DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination.
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).
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]:
receive, in a home network and from a second network device (Fig. 5, step 6), a first discovery message, the first discovery message including a visited network identifier for a roaming session (see Abstract; roaming-related SMF discovery procedures and communications between network functions for discovering an SMF capable of serving a PLMN. Fig. 5 illustrates signaling between network entities during SMF discovery, like step 6 receiving a discovery request/message associated with roaming session establishment.) [0027, 0076, 0094-96];
match the visited network identifier to a network identifier in a Session Management Function (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 for a home SMF (H-SMF) for the roaming session based on the visited network identifier [0127-133, 0094-96].
But Lu doesn’t explicitly teach 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.
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, 7, 8, and 10a; S802–S804 or steps 6-11) [0084-88, 0241, 0258].
Gupta also discloses match the visited network identifier to a network identifier in a Session Management Function (SMF) profile [0173];
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.
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, 7, 8). 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, discloses receiving, by the first network device, a registration message from the H-SMF, the registration message associating the H-SMF with the visited network identifier [0075, 0089-91, 0122-127]; and
storing, in a memory, an SMF profile associating the H-SMF with the visited network identifier [0143, 0068-69].
For claims 3, and 13, Lu, as modified by Gupta, discloses receiving, by the first network device and from the H-SMF, a second discovery message, the second discovery message including the visited network identifier [0027, 0076, 0094-96];
matching the visited network identifier to a network identifier in a User Plane Function (UPF) profile [0073, 0094-96, 0136-138, 0127-130]; and
Gupta further discloses sending, by the first network device and to the H-SMF, a second identifier for a home UPF (H-UPF) for the roaming session based on the visited network identifier [0165, 0172]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claim 4, Lu, as modified by Gupta, discloses receiving, by the first network device, a registration message from the H-UPF, the registration message associating the H-UPF with the visited network identifier [0075, 0089-91, 0122-127]; and
storing, in a memory, a UPF profile associating the H-UPF with the visited network identifier [0143, 0068-69].
For claims 7 and 11, Lu as modified by Gupta, Gupta further discloses the first network device includes a Network Repository Function (NRF) for the home network [0173]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 9, Lu, as modified by Gupta, discloses the visited network identifier includes a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier [0076, 0094-96].
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 Kim et al. (US 20250220566 A1).
For claim 5, Lu, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
Lu further discloses receiving, by the 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, doesn’t explicitly disclose locality identifier.
Kim discloses receiving, by the 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, 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 and Kim, discloses receiving, by the 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, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
Lu further discloses receiving, by the 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, 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 network 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, and Kim with to enhance proper identification of network data, thus, improving data reliability.
For claim 19, Lu, as modified by Gupta 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 for 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 Rajput et al. (US 20230072290 A1).
For claims 8 and 16, Lu, as modified by Gupta, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Lu, as modified by Gupta, 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, and Rajput with to enhance security of network data, thus, improving data security.
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