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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The originally filed but pre-amended claims appear to have inadvertently left an alternate draft of the independent claims. Examiner reached out to Kien Lee (Reg. No. 64,167) on or about August 6th 2026 to determine the proper version. Examiner was directed to use the first, non-italicized version and has done so for purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (Ericsson: "Notification of SM Policy Association Establishment", 3GPP TSG-SA2 Meeting #146E, S2-2105420, cited on IDS filed May 13, 2025, Ericsson hereafter) in view of further Non-Patent Literature (3GPP TR 23.700-27 V0.1.0 (2022-02) “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on 5G System with Satellite Backhaul (Release 18)”, cited on IDS filed May 13, 2025, 3GPP hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 11, Ericsson discloses a communication method and apparatus, comprising at least one processor and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor; wherein the one or more memories store programming instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to perform a method comprising: obtaining, service information, wherein the service information indicates one or more services supported by a satellite (Section 4.3.2.2.1: “From AMF to SMF: Either Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request (SUPI, selected DNN, UE requested DNN, S-NSSAl(s), PDU Session ID, AMF ID,Request Type, [PCF ID, Same PCF Selection Indication], Priority Access, [Small Data Rate Control Status], N1 SM container (PDU Session Establishment Request), User location information, Access Type, RAT Type, PEI, GPSI, UE presence in LADN service area, Subscription For PDU Session Status Notification, DNN Selection Mode, Trace Requirements, Control Plane CloT SGS Optimisation indication, Control Plane Only indicator, Satellite backhaul category) or Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request (SUPI, DNN, SNSSAl(s), SM Context ID, AMF ID, Request Type, N1 SM container(PDU Session Establishment Request), User location information, Access Type, RAT type, PEI, Serving Network (PLMN ID, or PLMN ID and NID, see clause 5.18 of TS 23.501 [2]), Satellite backhaul category), [PCF binding information, notification of SM Policy Association establishment Indication] ... If the AMF, based on configuration, is aware that the UE is accessing over a gNB using satellite backhaul as defined in TS 23.501 [2], the AMF includes Satellite backhaul category indication."); determining, based on the service information, whether a terminal device is allowed to access the one or more services supported by the satellite or whether the terminal device is allowed to perform local data switching under the satellite (Section 4.3.2.2.1: "4. If Session Management Subscription data for corresponding SUPI, DNN and S-NSSAI of the HPLMN is not available, then SMF retrieves the Session Management Subscription data using Nudm_SDM_Get (SUPI, Session Management Subscription data, selected DNN, S-NSSAI of the HPLMN, Serving PLMN ID, [NID]) and subscribes to be notified when this subscription data is modified using Nudm_SDM_Subscribe (SUPI, Session Management Subscription data, selected DNN, S-NSSAI of the HPLMN, Serving PLMN ID, [NID]). UDM may get this information from UDR by Nudr_DM_Query (SUPI, Subscription Data, Session Management subscription data, selected DNN, S-NSSAI of the HPLMN, Serving PLMN ID, [NID]) and may subscribe to notifications from UDR for the same data by Nudr_DM_subscribe ... Subscription data includes the Allowed PDU Session Type(s), Allowed SSC mode(s), default SQI and ARP, subscribed Session-AMBR, SMFAssociated external parameters. IP Index or Static IP address/prefix may be included in the subscription data if the UE has subscribed to it. The SMF checks the validity of the UE request: it checks – Whether the UE request is compliant with the user subscription and with local policies;"); and in response to determining that the terminal device is allowed to access at least one of the one or more services supported by the satellite, inserting, by the session management network element, a user plane network element into a user plane path of the terminal device (Section 4.3.2.2.1 discloses : "2) For other PDU Session Types, the SMF will perform UPF selection to select a UPF as the anchor of this PDU Session. If the Request Type in Step 3 is "Existing PDU Session", the SMF maintains the same IP address/prefix that has already been allocated to the UE in the source network. If the Request Type in step 3 indicates "Existing PDU Session" referring to an existing PDU Session moved between 3GPP access and non-3GPP access the SMF maintains the SSC mode of the PDU Session, the current PDU Session Anchor and IP address. NOTE 6: The SMF may decide to trigger e.g. new intermediate UPF insertion or allocation of a new UPF as described in step 5 in clause 4.2.3.2.").
Ericsson does not explicitly disclose that the inserted user plane network element is on the satellite.
However, 3GPP teaches insertion of a satellite based user plane network element (Section 1: "2: Architecture enhancements for support of UPF deployed on GEO satellite with gNB on the ground: - Whether and how to enable satellite edge computing services via UPF on-board e.g. to reduce the latency for data transmission, and minimize the backhaul resources consumption;").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and apparatus of Ericsson with the teachings of 3GPP in order to reduce latency and backhaul resource consumption.
RE claims 2 and 12, Ericsson in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ericsson further discloses wherein the user plane network element on the satellite is a user plane network element that is on the satellite and that corresponds to a DNAI, and the DNAI identifies a user plane connection for accessing the one or more services supported by the satellite (Section 5.2.8.2.2 discloses: "Description: Create a new PDU Session in the H-SMF or SMF or create an association with an existing PDN connection in the home SMF+PGW-C. Input, Required: SUPI, V-SMF ID or I-SMF ID, V-SMF SM Context ID or I-SMF SM Context ID, DNN, V-CN Tunnel Info or I-UPF Tunnel Info, addressing information allowing the H-SMF to request the V-SMF to issue further operations about the PDU Session or addressing information allowing the SMF to request the I-SMF to issue further operations about the PDU Session, Serving Network (PLMN ID, or PLMN ID and NID, see clause 5.18 of TS 23.501 [2]). Input, Optional: S-NSSAI, PCO, Requested PDU Session Type, 5GSM Core Network Capability, Requested SSC mode, PDU Session ID, Number Of Packet Filters, UE location information, subscription get notified of PDU Session status change, PEI, GPSI, AN type, PCF ID, PCF Group ID, DNN Selection Mode, UE's Routing Indicator or UDM Group ID for the UE, Always-on PDU Session Requested, Control Plane CloT SGS Optimisation Indication, information provided by V-SMF related to charging in home routed scenario (see TS 32.255 [45]), AMF ID, EPS Bearer Status, extended NAS-SM timer indication, DNAI list supported by ISMF (from I-SMF to SMF), HO Preparation Indication. MA PDU request indication, MA PDU Network-Upgrade Allowed indication, Indication on whether the UE is registered in both accesses; QoS constraints from the VPLMN (see clause 4.3.2.2.2), Satellite backhaul category, Notification of the SM Policy Association Establishment, PCF binding information. Output, Required: Result Indication, and if success a SM Context ID and in addition: QFl(s), QoS Profile(s), Session-AMBR, QoS Rule(s), QoS Flow level QoS parameters if any for the QoS Flow(s) associated with the QoS rule(s), H-CN Tunnel Info or PSA UPF Tunnel Info, Enable pause of charging indication, Selected PDU Session Type and SSC mode. Output, Optional: PDU Session ID, S-NSSAI, Cause, PCO, UE IP address, IPv6 Prefix allocated to the PDU Session, information needed by V-SMF in the case of EPS interworking such as the PDN Connection Type, EPS bearer context(s), linked EBI, Reflective QoS Timer, Always-on PDU Session Granted, information provided by H-SMF related to charging in home routed scenario (see TS 32.255 [45]), DNAl(s) of interest for this PDU Session (from SMF to I-SMF), indication of multi-homing support (from SMF to I-SMF). MA PDU session Accepted indication, Indication on whether Small Data Rate Control applies or not.")
RE claims 4 and 14, Ericsson in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ericsson further discloses sending, by the session management network element, a traffic steering rule to the user plane network element on the satellite (Section 4.3.2.2.1: "The SMF initiates an N4 Session Modification procedure with the UPF. The SMF provides AN Tunnel Info to the UPF as well as the corresponding forwarding rules.").
RE claims 10 and 20, Ericsson in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above. Neither Ericsson nor 3GPP individually explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the terminal device is not allowed to access any one of the one or more services supported by the satellite, skipping inserting, by the session management network element, the user plane network element on the satellite into the user plane path of the terminal device.
However, in combination Ericsson and 3GPP predictably yield the claimed features.
Pages 12 through the top of 14 of Ericsson disclose a UE which makes a request to a network. In the middle of page 12 Ericsson discloses a step wherein the SMF checks the validity of the UE request. This includes checking whether the UE request is compliant with the user subscription and local polices. The top of page 14 further discloses at “Note 6” which occurs after the UE request is deemed valid the following: “The SMF may decide to trigger e.g. new intermediate UPF insertion or allocation of a new UPF as described in step 5 clause 4.2.3.2.”. As set forth above, 3GPP further teaches the utility in a satellite-based UPF. In combination, the prior art predictably yields the insertion of a satellite-based UPF as well as making said insertion conditional upon the determination by the SMF that the UE request is valid. Ericsson frames the insertion of a UPF as requiring a positive validity check, corresponding to the terminal/UE being “allowed”. Should this validity check fail, the terminal/UE would be “disallowed”, and no insertion of a UPF would occur.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of 3GPP and further in view of Garcia Azorero et al (US 2020/0068587, Garcia hereafter).
RE claim 3 and 13, Ericsson in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above. Ericsson in view of 3GPP does not explicitly disclose selecting, by the session management network element, the user plane network element on the satellite as a branching point.
However, Garcia teaches selecting, by the session management network element, the user plane network element on the satellite as a branching point (Paragraph 132: “SMF 170 also configures, via the N4 interface, an UPF 180C as branching point (PDU session branching point, PSBP) for the multi-homed PDU session. In this regard SMF 170 considers the information received in the TRP information.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and apparatus of Ericsson in view of 3GPP with the teachings of Garcia since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claims 5-6 and 15-16, prior art does not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest determination of a DNAI (interpreted as referring to Data Network Access Identifier in 3GPP) based on a satellite backhaul type information of a terminal. Ericsson at best only supports an DNAI selected by an SMF based on UE location in section 6.6.1: “the SMF selects DNAI based on UE location”. Further closest identified relevant prior art is set forth below.
RE claims 7-9 and 17-19, the claims depend upon one of claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 and thereby includes the allowable features above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong et al. (US 2023/04013142): Paragraphs 70-89 discloses satellite backhaul information provided to a SMF by an AMF. However, there is no disclosure or teaching that would suggest use of this information for determining or selecting a DNAI for a terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights