DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Amendment filed on July 25, 2026 has been reviewed.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0136674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches A method comprising:
generating, by a network device, a request for binding information from a binding service function (BSF) (the AF generate an AF request message, para. 0107; the NEF 129 receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212, para. 0108), wherein the request does not indicate a type of split policy control network device (the AF request message include slice policy information , para. 0107; the discovery request message include the S-NSSAI, para. 0109);
transmitting, by the network device to the BSF, the request (based on the slice information (S-NSSAI) included in the AF request message, the NEF 129 transmit a discovery request message to the BSF 132 in operation 214; the discovery request message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery request message, para. 0109); and
receiving, by the network device from the BSF, a response that includes at least one of network addresses or identifiers of multiple types of split policy control devices (the BSF 132 transmit a discovery response message to the NEF 129 in operation 216; the discovery response message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery response message; the discovery response message include the PCF information (PCF ID and/or PCF set ID) selected by the BSF 132, para. 0109; based on the PCF information received from the BSF 132 in operation 216; when the PCF information is the PCF set ID, the NEF 129 select one PCF 123 from among PCFs included in a PCF set, para. 0110).
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the network device is an application function (AF) or a network exposure function (NEF) (the AF generate an AF request message, para. 0107; the NEF 129 receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212, para. 0108).
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the request includes single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) (based on the slice information (S-NSSAI) included in the AF request message, the NEF 129 transmit a discovery request message to the BSF 132 in operation 214, para. 0109).
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches A network device comprising:
a processor (processor, para. 0023) configured to:
generate a request for binding information from a binding service function (BSF) (the AF generate an AF request message, para. 0107; the NEF 129 receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212, para. 0108), wherein the request does not indicate a type of split policy control network device (the AF request message include slice policy information , para. 0107; the discovery request message include the S-NSSAI, para. 0109);
transmit, to the BSF, the request (based on the slice information (S-NSSAI) included in the AF request message, the NEF 129 transmit a discovery request message to the BSF 132 in operation 214; the discovery request message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery request message, para. 0109); and
receive, from the BSF, a response that includes at least one of network addresses or identifiers of multiple types of split policy control devices (the BSF 132 transmit a discovery response message to the NEF 129 in operation 216; the discovery response message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery response message; the discovery response message include the PCF information (PCF ID and/or PCF set ID) selected by the BSF 132, para. 0109; based on the PCF information received from the BSF 132 in operation 216; when the PCF information is the PCF set ID, the NEF 129 select one PCF 123 from among PCFs included in a PCF set, para. 0110).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9, wherein the network device is an application function (AF) or a network exposure function (NEF) (the AF generate an AF request message, para. 0107; the NEF 129 receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212, para. 0108).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9, wherein the request includes single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) (based on the slice information (S-NSSAI) included in the AF request message, the NEF 129 transmit a discovery request message to the BSF 132 in operation 214, para. 0109).
With respect to claim 17, Lee teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor of a network device (processor, para. 0023), which when executed cause the network device to:
generate a request for binding information from a binding service function (BSF) (the AF generate an AF request message, para. 0107; the NEF 129 receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212, para. 0108), wherein the request does not indicate a type of split policy control network device (the AF request message include slice policy information , para. 0107; the discovery request message include the S-NSSAI, para. 0109);
transmit, to the BSF, the request (based on the slice information (S-NSSAI) included in the AF request message, the NEF 129 transmit a discovery request message to the BSF 132 in operation 214; the discovery request message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery request message, para. 0109); and
receive, from the BSF, a response that includes at least one of network addresses or identifiers of multiple types of split policy control devices (the BSF 132 transmit a discovery response message to the NEF 129 in operation 216; the discovery response message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery response message; the discovery response message include the PCF information (PCF ID and/or PCF set ID) selected by the BSF 132, para. 0109; based on the PCF information received from the BSF 132 in operation 216; when the PCF information is the PCF set ID, the NEF 129 select one PCF 123 from among PCFs included in a PCF set, para. 0110).
With respect to claim 20, Lee teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the network device is an application function (AF) or a network exposure function (NEF) (the AF generate an AF request message, para. 0107; the NEF 129 receive the AF request message from the AF 150 in operation 212, para. 0108).
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 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.
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 2, 5, 10, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0136674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Ding (US 2022/0104118 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches The method of claim 1 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) or a session management PCF.
However, Ding teaches wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) (obtaining, from the BSF network element using the identifier of the terminal as a query condition, the identification information that is of the AM-PCF network element and that corresponds to the identifier of the terminal, para. 0292) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005) or a session management PCF.
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the method of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches The method of claim 1 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the request includes at least one of an identifier of an end device or a data network name.
However, Ding teaches wherein the request includes at least one of an identifier of an end device or a data network name (when an AF network element query a PCF network element corresponding to a session, the AF network element query information about the corresponding PCF network element from the BSF network element based on information such as the IP address of a terminal and the terminal identifier, para. 0147) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the method of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) or a session management PCF.
However, Ding teaches wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) (obtain, from the BSF network element using the identifier of the terminal as a query condition, the identification information that is of the AM-PCF network element and that corresponds to the identifier of the terminal, para. 0292) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005) or a session management PCF.
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the device of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the request includes at least one of an identifier of an end device or a data network name.
However, Ding teaches wherein the request includes at least one of an identifier of an end device or a data network name (when an AF network element query a PCF network element corresponding to a session, the AF network element query information about the corresponding PCF network element from the BSF network element based on information such as the IP address of a terminal and the terminal identifier, para. 0147) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the device of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 18, Lee teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) or a session management PCF.
However, Ding teaches wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) (obtain, from the BSF network element using the identifier of the terminal as a query condition, the identification information that is of the AM-PCF network element and that corresponds to the identifier of the terminal, para. 0292) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005) or a session management PCF.
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the medium of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 19, Lee teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the request includes at least one of an identifier of an end device or a data network name.
However, Ding teaches wherein the request includes at least one of an identifier of an end device or a data network name (when an AF network element query a PCF network element corresponding to a session, the AF network element query information about the corresponding PCF network element from the BSF network element based on information such as the IP address of a terminal and the terminal identifier, para. 0147) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the medium of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0136674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Chiaverini et al. (US 2019/0075107 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chiaverini.
With respect to claim 6, Lee teaches The method of claim 1 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the generating is in response to detection of an attachment procedure or an initiation of an application session associated with an end device.
However, Chiaverini teaches wherein the generating is in response to detection of an attachment procedure or an initiation of an application session associated with an end device (end device initiates an attachment procedure with core network via access network; during the attachment procedure, end device authenticated and authorized, a PGW selected, and policy control and charging (PCC) information pertaining to end device obtained by the PGW, para. 0041) in order to improve the accuracy of managing and enforcing of data flows and data usages of end users as taught by Chiaverini (para. 0019).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Chiaverini, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Chiaverini to the method of Lee in order to improve the accuracy of managing and enforcing of data flows and data usages of end users as taught by Chiaverini (para. 0019).
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the request in response to detection of an attachment procedure or an initiation of an application session associated with an end device.
However, Chiaverini teaches wherein the generating is in response to detection of an attachment procedure or an initiation of an application session associated with an end device (end device initiates an attachment procedure with core network via access network; during the attachment procedure, end device authenticated and authorized, a PGW selected, and policy control and charging (PCC) information pertaining to end device obtained by the PGW, para. 0041) in order to improve the accuracy of managing and enforcing of data flows and data usages of end users as taught by Chiaverini (para. 0019).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Chiaverini, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Chiaverini to the device of Lee in order to improve the accuracy of managing and enforcing of data flows and data usages of end users as taught by Chiaverini (para. 0019).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0136674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Salkintzis (US 2020/0280562 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Lee teaches The method of claim 1 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the request includes a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) GET message.
However, Salkintzis teaches wherein the request includes a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) GET message (the AF 138 use HTTP requests, such as the GET request, to request user information and responding using HTTP 200 OK responses, para. 0068) in order to allow for enhanced connectivity to services offered by the third-party application server and/or improved user experience via the data connection as taught by Salkintzis (para. 0045).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Salkintzis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Salkintzis to the method of Lee in order to allow for enhanced connectivity to services offered by the third-party application server and/or improved user experience via the data connection as taught by Salkintzis (para. 0045).
With respect to claim 15, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the request includes a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) GET message.
However, Salkintzis teaches wherein the request includes a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) GET message (the AF 138 use HTTP requests, such as the GET request, to request user information and responding using HTTP 200 OK responses, para. 0068) in order to allow for enhanced connectivity to services offered by the third-party application server and/or improved user experience via the data connection as taught by Salkintzis (para. 0045).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Salkintzis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Salkintzis to the device of Lee in order to allow for enhanced connectivity to services offered by the third-party application server and/or improved user experience via the data connection as taught by Salkintzis (para. 0045).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0136674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Zhu et al. (US 2023/0017217 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches The method of claim 1 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach further comprising:
using, by the network device, the at least one of network addresses or identifiers to perform a network procedure.
However, Zhu teaches further comprising:
using, by the network device, the at least one of network addresses or identifiers to perform a network procedure (the BSF return multiple PCF(s) serving the MBS session to determine the PCF of the MBS session for modification, para. 0135; the PCF<b>2</b> initiates the PDU session Modification procedure to modify the QoS information of each MBS Session, para. 0136) in order to allow the at least one access and mobility management function to initiate an establishment of the session as taught by Zhu (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Zhu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Zhu to the method of Lee in order to allow the at least one access and mobility management function to initiate an establishment of the session as taught by Zhu (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 16, Lee teaches The network device of claim 9 as described above,
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
use the at least one of network addresses or identifiers to perform a network procedure.
However, Zhu teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
use the at least one of network addresses or identifiers to perform a network procedure (the BSF return multiple PCF(s) serving the MBS session to determine the PCF of the MBS session for modification, para. 0135; the PCF<b>2</b> initiates the PDU session Modification procedure to modify the QoS information of each MBS Session, para. 0136) in order to allow the at least one access and mobility management function to initiate an establishment of the session as taught by Zhu (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Zhu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Zhu to the device of Lee in order to allow the at least one access and mobility management function to initiate an establishment of the session as taught by Zhu (para. 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s main arguments are that “Lee fails to describe or suggest the "receiving" feature, as recited in independent claim 1. For at least these reasons, Lee fails to anticipate or render obvious independent claim 1.”” (Argument 1, REMARKS page 5); and “Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 18, and 19 depend on amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively… Thus, the problem and solution addressed in Ding have no bearing on the NEF or the AF of Lee because the NEF or the AF of Lee is not responsible for PDU session establishment/modification procedures, much less URSP rules applicable to the terminal (UE). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been unmotivated to combine the purported teachings of Lee and Ding in the manner propounded by the Examiner for the reasons set forth in the grounds of rejection.” (Argument 2, REMARKS pages 6-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments.
In response to Applicant’s Argument 1 that “Lee fails to describe or suggest the "receiving" feature, as recited in independent claim 1. For at least these reasons, Lee fails to anticipate or render obvious independent claim 1.” it is noted that Lee teaches the BSF 132 transmit a discovery response message to the NEF 129 in operation 216; the discovery response message is an Nbsf_Management Discovery response message; the discovery response message include the PCF information (PCF ID and/or PCF set ID) selected by the BSF 132, para. 0109; based on the PCF information received from the BSF 132 in operation 216; when the PCF information is the PCF set ID, the NEF 129 select one PCF 123 from among PCFs included in a PCF set (para. 0110).
In response to Applicant’s Argument 2 that “Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 18, and 19 depend on amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively… Thus, the problem and solution addressed in Ding have no bearing on the NEF or the AF of Lee because the NEF or the AF of Lee is not responsible for PDU session establishment/modification procedures, much less URSP rules applicable to the terminal (UE). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been unmotivated to combine the purported teachings of Lee and Ding in the manner propounded by the Examiner for the reasons set forth in the grounds of rejection.” In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) or a session management PCF.
However, Ding teaches wherein the multiple types of split policy control devices include at least one of an access management policy control function (PCF) (obtaining, from the BSF network element using the identifier of the terminal as a query condition, the identification information that is of the AM-PCF network element and that corresponds to the identifier of the terminal, para. 0292) in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005) or a session management PCF.
Therefore, based on Lee in view of Ding, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ding to the method of Lee in order to improve a capability of controlling admission of terminal behavior by a network side as taught by Ding (para. 0005).
For the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO HONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2666. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOON H. HWANG can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
/H.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2447
July 25, 2026
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights