DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 28-47 are pending in the application. Claims 28, 32-35, 37-38, 40-41, and 44-46 are currently amended. Claims 1-27 have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated April 13, 2026:
Regarding the rejection of claims 32-33, 35, 37, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. The previously noted issues have been resolved. Therefore, the rejection of those issues has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendment has introduced new issues. Therefore, the rejection of pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained because of the new reasons for rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 28-47 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at page 7 of the Remarks, as filed, that “Mladin does not disclose any of the features i) to iv), claim 28 is not anticipated by Mladin.” Examiner disagrees for the same reasons presented in the reasons for rejection below under the 35 U.S.C. 102 grounds. Applicants failed to present any substantiated argument to support their currently unsupported position. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
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 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claims 28, 35, 40, and 45, claim language “and/or” is ambiguous because it is unclear how many of the elements i), ii), iii), and iv) are required by the claim, as a bare minimum. For the purposes of examination, it is deemed that only one element is required by the “and/or” language. However, appropriate correction to remove “and/or” language and replace it with “at least one of” is required, unless Applicants intend to include at least more than one element i), ii), iii), and iv), in which case “at least X of” would be appropriate.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mladin et al. (US 2023/0034349 A1).
As to claim 28, Mladin teaches a method performed by a session management function (SMF) within a network (Figs. 5A and 5B), the method comprising:
the SMF receiving a triggering message [PDU session establishment request from the UE that is received by the AMF, the AMF sending Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request to the selected SMF] (Figs. 5A and 5B, par. [0192]-[0194]); and
based at least on receiving the triggering message, the SMF providing to a user equipment (UE) information related to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session [SMF sends Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Response to AMF that includes information to be updated at the UE during the PDU session] (par. [0195]), wherein the information related to the PDU session indicates [it is noted that “indicates” is not the same as “identifies”. Therefore, “indicating” can be explicit in form of a flag or implicit, where indication is derived by the recipient based on a content and a context of the provided information]:
i) that the network provides edge connectivity for all or part of the PDU session [response may include the FQDN of the EDNCS or may provide a DNS server address for the EDNCS to be updated at the UE] (par. [0190], [0195]);
ii) that 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access is needed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session;
iii) that a reconnection to 5G System (5GS) is needed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session; and/or
iv) that non-3GPP access is allowed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session only if one or more conditions are satisfied.
It is further noted that the indicated information i), ii), iii), and iv) is a non-functional descriptive material because it is not utilized by the SMF to accomplish any of the claimed steps.
As to claim 29, Mladin teaches that the triggering message is transmitted by either an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) or a Policy Control Function (PCF) [the AMF sending Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request to the selected SMF] (Figs. 5A and 5B, par. [0194]).
As to claim 30, Mladin teaches that the triggering message comprises any one or more of the followings:
i) a UE identifier identifying the UE,
ii) an IP address associated with the UE, or
(iii) a traffic descriptor associated with the UE (par. [0192]).
As to claim 31, Mladin teaches that the triggering message is any one of the following messages:
i) a Nsmf_PDU_Session_CreateSMContext Request [the AMF sending Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request to the selected SMF] (Figs. 5A and 5B, par. [0194]);
ii) a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify message;
iii) a Neasdf_DNSContext_Notify Request; or
iv) a Nsmf_PDU_Session_UpdateSMContext Request.
As to claim 32, Mladin teaches analyzing the triggering message; and
based on analyzing the triggering message, determining that traffic in the PDU session is related to edge computing (EC) [determining if the Edge Configuration request indicator is included] (par. [0193]), wherein the transmission of the information related to the PDU session is based on the determination that traffic in the PDU session is related to EC (par. [0193]).
As to claim 33, Mladin teaches analyzing the triggering message;
based on analyzing the triggering message, determining that traffic in the PDU session is related to edge computing (EC) [determining if the Edge Configuration request indicator is included] (par. [0193]); and as a result of determining that the traffic in the PDU session is related to EC, selecting an edge User Plan Function (UPF) for a given traffic (par. [0195]).
As to claim 34, Mladin teaches that providing to the UE the information related to the PDU session comprises transmitting towards the UE an Extended Protocol Configuration Options (ePCO) message (par. [0183], [0195]), and transmitting the ePCO message towards the UE comprising transmitting the ePCO message to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) configured to transmit the ePCO message to the UE (Fig. 5A, par. [0183], [0195]).
As to claim 35, Mladin teaches that the information related to the PDU session indicates: that 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access is needed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session [UE is prompted by the AMF to provide its LEF reporting capability] (par. [0257]); that a reconnection to 5G System (5GS) is needed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session; and/or that non-3GPP access is allowed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session only if one or more conditions are satisfied.
As to claim 36, Mladin teaches that the message related to the PDU session is any one of the following messages:
i) a Nsmf_PDUScssion_CrcateSMContext1 Response [SMF sends Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Response to AMF] (par. [0195]);
ii) a Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response; or
iii) a Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer1 Request.
As to claim 37, Mladin teaches that the message related to the PDU session includes tunnel information needed for re-connection (par. [0195]).
As to claim 38, Mladin teaches that the information related to the PDU session indicates that the network provides edge connectivity for all or part of the PDU session [response may include the FQDN of the EDNCS or may provide a DNS server address for the EDNCS to be updated at the UE] (par. [0190], [0195]).
As to claim 39, Mladin teaches an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry coupled to the memory (par. [0092], [0098]), wherein the apparatus is configured to perform the method of claim 28.
As to claim 40, Mladin teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) connected to a network (Fig. 5A), the method comprising:
the UE receiving a message related to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session [receiving Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Response from AMF] (par. [0195]);
the UE analyzing the message related to the PDU session (par. [0195]-[0196]), wherein the message related to the PDU session comprises an indication which indicates [it is noted that “indication which indicates” is not the same as “identifies”. Therefore, “indicating” can be explicit in form of a flag or implicit, where indication is derived by the UE based on a content and a context of the message. In fact, the mere receipt of the message can serve as an indication]:
i) that the network provides edge connectivity for all or part of the PDU session [response may include the FQDN of the EDNCS or may provide a DNS server address for the EDNCS to be updated at the UE] (par. [0190], [0195]);
ii) that a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access is needed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session;
iii) that a reconnection to 5G System (5GS) is needed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session; and/or
iv) that a particular non-3GPP access or all non-3GPP accesses are allowed for using a particular application or all applications mapped into the PDU session only if one or more conditions are satisfied.
It is further noted that the indicated information i), ii), iii), and iv) is a non-functional descriptive material because it is not utilized by the UE to accomplish any of the claimed steps with the exception of claim 46, where one of the indicated pieces of information is utilized to perform a notification action.
As to claim 41, Mladin teaches that the information related to the PDU session indicates that the network provides edge connectivity for all or part of the PDU session [response may include the FQDN of the EDNCS or may provide a DNS server address for the EDNCS to be updated at the UE] (par. [0190], [0192], [0195], Figs. 5A and 5B).
As to claim 42, Mladin teaches that transmission of the message related to the PDU session is triggered by a Session Management Function (par. [0195]).
As to claims 43-44, Mladin teaches all the elements, as discussed per corresponding claims 34 and 37-38 above.
As to claim 45, Mladin teaches that the method further comprises:
(i) notifying any applications mapped into the PDU session that Edge Computing (EC) related functionality is applied to a part of the traffic, or all traffic mapped into the PDU session [first uplink data] (par. [0197]-[0199], Fig. 5B);
(ii) prohibiting usage of a particular non-3GPP access or any non-3GPP access for a particular application;
(iii) prohibiting usage of a particular non-3GPP access or any non-3GPP access for a given PDU session;
(iv) whenever a non-3GPP access becomes active, setting up a tunnel to a User Plane Function, (UPF), and directing application/PDU session traffic through the tunnel; and/or
(v) monitoring performance of a first non-3GPP access and allowing a specific traffic to go through the first non-3GPP access only if one or more conditions related to the first non-3GPP access are satisfied.
As to claim 46, Mladin teaches notifying an application mapped into the PDU session about the network providing the edge connectivity [utilizing information provided to the UE to determine the services for which the UE has edge services subscriptions] (par. [0197]-[0199], Fig. 5B). It is noted that “notifying an application” is an internal process within the UE that essentially allows UE to determine the services for which the UE has edge services subscriptions.
As to claim 47, Mladin teaches an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a memory; and processing circuitry coupled to the memory (par. [0092], [0098]), wherein the apparatus is configured to perform the method of claim 40.
Related Prior Art
Jun et al. (US 2019/0373505 A1) is directed to a method for access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) in a network and a network entity for performing the method (abstract). In particular, Jun teaches the particulars of the ATSSS method in connection with figure 6 that show request and response messages indicating the functionality substantially similar to the pending claims (par. [0090], [0096]). Therefore, teachings of Jun are directly applicable to the pending claims and could be used in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights