DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application No. #18/848,431 filed on September 18, 2024. Claims 1-5, 7, 8-10, 12-13, 15-21, and 29 are subject to 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13, 15 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the acronyms “PGW-C/SMF” and “PDU” are undefined.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the Examiner interprets the limitation “… the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised in …” to read, “… the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised of …” (Emphases added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 29 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 29, the claims recite the limitation, “… sending alternative PGW-C/SMF information to a second SMF for the PDU session anchored at the first SMF+PGW-C or an access and mobility management function, AMF …” (Emphasis added). It is unclear if the AMF is a choice anchor for the PDU session, or it is a choice destination to receive the alternative PGW-C/SMF information. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation to read, “… sending alternative PGW-C/SMF information to a second SMF for the PDU session anchored at the first SMF+PGW-C or to an access and mobility management function, AMF …” (Emphasis added).
Regarding claims 8 and 29, the claims recite the limitation, “… wherein an alternative PGW-C/SMF will be selected …” (Emphasis added). It is unclear which network entity is doing the selection. For purposes of examination and per claim 20, the Examiner has interpreted the either the AMF, the mobility management entity (MME), the evolved packet data gateway can perform the selection.
Regarding claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15-21, claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15-21 each depend on independent claim 8 and therefore, inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 19-21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruno Landais et.al. (US Patent Application Publication, 20220038542, hereinafter, “Landais”).
Regarding claim 1, Landais teaches:
A method performed by an access and mobility management function, AMF, in a first telecommunication system (Landais: [0223] FIG. 10 shows an example signalling diagram between network entities. In this example, the communications take place between an MME, an SGW, an HSS, a first network function instance (labelled ‘PGW A’), and a second network function (labelled ‘PGW B’) … The first and second network function instances may be SMF/PGW-c instances … [0235] For PDU session establishment in 5GS, the PDU session is established in 5GS as specified in existing procedures. The AMF may handle the SMF set as per existing specifications, as well [The Examiner interprets that both the AMF and MME can similarly handle the SMF/PGW-c instances] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10), comprising:
receiving alternative packet data network gateway control plane/Session Management Function, PGW-C/SMF, information from a first PGW-C/SMF (Landais: [0223] .... In this example, PGW A depicts a PGW-c that will fail, be disconnected or be scaled in. In this example, PGW B depicts a PGW-c within the PGW-c set that will be selected to take over [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF], in order to serve a PDN connection that used to be served by PGW-A. The first and second network function instances may be SMF/PGW-c instances … [0229] At S1005, when the SGW has detected that PGW A has failed/restarted/de-instantiated, the SGW provides a restart notification to the MME ... In an example, when the MME receives notification that the PGW A is no longer available and the MME has received for this PDN connection an identification of the PGW set ... The MME may maintain the PDN connection context so that it can be transferred to be controlled by a different PGW in the set. The identification of the PGW set may comprise a PGW set FQDN … [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment. This may also occur during the mobility of a PDU session from 5GC to EPC. When a PGW-c becomes unavailable, the MME does not tear down the PDN connections supported by the PGW-c. In some examples, the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10) or a second SMF; and
sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to a mobility management entity, MME, in a second telecommunication system (Landais: [0229] At S1005, when the SGW has detected that PGW A has failed/restarted/de-instantiated, the SGW provides a restart notification to the MME … the MME has received for this PDN connection an identification of the PGW set ... The identification of the PGW set may comprise a PGW set FQDN … [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment … the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10).
Regarding claim 4, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein the first PGW-C/SMF is an anchor PGW-C/SMF (Landais: [0200] FIG. 7 shows an example signalling diagram between an MME, SGW, and first and second PGWs. For a SMF/PGW-c there is a standby SMF/PGW-c [i.e., the non-standby PGW-C/SMF is the anchor]. The standby SMF/PGW-c takes over the control of the PDN connections upon failure/scale-in of a PGW-c. Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Landais teaches:
A method performed by a first PGW-C/SMF (Landais: [0223] FIG. 10 shows an example signalling diagram between network entities. In this example, the communications take place between an MME, an SGW, an HSS, a first network function instance (labelled ‘PGW A’), and a second network function (labelled ‘PGW B’) … The first and second network function instances may be SMF/PGW-c instances ... Figs. 5, 6, 10), comprising:
establishing a PDU session for a User Equipment, UE (Landais: [0235] For PDU session establishment in 5GS, the PDU session is established in 5GS as specified in existing procedures. The AMF may handle the SMF set as per existing specifications, as well. In some situations, a PDU session may be handed over to EPC. The handover may occur with or without an N26 interface. During the mobility of the PDU session towards EPS, the PGW provides the PGW set FQDN, in the Modify Bearer Response, to the MME. In other examples, the PGW provides the PGW set FQDN in another suitable message type. After this, the same procedures as described for PDN connections established in EPS apply, as shown in the signalling diagram of FIG. 10 [See UE 605 in Fig. 6]. Figs. 6, 10); and
sending alternative PGW-C/SMF information to a second SMF for the PDU session anchored at the first SMF+PGW-C or an access and mobility management function, AMF (Landais: [0223] .... In this example, PGW A depicts a PGW-c that will fail, be disconnected or be scaled in. In this example, PGW B depicts a PGW-c within the PGW-c set that will be selected to take over [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF], in order to serve a PDN connection that used to be served by PGW-A. The first and second network function instances may be SMF/PGW-c instances … [0229] At S1005, when the SGW has detected that PGW A has failed/restarted/de-instantiated, the SGW provides a restart notification to the MME ... In an example, when the MME receives notification that the PGW A is no longer available and the MME has received for this PDN connection an identification of the PGW set ... The MME may maintain the PDN connection context so that it can be transferred to be controlled by a different PGW in the set. The identification of the PGW set may comprise a PGW set FQDN … [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment. This may also occur during the mobility of a PDU session from 5GC to EPC. When a PGW-c becomes unavailable, the MME does not tear down the PDN connections supported by the PGW-c. In some examples, the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10),
wherein an alternative PGW-C/SMF will be selected based on the alternative PGW-C/SMF information in an event the first PGW-C/SMF has failed (Landais: [0229] At S1005, when the SGW has detected that PGW A has failed/restarted/de-instantiated, the SGW provides a restart notification to the MME … the MME has received for this PDN connection an identification of the PGW set ... The identification of the PGW set may comprise a PGW set FQDN … [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment … the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claims 1 and 8 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is used by the AMF or the MME or an evolved packet data gateway, ePDG, to select an alternative PGW-C/SMF (Landais: [0230] At S1006, the MME selects a new PGW based on the received PGW set FQDN. In this example, the MME selects PGW B. PGW B may be part of the SMF/PGW-c set. The MME may perform the selection in response to receiving the restart notification from the SGW ... Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claims 1 and 8 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein the first PGW-C/SMF and the alternative PGW-C/SMF are functionally equivalent and inter-changeable and share same contexts (Landais: [0185] In the Rel. 16 5G core network, a session management function (SMF) set may comprise a set of equivalent and inter-changeable SMF instances, from the 3GPP functionality point of view. The SMF set may share the same (packet data unit session) context data. An SMF set may provide distribution, redundancy and scalability when together as a set of SMF instances.).
Regarding claim 9, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF comprises:
receiving a protocol data unit (PDU) session create request from the second SMF (Landais: [0224] At S1001, the MME provides a request message to the SGW. The request message may be, for example, a create session request message. The SGW forwards the request message to the PGW A. The SGW will forward the request message to the PGW A using an IP address indicated by the MME. When the MME provides the request message, the MME may signal a flag indicating support for the following enhancements. For example, the MME may set a flag that indicates that the MME supports transferring a PDN connection from one PGW instance to another PGW instance. For example, the flag may be a “PGW set FQDN support indication”. Fig. 10); and
sending a PDU session create response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF (Landais: [0225] At S1002, the PGW A provides a response message to the SGW. The response message may be, for example, a create session response message. The response message may comprise information about an identification of the PGW set. In an example, the information about an identification of the PGW set may comprise a domain name of the PGW set. In another example, the response message may comprise a PGW set FQDN ... Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised in PDU session created data of the PDU session create response (Landais: [0235] For PDU session establishment in 5GS, the PDU session is established in 5GS as specified in existing procedures. The AMF may handle the SMF set as per existing specifications, as well. In some situations, a PDU session may be handed over to EPC. The handover may occur with or without an N26 interface. During the mobility of the PDU session towards EPS, the PGW provides the PGW set FQDN, in the Modify Bearer Response, to the MME. In other examples, the PGW provides the PGW set FQDN in another suitable message type. After this, the same procedures as described for PDN connections established in EPS apply, as shown in the signalling diagram of FIG. 10 [See UE 605 in Fig. 6]. Figs. 6, 10).
Regarding claim 19, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information comprises information of at least one PGW-C/SMF, so that the alternative PGW-C/SMF can be selected. (Landais: [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment. This may also occur during the mobility of a PDU session from 5GC to EPC. When a PGW-c becomes unavailable, the MME does not tear down the PDN connections supported by the PGW-c. In some examples, the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF]... Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 29, Landais teaches:
A first PGW-C/SMF, comprising (Landais: [0223] FIG. 10 shows an example signalling diagram between network entities. In this example, the communications take place between an MME, an SGW, an HSS, a first network function instance (labelled ‘PGW A’), and a second network function (labelled ‘PGW B’) … The first and second network function instances may be SMF/PGW-c instances ... Figs. 5, 6, 10):
a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor, whereby the first PGW-C/SMF is operative to (Landais: [0174] FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a control apparatus 200 for controlling a function of the 5G-AN or the 5GC as illustrated on FIG. 1. The control apparatus may comprise at least one random access memory (RAM) 211a, at least one read only memory (ROM) 211b, at least one processor 212, 213 and an input/output interface 214. The at least one processor 212, 213 may be coupled to the RAM 211a and the ROM 211b. The at least one processor 212, 213 may be configured to execute an appropriate software code 215. The software code 215 may for example allow to perform one or more steps to perform one or more of the present aspects.. Fig. 2):
establish a PDU session for a User Equipment, UE (Landais: [0235] For PDU session establishment in 5GS, the PDU session is established in 5GS as specified in existing procedures. The AMF may handle the SMF set as per existing specifications, as well. In some situations, a PDU session may be handed over to EPC. The handover may occur with or without an N26 interface. During the mobility of the PDU session towards EPS, the PGW provides the PGW set FQDN, in the Modify Bearer Response, to the MME. In other examples, the PGW provides the PGW set FQDN in another suitable message type. After this, the same procedures as described for PDN connections established in EPS apply, as shown in the signalling diagram of FIG. 10 [See UE 605 in Fig. 6]. Figs. 6, 10); and
send alternative PGW-C/SMF information to a second SMF for the PDU session anchored at the first SMF+PGW-C or an access and mobility management function, AMF (Landais: [0223] .... In this example, PGW A depicts a PGW-c that will fail, be disconnected or be scaled in. In this example, PGW B depicts a PGW-c within the PGW-c set that will be selected to take over [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF], in order to serve a PDN connection that used to be served by PGW-A. The first and second network function instances may be SMF/PGW-c instances … [0229] At S1005, when the SGW has detected that PGW A has failed/restarted/de-instantiated, the SGW provides a restart notification to the MME ... In an example, when the MME receives notification that the PGW A is no longer available and the MME has received for this PDN connection an identification of the PGW set ... The MME may maintain the PDN connection context so that it can be transferred to be controlled by a different PGW in the set. The identification of the PGW set may comprise a PGW set FQDN … [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment. This may also occur during the mobility of a PDU session from 5GC to EPC. When a PGW-c becomes unavailable, the MME does not tear down the PDN connections supported by the PGW-c. In some examples, the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10);
wherein an alternative PGW-C/SMF will be selected based on the alternative PGW-C/SMF information in an event the first PGW-C/SMF has failed (Landais: [0229] At S1005, when the SGW has detected that PGW A has failed/restarted/de-instantiated, the SGW provides a restart notification to the MME … the MME has received for this PDN connection an identification of the PGW set ... The identification of the PGW set may comprise a PGW set FQDN … [0222] As mentioned above, some examples enable the PGW-c to signal a PGW set fully qualified domain name (FQDN) to the SGW/MME during the PDN connection establishment … the MME may reselect a new SMF/PGW-c instance from the set based on the PGW Set FQDN [i.e., alternative PGW-C/SMF] ... Figs. 5, 6, 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno Landais et.al. (US Patent Application Publication, 20220038542, hereinafter, “Landais”) in view of Gan et.al. (US Patent Application Publication, 20230018958, hereinafter, “Gan”).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claims 1 and 8 as outlined above.
Landais does not explicitly teach:
wherein receiving the alternative PGW-C/SMF information from the first PGW-C/SMF or the second SMF comprises:
sending a Protocol Data Unit, PDU, session context request to the first PGW-C/SMF or the second SMF; and
receiving a PDU session context response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information from the first PGW-C/SMF or the second SMF.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gan teaches:
wherein receiving the alternative PGW-C/SMF information from the first PGW-C/SMF or the second SMF comprises:
sending a Protocol Data Unit, PDU, session context request to the first PGW-C/SMF (Gan: [0121] 5a. The AMF verifies the integrity of the TAU request message and requests the PGW−C+SMF to provide SM Context by using Nsmf_PDUSession_ContextRequest that also includes the mapped EPS Bearer Contexts ... Fig. 6); and
receiving a PDU session context response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information from the first PGW-C/SMF (Gan: [0128] 5c. ... For PDU Sessions with PDU Session Type Ethernet, if the UE and target MME supports Ethernet PDN type, the SMF provides SM Context for Ethernet PDN Type ... Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Landais to include the features as taught by Gan above in order to transfer PDU sessions of a UE during a mobility procedure. (Gan, ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Landais does not explicitly teach:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the MME comprises:
receiving a context request from the MME; and
sending a context response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the MME.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gan teaches:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the MME comprises:
receiving a context request from the MME (Gan: [0121] 5a. The AMF verifies the integrity of the TAU request message [from MME per Fig. 6] and requests the PGW−C+SMF to provide SM Context by using Nsmf_PDUSession_ContextRequest that also includes the mapped EPS Bearer Contexts ... Fig. 6); and
sending a context response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the MME (Gan: [0131] 6. The AMF responds with a Context Response message carrying mapped MM context (including mapped security context), Return preferred and SM EPS UE Context (default and dedicated GBR bearers) to the MME ... Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Landais to include the features as taught by Gan above in order to transfer PDU sessions of a UE during a mobility procedure. (Gan, ¶ [0021]).
Claims 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno Landais et.al. (US Patent Application Publication, 20220038542, hereinafter, “Landais”) in view of Keller; Ralf et.al. (US Patent Application Publication, zzz, hereinafter, “Keller”).
Regarding claim 12, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above.
Landais does not explicitly teach:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF comprises:
receiving a PDU session update request from the second SMF; and
sending a PDU session update response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Keller teaches:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF comprises:
receiving a PDU session update request from the second SMF (Keller: [0055] In step 14, the target MME informs the SGW that the target MME is now responsible for all bearers established for the UE by sending a Modified Bearer Request message to the SGW per PDN connection. The SGW then informs, in step 15, the SMF+PGW-C of the change by sending a Modified Bearer Request message per PDN connection itself ... Fig. 5); and
sending a PDU session update response comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF (Keller: [0055] ... The mentioned Modify Bearer Request messages are then acknowledged from the SMF+PGW-C to the SGW in step 17, as well as from the SGW to the target MME in step 18 ... Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Landais to include the features as taught by Keller above in order to provide bearer continuity and IP address preservation. (Keller, ¶ [0006-0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Landais discloses on the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above.
Landais does not explicitly teach:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF comprises:
sending a PDU session update request comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF; and
receiving a PDU session update response from the second SMF.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Keller teaches:
wherein sending the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF comprises:
sending a PDU session update request comprising the alternative PGW-C/SMF information to the second SMF (Keller: [0056] ... In step 1 of the procedure, the SMF+PGW-C sends an Update Bearer Request message to the SGW ... Fig. 6); and
receiving a PDU session update response from the second SMF (Keller: [0057] ... Upon receipt of the Bearer Modify Response message in step 6 as well as the Session Management Response message in step 8, the MME acknowledges the bearer modification itself in step 9 by sending an Update Bearer Response message to the SGW. The SGW, in turn, acknowledges the bearer modification to the PGW by sending an Update Bearer Response message to the SMF+PGW-C in step 10. Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Landais to include the features as taught by Keller above in order to provide bearer continuity and IP address preservation. (Keller, ¶ [0006-0011]).
Regarding claim 17, Landais-Keller discloses on the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Landais further teaches:
wherein the first PGW-C/SMF is an anchor PGW-C/SMF (Landais: [0200] FIG. 7 shows an example signalling diagram between an MME, SGW, and first and second PGWs. For a SMF/PGW-c there is a standby SMF/PGW-c [i.e., the non-standby PGW-C/SMF is the anchor]. The standby SMF/PGW-c takes over the control of the PDN connections upon failure/scale-in of a PGW-c. Fig. 7).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais-Keller in view of Gan et.al. (US Patent Application Publication, 20230018958, hereinafter, “Gan”).
Regarding claim 13, Landais-Keller discloses on the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above.
Landais-Keller does not explicitly teach:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised in home SMF updated data of the PDU session update response.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gan teaches:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised in home SMF updated data of the PDU session update response (Gan: [0153] UE requested PDU Session Establishment (Home-routed Roaming (clause 4.3.2.2.2) including Request Types “Initial Request” and “Existing PDU Session”. Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Landais-Keller to include the features as taught by Gan above in order to transfer PDU sessions of a UE during a mobility procedure. (Gan, ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Landais-Keller discloses on the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Landais-Keller does not explicitly teach:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised in visited SMF update data of the PDU session update request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gan teaches:
wherein the alternative PGW-C/SMF information is comprised in visited SMF update data of the PDU session update request (Gan: [0154] UE or network requested PDU Session Modification (non-roaming and roaming with local breakout) (clause 4.3.3.2). [0155] UE or network requested PDU Session Modification (home-routed roaming) (clause 4.3.3.3). Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Landais-Keller to include the features as taught by Gan above in order to transfer PDU sessions of a UE during a mobility procedure. (Gan, ¶ [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEM H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (408) 918-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached on (571) 270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIEM H. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights