DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to Preliminary Amendment made to an Application No. 18/846,522 filed on 09/12/2024 in which claims 1-20 are canceled and new claims 21-40 are added.
Accordingly, claims 21-40 are currently pending for examination.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for foreign priority to “PCT/CN2022/081283” dated 03/16/2022. However, this is an improper foreign priority claim to an international application (PCT) – PCT is not a foreign priority that is filed locally in the respective foreign country. Thus, the applicant cannot claim PCT application as foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See MPEP § 211.01(c), 213.01(II), and 213.06.
The Application Data Sheet is objected to because of the following: the applicant’s claim for improper foreign priority claim to an international application (PCT) “PCT/CN2022/081283” dated 03/16/2022. Thus, no priority is afforded and thus the effective filing date of this instant application for examination purpose is the national stage filing of “PCT/EP2023/056751” dated 03/16/2023.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 09/12/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 09/12/2024.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes the reference numbers in the parentheses which must be deleted. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to include “CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATON” for claiming any priority after the title. See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 34, and 38-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 23, 24, 31, and 32, recites the limitation “shall” in line 2 respectively. Language that suggests or makes optional or intended use/result (i.e., shall) but does not require step to be performed or does not limit the scope of the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claim(s) optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04).
Claims 23, 24, 31, and 32, recites a pronoun “this” in line 2 respectively. For clarity, it is suggested to change a pronoun word “this” to a positively recited non-pronoun word.
Claims 26 and 34 recites a contingent limitation not required to be performed by the recitation of “if” conditional statement. The term “if” raises ambiguity in the limitation as “if” is a supposition that an event may or may not happen. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, MPEP 2111, these limitations may be interpreted in the sense that the limitation occurs when the conditional statement occurs, but also introduces the possibility that the conditional statement may not occur. If the condition for performing the conditional statement is not satisfied, the functionality recited by the statement need not be carried out in order for the claimed functionality to be performed. Since the claim fails to recite any specific limitations regarding the possibility that the conditional statement may not occur, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the possibility wherein no functionality is achieved when the condition statement is not achieved. Thus, the limitation(s) may be optional.
Claim 38 recites “A Service Management Function (SMF) comprising:” in the preamble which is directed to a machine type claim but the body of the claim includes at least one processor. Thus, it can be interpreted to include only “one processor.” As per MPEP §2106, a machine type defines as follow: “A machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Therefore, it is suggested to include multiple hardware structures in the body of the claim.
Claim 38 recites “A Service Management Function (SMF) comprising:… to operate in accordance with claim 21.” For clarity and formality, it is suggested to incorporate steps/processes recited in claim 21 into claim 38.
Claim 39 recites “An Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) comprising:” in the preamble which is directed to a machine type claim but the body of the claim includes at least one processor. Thus, it can be interpreted to include only “one processor.” As per MPEP §2106, a machine type defines as follow: “A machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Therefore, it is suggested to include multiple hardware structures in the body of the claim.
Claim 39 recites “An Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) comprising:… to operate in accordance with claim 29.” For clarity and formality, it is suggested to incorporate steps/processes recited in claim 29 into claim 39.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “so that” in line 2. Language that suggests or makes optional or intended use/result (i.e., so that) but does not require step to be performed or does not limit the scope of the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claim(s) optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04).
Claim 40 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising… to perform the method of claim 21.” For clarity and formality, it is suggested to incorporate steps/processes recited in claim 21 into claim 40.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 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.
Claims 21, 25-26, 29, 33-34, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama et al. (WO 2020/225241 A1) hereinafter “Sama” in view of BELLING et al. (US 2024/0422233 A1) hereinafter “Belling”. The WO reference, Sama, was cited in IDS filed 09/12/2024.
Regarding claim 21, Sama discloses a method performed by a Service Management Function (SMF) for handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session (see FIG. 4-6, SMF), the method comprising:
generating an error indication when receiving a request message for a service operation from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) after a User Equipment, UE, establishes the PDU session with the SMF and moves from a first service area to a second service area which is different from the first service area and not supported by the SMF (see FIG. 4-6; see Page 14-15, It should be noted that an AMF 203 may, during service request procedure, send an LADN rejection cause (MM Cause #43) specifying that an LADN not available. This 5GMM cause is sent to the UE 201 if the user-plane resources of the PDU session are not established when the UE 201 is located outside the LADN service area. Similarly, an SMF 205 may send an LADN rejection cause (SM Cause #46) to a UE 201 specifying that the UE 201 is out of the LADN service area in response to a PDU Session Establishment or modification request. This 5GSM cause is used by the network to indicate that the UE is out of the LADN service area… It should further be noted that when an SMF 205 serving an LADN has an SMF Service Area that includes a LADN Service Area this implies that an I-SMF will not be selected for the establishment of a PDU Session where the DNN of the PDU Session corresponds to a LADN. If a UE has a PDU session the SMF 205 shall release the PDU session if the DNN of the PDU Session corresponds to the LADN and an I-SMF 213 is inserted. This covers the case that a UE 201 moves out of an SMF Service Area and an I-SMF 213 is inserted. If the PDU Session was maintained with the I-SMF 213, the SMF 205 may not be able to enforce the LADN Service control. For example, the SMF 205 would not be notified in case of a Service Request by the UE . This approach addresses the case of a UE originated Service Request when a PDU session is already established but does not address the handling of a PDU Session Establishment request), the SMF being a first SMF or an intermediate SMF (I-SMF) supporting the first service area (see FIG. 4-6; see Page 14-15, Similarly, an SMF 205 may send an LADN rejection cause (SM Cause #46) to a UE 201 specifying that the UE 201 is out of the LADN service area in response to a PDU Session Establishment or modification request. This 5GSM cause is used by the network to indicate that the UE is out of the LADN service area); and
transmitting a response message for the service operation including the error indication to the AMF (see FIG. 4-6; see Page 14-15, Similarly, an SMF 205 may send an LADN rejection cause (SM Cause #46) to a UE 201 specifying that the UE 201 is out of the LADN service area in response to a PDU Session Establishment or modification request. This 5GSM cause is used by the network to indicate that the UE is out of the LADN service area).
Sama does not explicitly disclose a service communication proxy.
However, Belling discloses a mobility proxy (SCP) communicate with an AMF to SMF (see ¶ [0297]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a service communication proxy as taught by Belling, in the system of Sama, so that it would provide the mobility proxy to interact with AMF and SMF to transmit and to retrieve information (Belling: see ¶ [0297]).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, the combined system of Sama and Belling discloses waiting for an Intermediate-SMF (I-SMF) procedure to be completed by the AMF without modifying or releasing the PDU session (see Sama: Page 11-12, The I-SMF 213 may be inserted for a PDU Session for the UE 201, e.g. during PDU Session establishment/Modification, Service Request Procedure or due to UE mobility. For example, the service area of the SMF 205 may not cover a region to which the UE 201 moves (or in which it is located) so the I-SMF 213 is inserted (e.g. upon PDU session establishment for the UE 201) having a service area covering the UE's location).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, the combined system of Sama and Belling discloses wherein: if the PDU session is established without an I-SMF, an I-SMF insertion procedure, as the I-SMF procedure, is performed for inserting an I-SMF supporting the second service area (see Sama: Page 11-12, The I-SMF 213 may be inserted for a PDU Session for the UE 201, e.g. during PDU Session establishment/Modification, Service Request Procedure or due to UE mobility. For example, the service area of the SMF 205 may not cover a region to which the UE 201 moves (or in which it is located) so the I-SMF 213 is inserted (e.g. upon PDU session establishment for the UE 201) having a service area covering the UE's location).
Regarding claim 29, Sama discloses a method performed by an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) for handling a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session (see FIG. 4-6, AMF), the method comprising:
transmitting a request message for a service operation to the SMF after a User Equipment, UE establishes the PDU session with the SMF and moves from a first service area to a second service area which is different from the first service area and not supported by the SMF (see FIG. 4-6; see Page 14-15, It should be noted that an AMF 203 may, during service request procedure, send an LADN rejection cause (MM Cause #43) specifying that an LADN not available. This 5GMM cause is sent to the UE 201 if the user-plane resources of the PDU session are not established when the UE 201 is located outside the LADN service area. Similarly, an SMF 205 may send an LADN rejection cause (SM Cause #46) to a UE 201 specifying that the UE 201 is out of the LADN service area in response to a PDU Session Establishment or modification request. This 5GSM cause is used by the network to indicate that the UE is out of the LADN service area… It should further be noted that when an SMF 205 serving an LADN has an SMF Service Area that includes a LADN Service Area this implies that an I-SMF will not be selected for the establishment of a PDU Session where the DNN of the PDU Session corresponds to a LADN. If a UE has a PDU session the SMF 205 shall release the PDU session if the DNN of the PDU Session corresponds to the LADN and an I-SMF 213 is inserted. This covers the case that a UE 201 moves out of an SMF Service Area and an I-SMF 213 is inserted. If the PDU Session was maintained with the I-SMF 213, the SMF 205 may not be able to enforce the LADN Service control. For example, the SMF 205 would not be notified in case of a Service Request by the UE . This approach addresses the case of a UE originated Service Request when a PDU session is already established but does not address the handling of a PDU Session Establishment request), the SMF being a first SMF or an intermediate SMF (I-SMF) supporting the first service area (see FIG. 4-6; see Page 14-15, Similarly, an SMF 205 may send an LADN rejection cause (SM Cause #46) to a UE 201 specifying that the UE 201 is out of the LADN service area in response to a PDU Session Establishment or modification request. This 5GSM cause is used by the network to indicate that the UE is out of the LADN service area); and
receiving a response message for the service operation including the error indication from the SMF (see FIG. 4-6; see Page 14-15, Similarly, an SMF 205 may send an LADN rejection cause (SM Cause #46) to a UE 201 specifying that the UE 201 is out of the LADN service area in response to a PDU Session Establishment or modification request. This 5GSM cause is used by the network to indicate that the UE is out of the LADN service area).
Sama does not explicitly disclose a service communication proxy.
However, Belling discloses a mobility proxy (SCP) communicate with an AMF to SMF (see ¶ [0297]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a service communication proxy as taught by Belling, in the system of Sama, so that it would provide the mobility proxy to interact with AMF and SMF to transmit and to retrieve information (Belling: see ¶ [0297]).
Regarding claim 38, the combined system of Sama and Belling discloses a Service Management Function (SMF) (see FIG. 4-6, SMF) comprising: at least one processor (see FIG. 7, a processor) configured to operate in accordance with claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 set forth in above).
Regarding claim 39, the combined system of Sama and Belling discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (see FIG. 4-6, AMF) comprising: at least one processor (see FIG. 7, a processor) configured to operate in accordance with claim 29 (see the rejection of claim 29 set forth in above).
Regarding claim 40, the combined system of Sama and Belling discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising, stored thereupon, a computer program comprising instructions configured so that execution of the instructions by at least one processor will cause the at least one processor (see FIG. 7, a processor executing software) to perform the method of claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 set forth in above).
Claims 22, 27-28, 30, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama in view of Belling further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2022/033478 A1) hereinafter “Wang”. The WO reference, Wang, was cited in IDS filed 09/12/2024.
Regarding claims 22 and 30, the combined system of Sama and Belling does not explicitly disclose Deployments Topologies with specific SMF Service Areas (DTSSA) is supported by the AMF.
However, Wang discloses wherein the error indication is generated when the following conditions are all met: the UE is out of the first service area of the SMF; and Deployments Topologies with specific SMF Service Areas (DTSSA) is supported by the AMF (see ¶ [0003-04], a new feature “Deployment Topology with SMF Serving Area (DTSSA) is introduced in 5GC, which allows an access and mobility management function (AMF) to insert/change an intermediate session management function (I-SMF) when a user equipment (UE) moved out of serving areas of current serving session management functions (SMFs), in order to continue the protocol data unit (PDU) session(s) served by the old SMF(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide Deployments Topologies with specific SMF Service Areas (DTSSA) is supported by the AMF as taught by Wang, in the combined system of Sama and Belling, so that it would provide to continue the protocol data unit (PDU) session served by the old SMF (Wang: see ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claims 27 and 36, the combined system of Sama and Belling does not explicitly disclose an indirect communication with delegated SMF discovery.
However, Wang discloses wherein the method is applied in an indirect communication with delegated SMF discovery in a fifth generation (5G) core after a PDU session establishment procedure (Wang: see ¶ [0010], when the delegated discovery is used, the SCP selects the SMF as described in Annex E of 3GPP TS 23.502 V16.4.0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide an indirect communication with delegated SMF discovery as taught by Wang, in the combined system of Sama and Belling, so that it would provide to continue the protocol data unit (PDU) session (Wang: see ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 28, the combined system of Sama and Belling discloses does not explicitly disclose the SMF is a Visited-SMF or a Home-SMF.
However, Wang discloses wherein the SMF is a Visited-SMF or a Home-SMF (see FIG. 1; see ¶ [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the SMF is a Visited-SMF or a Home-SMF as taught by Wang, in the combined system of Sama and Belling, so that it would provide to continue the protocol data unit (PDU) session (Wang: see ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 35, the combined system of Sama and Belling does not explicitly disclose performing an I-SMF procedure based on the received response message for the service operation including an error indication.
However, Wang discloses performing an I-SMF procedure based on the received response message for the service operation including an error indication (see ¶ [0028], an NF consumer explicitly discovers and selects an NF producer via NRF discovery thus it is aware of the NF instance ID form the search result. it is required DTSSA feature to be supported in both V-SMF and I-SMF. In order to successfully access the service on the H-SMF/SMF/old I-SMF, the new I-SMF/V-SMF needs to get access token thus needs the NF instance ID of the peer SMF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the SMF is a Visited-SMF or a Home-SMF as taught by Wang, in the combined system of Sama and Belling, so that it would provide to successfully access the service (Wang: see ¶ [0028]).
Claims 23-24, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sama in view of Belling further in view of 3GPP TSG-WG SA2 Meeting #147E e-meeting, Elbonia, October 18-22, 2021: “Correction on DNAI based I-SMF selection and removal” hereinafter “3GPP”. The NPL 3GPPreference was cited in IDS filed 09/12/2024.
Regarding claims 23 and 31, the combined system of Sama and Belling does not explicitly disclose the response message for the service operation including the error indication further includes an indication to indicate the SCP shall not perform a reselection procedure for this error response.
However, 3GPP discloses wherein the response message for the service operation including the error indication further includes an indication to indicate the SCP shall not perform a reselection procedure for this error response (see Section 5.34.3, according to the PCC rules with AF influence traffic mechanism regarding DNAI(s), the SMF determines the target DNAI which is applicable to the current UE location. If current (I-)SMF cannot serve the target DNAI or if the SMF can serve the target DNAI and existing I-SMF is not needed, the SMF may send the target DNAI information to the AMF for triggering I-SMF (re)selection or removal, e.g., the AMF performs I-SMF (re)selection or removal based on the target DNAI and supported DNAI(s) of (I-)SMF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the response message for the service operation including the error indication further includes an indication to indicate the SCP shall not perform a reselection procedure for this error response as taught by 3GPP, in the combined system of Sama and Belling, so that it would provide the AMF performs I-SMF (re)selection or removal (3GPP: see Section 5.34.3).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, the combined system of Sama, Belling and 3GPP discloses wherein a 3gpp-Sbi-Response-Info header of the response message for the service operation comprises the indication to indicate the SCP shall not perform a reselection procedure for this error response (3GPP: see Section 5.34.3, according to the PCC rules with AF influence traffic mechanism regarding DNAI(s), the SMF determines the target DNAI which is applicable to the current UE location. If current (I-)SMF cannot serve the target DNAI or if the SMF can serve the target DNAI and existing I-SMF is not needed, the SMF may send the target DNAI information to the AMF for triggering I-SMF (re)selection or removal, e.g., the AMF performs I-SMF (re)selection or removal based on the target DNAI and supported DNAI(s) of (I-)SMF).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JEONG et al. (US 2022/0346189 A1) teaches a method, performed by a first Session Management Function (SMF), for providing a continuous service to a user equipment (UE) includes: identifying, by the first SMF, triggering of an SMF change operation; transmitting, to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), a message indicating a change in a status of a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session of the UE so as to request a procedure of changing an SMF; receiving a context request message requesting a context of the UE from a second SMF that is a target SMF; and transmitting a context request response message to the second SMF (see Abstract).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights