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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 10/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by XU et al. (US 2022/0124595).
Regarding claim 1, XU discloses an apparatus [see Fig. 11, ¶¶ 165, 203; a device 1100], comprising:
at least one processor [see Fig. 11, ¶ 204; a processor 1110]; and
at least one memory storing instructions [see Fig. 11, ¶ 204; a memory 1120] which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
transmitting a first message to a first apparatus [see Fig. 5, ¶ 74; transmit a PDU session establishment request message to the session management function (SMF)], the first message including a request to establish communication based on a first communication session type and a first set of one or more session attributes associated with the first message [see Fig. 5, ¶ 74; the PDU session establishment request message including a request to establish communication based on a PDU session parameter can include at least one of the following: the DNN, the S-NSSAI, a PDU session type, the SSC mode, a PDU session identity, and an access type];
receiving a second message from the first apparatus [see Fig. 5, ¶ 77; receiving a rejection message/(second message) from the SMF/(first apparatus)], the second message including an indication that the request to establish communication using the first communication session type is rejected [see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 77, 79; the rejection message/(second message) including an indication that the request to establish communication using the first communication session type is rejected];
after the receiving the second message, removing from use, a retransmission of the first communication session type and the first set of one or more session attributes for establishing communication [see Fig. 6, ¶ 97; terminal device ignores or does not use, according to the cause parameter, an RSD unsatisfying a cause-parameter condition and/or a parameter-value combination unsatisfying the cause-parameter condition in an RSD, wherein the RSD is satisfying the cause-parameter condition and/or the parameter-value combination in the RSD satisfying the cause-parameter condition (see ¶ 102)]; and
transmitting a third message to the first apparatus or a second apparatus [see Fig. 5, ¶ 78; the terminal device adjusts the PDU session parameter according to a parameter in a URSP rule, and re-attempts to perform PDU session establishment via the PDU session parameter adjusted],
the third message including a request for communication based on a second communication session type and a second set of one or more session attributes, associated with the third message [see Fig. 5, ¶¶ 107-113, Table 3; the PDU session establishment request with the PDU session parameter adjusted/third message including a request for communication based on a parameter combination according to a parameter in an RSD in the URSP rule (see ¶ 79); also see ¶ 173],
wherein a first combination including the first communication session type and the first set of one or more session attributes, is not identical to a second combination including the second communication session type and the second set of one or more session attributes [see Fig. 6, see Table 3, ¶ 113; wherein a first combination including the PDU Session Type IPv4 /(first communication session type) and the DNN = 1 /(first set of one or more session attributes), is not identical to a second combination including the PDU Session Type IPv4 /(second communication session type) and the DNN-2 /(second set of one or more session attributes); also see ¶¶ 107-131, for any combination satisfies the cause-parameter condition], and
wherein the first communication session type and the second communication session type are identical [see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 119; wherein the PDU Session Type IPv4 /(first communication session type) and the PDU Session Type IPv4 /(first communication session type) are identical, wherein the cause-parameter condition of the PDU session type are suitable and are supported by the terminal device].
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the method to perform the function of the apparatus recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 18 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the processor-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus, cause the apparatus at least to perform the function of the apparatus recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 20 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over KAMALADINNI et al. (US 2023/0017455) in view of SUGAWARA (US 2022/0279384).
Regarding claim 1, KAMALADINNI discloses an apparatus [see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 47-61; a device 601], comprising:
at least one processor [see Fig. 6, ¶ 47; a processor 604]; and
at least one memory storing instructions [see Fig. 6, ¶ 47; a memory 606] which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
transmitting a first message to a first apparatus [see Fig. 5, ¶ 74; sending a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment request message to the 5G network 602/(first apparatus)], the first message including a request to establish communication based on a first communication session type and a first set of one or more session attributes associated with the first message [see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 48-49; the PDU session establishment request message including a request to establish communication based on URSP (UE Route Selection Policy) rule, wherein the URSP rule n include information related to DNN (including a first DNN and a second DNN) and S-NSSAI (network slice selection assistance information) (including a first S-NSSAI and a second S-NSSAI)];
receiving a second message from the first apparatus [see Fig. 6, ¶ 50; receiving a PDU session establishment reject message /(second message) from the 5G network 602 /(first apparatus)], the second message including an indication that the request to establish communication using the first communication session type is rejected [see Fig. 6, ¶ 50; the PDU session establishment reject message /(second message) including an indication that the request to establish communication using the first communication session type is rejected (include a cause of the failure and a timer value)];
after the receiving the second message, removing from use, a retransmission of the first communication session type and the first set of one or more session attributes for establishing communication [see Fig. 6, ¶ 50; refrain from sending another PDU session establishment procedure with the first DNN and the first network slice prior to the expiry of the timer]; and
transmitting a third message to the first apparatus or a second apparatus [see Fig. 11, ¶¶ 64, 88; sending a PDU establishment request message with DNN-2, to the 5G network 602; also see ¶ 86, transmit a modification request message include a value combination of a first parameter],
the third message including a request for communication based on a second communication session type and a second set of one or more session attributes, associated with the third message [see Fig. 11, ¶ 88; the modification request message (third message) including a request for communication based on select DNN-2 to be connected with UE 601 by referring the at least one route selection descriptor in the URSP rule],
wherein a first combination including the first communication session type and the first set of one or more session attributes, is not identical to a second combination including the second communication session type and the second set of one or more session attributes [see Fig. 11, ¶¶ 64, 88; If the establishment of the first PDU session had failed due to insufficient resources in the first DNN, the embodiments include attempting at establishing the second PDU session with the second DNN and the first network slice], and
KAMALADINNI but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first communication session type and the second communication session type are identical.
However, SUGAWARA discloses
transmitting a third message to the first apparatus or a second apparatus [see ¶¶ 252; transmitting at least one type of the first to tenth identification information in the PDU session establishment request message and/or the N1 SM container and/or the NAS message for transmission], and wherein the first communication session type and the second communication session type are identical [see Fig. 13, ¶¶ 256, 531; wherein the fourth identification information is a PDU session type of the MA PDU session (the second MA PDU session) of which establishment is requested, and is preferably configured to the same PDU session type as the PDU session type configured for the first MA PDU session].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the first communication session type and the second communication session type are identical” as taught by SUGAWARA in the system of KAMALADINNI, so that it would to provide procedure for modifying part of a PSA of an SA PDU session to a PSA of an MA PDU session, or behaviors of each apparatus in a case that these procedures are performed can be clarified [see SUGAWARA; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the request to establish communication based on the first communication session type includes a request to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) communication session type or a packet data network (PDN) communication session type [see ¶¶ 38, 48; wherein the request to establish communication based on the first communication session type includes a request to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) communication session type (Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment request message)].
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 2.
KAMALADINNI does not explicitly disclose
wherein the PDU communication session type includes one or more of the following: an IPv4 communication session type, an IPv6 communication session type, an IPv4v6 communication session type, an unstructured communication session type or an Ethernet communication session type.
However, SUGAWARA discloses wherein the PDU communication session type includes one or more of the following: an IPv4 communication session type, an IPv6 communication session type, an IPv4v6 communication session type, an unstructured communication session type or an Ethernet communication session type [see ¶ 154; a protocol data unit or a packet data unit (PDU) session type indicates a type of a PDU session, and includes IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet (trade name), and Unstructured].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the PDU communication session type includes one or more of the following: an IPv4 communication session type, an IPv6 communication session type, an IPv4v6 communication session type, an unstructured communication session type or an Ethernet communication session type” as taught by SUGAWARA in the system of KAMALADINNI, so that it would to provide procedure for modifying part of a PSA of an SA PDU session to a PSA of an MA PDU session, or behaviors of each apparatus in a case that these procedures are performed can be clarified [see SUGAWARA; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 2.
KAMALADINNI does not explicitly disclose wherein the PDN communication session type includes one or more of the following: an IPv4 communication session type, an IPv6 communication session type, an IPv4v6 communication session type, non-Internet protocol (IP) communication session type or an Ethernet communication session type.
However, SUGAWARA discloses wherein the PDN communication session type includes one or more of the following: an IPv4 communication session type, an IPv6 communication session type, an IPv4v6 communication session type, non-Internet protocol (IP) communication session type or an Ethernet communication session type [see ¶ 154; a protocol data unit or a packet data unit (PDU) session type indicates a type of a PDU session, and includes IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet (trade name), and Unstructured].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the PDN communication session type includes one or more of the following: an IPv4 communication session type, an IPv6 communication session type, an IPv4v6 communication session type, non-Internet protocol (IP) communication session type or an Ethernet communication session type” as taught by SUGAWARA in the system of KAMALADINNI, so that it would to provide procedure for modifying part of a PSA of an SA PDU session to a PSA of an MA PDU session, or behaviors of each apparatus in a case that these procedures are performed can be clarified [see SUGAWARA; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the first set of one or more session attributes comprises a first data network name (DNN) or a first access point name (APN) [see ¶ 48; wherein the first set of one or more session attributes comprises a first data network name (DNN)].
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 5.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the second set of one or more session attributes comprises a second DNN [see ¶ 49; wherein the URSP rule may include information related to DNN (including a first DNN and a second DNN)].
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the first set of one or more session attributes comprises a first single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) [see ¶ 49; wherein the URSP rule may include information related to DNN (including a first DNN and a second DNN) and S-NSSAI (network slice selection assistance information) (including a first S-NSSAI and a second S-NSSAI)].
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 7.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the second set of one or more session attributes comprises a second S-NSSAI [see ¶ 49; wherein the URSP rule may include information related to DNN (including a first DNN and a second DNN) and S-NSSAI (network slice selection assistance information) (including a first S-NSSAI and a second S-NSSAI)].
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the first communication session type and the first set of one or more session attributes are included in a first route selection descriptor (RSD) [see ¶ 49; wherein the information related to the DNN can be included in Route Selection Descriptor (RSD) in the URSP rule and the information related to the S-NSSAI can be included in the Route Selection Descriptor (RSD)].
Regarding claim 17, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
KAMALADINNI further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a user equipment (UE) [see Fig. 6, ¶ 48; the device 601 is a User Equipment (UE)].
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over KAMALADINNI et al. (US 2023/0017455) in view of SUGAWARA (US 2022/0279384), and further in view of HASHMI et al. (US 2023/0300715).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second communication session type and the second set of one or more session attributes are included in a second RSD.
However, HASHMI discloses wherein the second communication session type and the second set of one or more session attributes are included in a second RSD [see ¶¶ 51-52; wherein each RSD may have attribute required which is required to initiate PDU session establishment request (e.g., PDU session type, one or more DNN, one or more S-NSSAI, SSC mode etc.)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the second communication session type and the second set of one or more session attributes are included in a second RSD” as taught by HASHMI in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to allow the UE to utilize high precedence URSP rules and/or high precedence RSD while re-evaluating URSP rules upon back-off timer expir [see HASHMI; ¶ 19].
Regarding claim 11, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second message is a 5G system session management (5GSM) message that includes an indication of an unknown PDU session type.
However, HASHMI discloses wherein the second message is a 5G system session management (5GSM) message that includes an indication of an unknown PDU session type [see ¶ 69; wherein the second message is a 5G system session management (5GSM) message that includes an indication of an unknown PDU session type].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the second message is a 5G system session management (5GSM) message that includes an indication of an unknown PDU session type” as taught by HASHMI in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to allow the UE to utilize high precedence URSP rules and/or high precedence RSD while re-evaluating URSP rules upon back-off timer expir [see HASHMI; ¶ 19].
Regarding claim 12, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second message includes a 5GSM cause value #28 unknown PDU session type.
However, HASHMI discloses wherein the second message includes a 5GSM cause value #28 unknown PDU session type [see ¶ 46; wherein the second message includes a 5GSM cause value #28 unknown PDU session type].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the second communication session type and the second set of one or more session attributes are included in a second RSD” as taught by HASHMI in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to allow the UE to utilize high precedence URSP rules and/or high precedence RSD while re-evaluating URSP rules upon back-off timer expire [see HASHMI; ¶ 19].
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over KAMALADINNI et al. (US 2023/0017455) in view of SUGAWARA (US 2022/0279384), and further in view of KIM et al. (US 2020/0015311).
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second message is an evolved packet system session management (ESM) message that includes an indication of an unknown packet data network (PDN) session.
However, KIM discloses wherein the second message is an evolved packet system session management (ESM) message that includes an indication of an unknown packet data network (PDN) session [see ¶¶ 341, 345; wherein the second message is an evolved packet system session management (ESM) message that includes an indication of an unknown packet data network (PDN) session].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the second message is an evolved packet system session management (ESM) message that includes an indication of an unknown packet data network (PDN) session” as taught by KIM in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to support huge data traffic, a remarkable increase in the transfer rate of each user, the accommodation of a significantly increased number of connection devices, very low end-to-end latency, and high energy efficiency [see KIM; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of KAMALADINNI, SUGAWARA, and KIM discloses the apparatus according to claim 13.
The combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA does not explicitly disclose wherein the second message is an ESM cause value #28 unknown PDN session message.
However, KIM discloses wherein the second message is an ESM cause value #28 unknown PDN session message [see ¶¶ 341, 345; wherein the second message is an ESM cause value #28 unknown PDN session message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the second message is an ESM cause value #28 unknown PDN session message” as taught by KIM in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to support huge data traffic, a remarkable increase in the transfer rate of each user, the accommodation of a significantly increased number of connection devices, very low end-to-end latency, and high energy efficiency [see KIM; ¶ 4].
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over KAMALADINNI et al. (US 2023/0017455) in view of SUGAWARA (US 2022/0279384), and further in view of XU et al. (US 2022/0124595).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the removing from use includes storing, by the UE, the first combination as a combination to not be used.
However, XU discloses wherein the removing from use includes storing, by the UE, the first combination as a combination to not be used [see ¶¶ 149, 190; wherein the removing from use includes storing, by the UE, the first combination as a combination to not be used].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the removing from use includes storing, by the UE, the first combination as a combination to not be used” as taught by XU in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to determine to ignore or skip using an RSD unsatisfying a cause-parameter condition [see XU; ¶ 9].
Regarding claim 16, the combined system of KAMALADINNI, SUGAWARA, and XU discloses the apparatus according to claim 15.
The combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA does not explicitly disclose wherein prior to the transmitting the third message, consulting the combination to not be used.
However, XU discloses wherein prior to the transmitting the third message, consulting the combination to not be used [see ¶¶ 149, 190; wherein prior to the transmitting the third message, consulting the combination to not be used].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein prior to the transmitting the third message, consulting the combination to not be used” as taught by XU in the combined system of KAMALADINNI and SUGAWARA, so that it would to determine to ignore or skip using an RSD unsatisfying a cause-parameter condition [see XU; ¶ 9]].
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, TAKAKURA et al. (US 20200336935) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 18, and 20 (Fig. 10, ¶¶ 194-207).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights