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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 11/12/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Objection to the Abstract
The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains (MPEP 608.01(b)). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract merely repeats the claim language and does not enable the reader thereof to determine the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new is the art to which the invention pertains.
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 (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 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, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 13-15, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mohanty et al. (US 20260006101 A1 and Mohanty hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mohanty teaches a method comprising:
creating a session binding for a session in a wireless network database (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0031 and 0033; SMF/AMF 206 to issue a create session request to PCF 208. The create session request may assign PCF 208 (or an associated PCFset) to manage the PDU session or UE session. Paragraph 0036; the PCF 208 may issue a create PDU/UE binding record request to the selected BSF 210. In response to the binding record request, BSF 210 may create the binding record associating PCF 208 with the PDU/UE session, and issue a “201 Created” response to PCF 208),
when the session is inactive (Paragraph 0029; after a binding record becomes inactive or stale, the PCF 108 may send a delete binding record request or other message for deleting the stale binding record from the binding record database of the BSF 110), determining whether a session binding removal notification from a policy control function (PCF) to delete the session binding from the wireless network database has reached a binding support function (BSF) (Paragraph 0029; the PCF 108 may send a delete binding record request or other message for deleting the stale binding record from the binding record database of the BSF 110, but in some instances, the BSF 110 may never receive a delete request), and
in response to determining that the session binding removal notification has not reached the BSF (Paragraph 0029; in some instances, the BSF 110 may never receive a delete request), removing the session binding at the BSF (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0029; in order to perform session validation operations, the BSF 110 may include a session validation module (SVM) 116. The SVM 116 may include a module configured to determine whether binding sessions maintained by the BSF 110 are still valid, or have become stale and should be deleted).
Regarding claim 2, Mohanty teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches establishing the session in the wireless network database by a session management function (SMF) and notifying the PCF by the SMF (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0033; a UE may connect to the network, causing SMF/AMF 206 to issue a create session request to PCF 208. The create session request may assign PCF 208 (or an associated PCFset) to manage the PDU session or UE session); and instructing the BSF, by the PCF, to create the session binding in the wireless network database (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0036; the PCF 208 may issue a create PDU/UE binding record request to the selected BSF 210. In response to the binding record request, BSF 210 may create the binding record associating PCF 208 with the PDU/UE session, and issue a “201 Created” response to PCF 208).
Regarding claim 4, Mohanty teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches wherein, upon expiration of a predetermined period of time (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0039; the BSF 210 may monitor the revalidation timer until it expires, at 240. The timer expiring may trigger the “Session revalidation” event), the BSF queries the PCF for a session for the session binding (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0039; the BSF 210 may issue a notification request to PCF 208 for the associated session binding, at 242. For example, the BSF 210 may invoke a Nbsf_Management_Notify service operation to send a notification to PCF 208 for the session binding on the event of “Session Validity” timer expiry).
Regarding claim 5, Mohanty teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches wherein, in response to the query by the BSF, the PCF returns an error message to the BSF indicating the session for the session binding is inactive (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0040; the PCF 208 may receive the notification, and may check if the session identified in the notification exists as an active session. The PCF 208 may send a “404 Not Found” error if the session does not exist or is not valid. Based on the response, the BSF 210 may determine the session is invalid and delete the associated binding record).
Regarding claim 6, Mohanty teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches further comprising, in response to receiving the error message, deleting the session binding at the BSF (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0040; the PCF 208 may send a “404 Not Found” error if the session does not exist or is not valid. Based on the response, the BSF 210 may determine the session is invalid and delete the associated binding record).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Mohanty teaches a system comprising:
a memory storing instructions and data (Paragraph 0057; storage system 403 may comprise any memory device or computer readable storage media readable by processing system 402 and capable of storing software 405. Storage system 403 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data) including a subscription uplifting a quality of service for a wireless device (Paragraph 0025; generate policy rules for session to control quality of service); and
at least one processor executing the stored instructions to perform operations (Paragraph 0055; processing system 402 may load and execute software 405 from storage system 403).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites similar features as claim 2, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites similar features as claim 4, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites similar features as claim 6, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, TEST teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions (Paragraph 0057; storage system 403 may comprise any memory device or computer readable storage media readable by processing system 402 and capable of storing software 405. Storage system 403 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data) executed by a processor to perform operations (Paragraph 0055; processing system 402 may load and execute software 405 from storage system 403).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claim 2, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 2.
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.
Claims 3, 7-9, 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohanty, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Xu et al. (WO 2024209101 A1 and Xu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Mohanty teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches determining whether a session deletion notification from the SMF has reached the PCF (Paragraph 0029; the PCF 108 may send a delete binding record request or other message for deleting the stale binding record from the binding record database of the BSF 110, but in some instances, the BSF 110 may never receive a delete request); and in response to determining that the session deletion notification has not reached the PCF (Paragraph 0029; in some instances, the BSF 110 may never receive a delete request), deleting the session binding at the PCF (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0029; in order to perform session validation operations, the BSF 110 may include a session validation module (SVM) 116. The SVM 116 may include a module configured to determine whether binding sessions maintained by the BSF 110 are still valid, or have become stale and should be deleted).
Mohanty does not explicitly teach deleting the session on the network by the SMF; and determining a session deletion notification from the SMF has reached the PCF. In an analogous art, Xu teaches deleting the session on the network by the SMF (Page 10 Lines 10-15; SMF interacts with the decoupled traffic (or user) plane, including creating, updating, and removing Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions and managing session context with the User Plane Function (UPF), e.g., for event reporting); and determining a session deletion notification from the SMF has reached the PCF (Page 16 Lines 17-21; The BSF stores the binding information for a certain PDU Session, and can be deployed standalone or can be collocated with other network functions, such as PCF, UDR, NRF and SMF. Examiner asserts that when the BSF is collocated with PCF, then the functions performed at SMF as taught by Mohanty may be performed at PCF as taught by Xu). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to collocate the BSF and PCF and for PCF to perform the functions of BSF since both components are collocated since it is being held that relocation of parts would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Mohanty teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches wherein the BSF queries PCF for a session for the session binding (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0039; the BSF 210 may issue a notification request to PCF 208 for the associated session binding, at 242. For example, the BSF 210 may invoke a Nbsf_Management_Notify service operation to send a notification to PCF 208 for the session binding on the event of “Session Validity” timer expiry).
Mohanty does not explicitly teach wherein the PCF queries a session management function (SMF) for a session for the session binding. In an analogous art, Xu teaches wherein the PCF queries a session management function (SMF) for a session for the session binding (Page 16 Lines 17-21; The BSF stores the binding information for a certain PDU Session, and can be deployed standalone or can be collocated with other network functions, such as PCF, UDR, NRF and SMF. Examiner asserts that when the BSF is collocated with PCF, then the functions performed at SMF as taught by Mohanty may be performed at PCF as taught by Xu). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to collocate the BSF and PCF and for PCF to perform the functions of BSF since both components are collocated since it is being held that relocation of parts would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mohanty and Xu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches wherein, in response to the query by the BSF, the PCF returns an error message to the BSF indicating the session for the session binding is inactive (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0040; the PCF 208 may receive the notification, and may check if the session identified in the notification exists as an active session. The PCF 208 may send a “404 Not Found” error if the session does not exist or is not valid. Based on the response, the BSF 210 may determine the session is invalid and delete the associated binding record).
Further, Xu teaches the BSF stores the binding information for a certain PDU Session, and can be deployed standalone or can be collocated with other network functions, such as PCF, UDR, NRF and SMF (Page 16 Lines 17-21). Examiner asserts that when the BSF is collocated with PCF, then the functions performed at SMF as taught by Mohanty may be performed at PCF as taught by Xu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to collocate the BSF and PCF and for PCF to perform the functions of BSF since both components are collocated since it is being held that relocation of parts would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mohanty and Xu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further, Mohanty teaches further comprising, in response to receiving an error message from the PCF, deleting the session binding at the BSF (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0040; the PCF 208 may send a “404 Not Found” error if the session does not exist or is not valid. Based on the response, the BSF 210 may determine the session is invalid and delete the associated binding record).
Further, Xu teaches the BSF stores the binding information for a certain PDU Session, and can be deployed standalone or can be collocated with other network functions, such as PCF, UDR, NRF and SMF (Page 16 Lines 17-21). Examiner asserts that when the BSF is collocated with PCF, then the functions performed at SMF as taught by Mohanty may be performed at PCF as taught by Xu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to collocate the BSF and PCF and for PCF to perform the functions of BSF since both components are collocated since it is being held that relocation of parts would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites similar features as claim 3, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites similar features as claim 7, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites similar features as claim 8, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites similar features as claim 9, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 9.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishan et al. (US 20230007456 A1) discloses resource cleanup in a communications network having potentially stale or inactive binding record.
Shetty et al. (WO 2025013018 A1) discloses a solution to control an increase in number of stale sessions which in turn results in saving the signaling traffic that is sent for validation of stale sessions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights