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 .
Response to Amendment and Argument
1. This communication is in response to Applicant's 08/26/2026 communications in the application of Nayak et al. for the "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HANDLING OF PDU SESSION FOR LADN DNN IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM" filed 07/11/2024. This application claims foreign priority to 202341047690, filed 07/14/2023; claims foreign priority to 202341064772, filed 09/27/2023; claims foreign priority to 202341047690, filed 06/28/2024 in India. The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of cited references fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not necessary that a “prima facie” case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for “a substantial new question of patentability” to be present as to the claim. Thus, “a substantial new question of patentability” as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications. As to the importance of the difference between “a substantial new question of patentability” and a “prima facie” case of unpatentability see generally In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.5, 225 USPQ 1, 4 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102. 904.02. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 and In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
5. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Sony et al. (LADN service area in SMF) in view of Park et al. (US#11,399,304) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
6. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claims that the cited reference fails to teach or suggest “whether a first LADN service area for a DNN and S-NSSAI is removed” (page 12, second paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, the reference of are applied herein for the teaching of a system and method for PDU Session management in wireless communications. Applicant’s attention is directed to Fig. 6 & pages 1, 5, 8 of Sony et al. (LADN service area in SMF) for , in which Nsmf_PDUSession_ CreateSMContext may include Invalid LADN; and if the Request Type is "Initial request" and if the Old PDU Session ID is included in Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request, the SMF
identifies the existing PDU Session to be released based on the Old PDU Session ID. For LADN, the SMF subscribes to the UE moving into or out of LADN service area event notification by providing the LADN DNN as an indicator for the area of interest. Examiner interprets as message for requesting a release of an ongoing PDU session subjected to an LADN in case that the first LADN service area is removed. Furthermore, Park et al. (US#11,399,304) teach in Fig. 10 & Col. 20, lines 23-36 & Col. 22, line 61 to Col. 23, line 4 where service request procedure by a UE100, in which if the PDU session ID may correspond to a LADN and the SMF 160 may determine that the UE 100 may be outside the area of availability of the LADN based on the UE 100 location reporting from the AMF 155, the SMF 160 may decide to (based on local policies) release the PDU session. The SMF 160 may locally release the PDU session and may inform the AMF 155 that the PDU session may be released. The SMF 160 may respond to the AMF 155 with an appropriate reject cause and the user plane Activation of PDU session may be stopped. Examiner interprets as wherein an AMF may select an SMF in a network slice instance based on S-NSSAI, DNN and/or other information; wherein PDU session subjected to an LADN in case that the first LADN service area is removed.
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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(a) 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sony et al.; LADN service area in SMF, (S2-179335, SA WG2 Meeting #S2-124, 04 December 2017) in view of Park et al. (US#11,399,304).
Regarding claims 11, 16, the references disclose a system and method for PDU Session management, according to the essential features of the claim. Sony et al. discloses an access and mobility management function (AMF/SMF) entity in a wireless communication system, the AMF comprising: at least one processor cand at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (see Fig. 4.3.2.2.1-1 on page 3: a device such as, for example, a wireless device, off-network wireless device, a base station, and/or the like, may comprise one or more processors and memory. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to perform a series of actions) storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the AMF/SMF to: identify whether a first local area data network (LADN) service area for a data network name (DNN) and single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) is removed (see pages 1, 5, 9: generating Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext including DNN, S-NSSAI, and Invalid LADN to support a PDU Session, wherein the Invalid LADN flag indicates that the requested DNN corresponds to an LADN and that the UE is outside of that LADN), based on a notification from a unified data management (UDM) entity or local configuration update (page 1: the AMF may provide to the UE, based on local configuration information (e.g. via OAM) about LADN Information, UE location, UE subscription information received from the UDM about DNNs that is subscribed as LADN), and transmit, to a session management function (SMF) entity, a message for requesting a release of an existing protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with the first LADN service area in case that the first LADN service area is removed (Nsmf_PDU Session _CreateSMContext may include Invalid LADN; and if the Request Type is "Initial request" and if the Old PDU Session ID is included in Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request, the SMF identifies the existing PDU Session to be released based on the Old PDU Session ID).
However, Sony reference does not disclose expressly wherein PDU session subjected to an LADN in case that the first LADN service area is removed. In the same field of endeavor, Park et al. (US#11,399,304) discloses in Fig. 10 a flow diagram illustrated a service request procedure by a UE100, in which if the PDU session ID may correspond to a LADN and the SMF 160 may determine that the UE 100 may be outside the area of availability of the LADN based on the UE 100 location reporting from the AMF 155, the SMF 160 may decide to (based on local policies) release the PDU session. The SMF 160 may locally release the PDU session and may inform the AMF 155 that the PDU session may be released. The SMF 160 may respond to the AMF 155 with an appropriate reject cause and the user plane Activation of PDU session may be stopped (Col. 20, lines 23-36 & Col. 22, line 61 to Col. 23, line 4: release PDU session when outside LADN service area).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Park’s service request procedure by a UE into Sony’s improved techniques for LADN service area in SMF with the motivation being to provide a method and system for handling of PDU session for LADN DNN in a wireless communication system.
Regarding claims 13, 18, Sony in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Park further teaches wherein the ongoing PDU session is released based on a Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext service operation (Fig. 10; Col. 22, lines 27-52: for a PDU session that the SMF may determine as requiring a UPF relocation for PDU session anchor UPF, the SMF may reject the activation of UP of the PDU session by sending Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext response that may contain N1 SM container to the UE via the AMF).
Regarding claims 14, 19, Sony in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Sony further teaches wherein the LADN is configured per LADN DNN and S-NSSAI associated with the DNN and S-NSSAI (Sony: page 8: For LADN, the SMF subscribes to the UE moving into or out of LADN service arca event notification by providing the LADN DNN as an indicator for the area of interest and Park et al.: Fig. 10; Col. 26, lines 14-32: an AMF may select an SMF in a network slice instance based on S-NSSAI, DNN and/or other information).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19 examined above. Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5, 10, 15, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein identifying whether a second LADN service area for a DNN and S-NSSAI is configured, wherein the message is transmitted in case that the second LADN service area is configured, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
13. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced"
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION 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 mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
16. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
Ocdt. 05, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
