, 0150]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2, 12, and 18, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses receiving, by the one or more first network device, a registration message from the H-SMF, the registration message associating the H-SMF with the one or more visited network identifier [0075, 0089-91, 0122-127].
For claims 3, and 13, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses receiving, by the one ore more first network device and from the H-SMF, a second discovery message, the second discovery message including the visited PLMN identifier (an SMF may perform UPF discovery using NRF discovery-query parameters and that HR-roaming discovery parameters include the serving-PLMN ID) [0027, 0076, 0037-38, 0083-90, 0094-96];
matching the visited PLMN identifier to a network identifier in a User Plane Function (UPF) profile (NRF matching/filtering of registered NF profiles against discovery-query parameters and expressly states that an SMF may perform UPF discovery) [0073, 0038, 0080-83, 0094-96, 0136-138, 0127-130]; and
Gupta further discloses sending, by the one or more first network device and to the H-SMF, a second identifier of a home UPF (H-UPF) for the roaming session based on the visited PLMN identifier (the T-SMF/T-UPF act as the H-SMF/H-UPF for the session) [0145-46, 0165-73]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claim 4, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses receiving, by the one or more first network device, a registration message from the H-UPF, the registration message associating the H-UPF with the visited PLMN identifier [0075, 0089-91, 0122-127]; and
storing, in a memory, a UPF profile associating the H-UPF with the visited PLMN identifier [0143, 0068-69].
For claims 7 and 11, Lu as modified by Gupta and Wang, Gupta further discloses the one or more first network device include a Network Repository Function (NRF) for the home network [0173]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claim 9, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses the first discovery message includes an identifier of a user equipment (UE) device for the roaming session (the HR-roaming discovery request includes the PLMN ID of the SUPI, the PLMN ID of the serving PLMN, and other session-selection parameters) [Lu: 0083-90; Gupta: 0141-55]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Pub. 20230199595 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20250031166 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (WO 2024027630 A1) in further view of Kim et al. (US 20250220566 A1).
For claim 5, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses all limitations this claim depends on.
Lu further discloses receiving, by the one or more first network device and from the H-SMF, an identifier of the second network device [0027, 0076, 0094-96],
Gupta further discloses wherein sending the second identifier for the H-UPF is further based on the identifier [0084-88, 0241, 0258].
But Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, doesn’t explicitly disclose locality identifier.
Kim discloses receiving, by the one or more first network device and from the H-SMF, a locality identifier of the second network device [0073, 0088, 0112-113],
wherein sending the second identifier for the H-UPF is further based on the locality identifier [0073, 0088, 0112-113].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing a roaming scheme used in a mobile communication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lu, Gupta, Wang, and Kim with to enhance proper identification of network data, thus, improving data reliability.
For claims 6, 15, and 20, Lu, as modified by Gupta, Wang and Kim, discloses receiving, by the one or more first network device, a registration message from the H-UPF, the registration message associating the H-UPF with the locality identifier [0075, 0089-91, 0122-127]; and
storing, in a memory, the UPF profile associating the H-UPF with the locality identifier [0143, 0068-69]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 14, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses all limitations this claim depends on.
Lu further discloses receiving, by the one or more first network device and from the H-SMF, an identifier of the second network device [0027, 0076, 0094-96],
Gupta further discloses wherein sending the second identifier for the H-UPF is further based on the identifier [0084-88, 0241, 0258].
But Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, doesn’t explicitly disclose locality identifier.
Kim discloses receive, from the H-SMF, a locality identifier of the second network device [0073, 0088, 0112-113],
wherein the one or more processors is further to execute instructions to send the second identifier for the H-UPF is based on the locality identifier and the visited PLMN identifier [0073, 0088, 0112-113].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing a roaming scheme used in a mobile communication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lu, Gupta, Wang, and Kim with to enhance proper identification of network data, thus, improving data reliability.
For claim 19, Lu, as modified by Gupta, Wang and Kim, discloses receiving, from the H-SMF, a second discovery message, the second discovery message including a first locality indicator of the second network device [0027, 0076, 0094-96];
matching the first locality indicator to a second locality indicator in a User Plane Function (UPF) profile [0136-138, 0127-130]; and
Gupta further discloses sending, to the H-SMF, a second identifier of a home UPF (H-UPF) for the roaming session based on the matching [0173]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Pub. 20230199595 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20250031166 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (WO 2024027630 A1) in further view of Rajput et al. (US 20230072290 A1).
For claims 8 and 16, Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Lu, as modified by Gupta and Wang, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Rajput.
Rajput discloses the second network device includes a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) [0017, 0056, 0025].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing a roaming scheme used in a mobile communication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lu, Gupta, Wang, and Rajput with to enhance security of network data, thus, improving data security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights