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 is a first office action in response to application filed, with the above serial number, on 03 December 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1-20 are therefore pending in the application.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, for example, recites “the first network device is a core network device configured to control a network function; and the second network device is the core network device”. The claims appear to recite the first network device and the second network device are a same core network device. It is not clear how the core network device sends a request to the core network device and receives a response from the core network device. Independent claims 5, 10, 14, 19 similarly are rejected.
Claim 4 recites “the third network device is the core network device configured to process at least one of a user plane function or a control plane function” and depends on claim 1 reciting “the second network device is the core network device configured to process at least one of a user plane function or a control plane function”. It is not clear if the second and third devices are the same devices.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Talebi Fard et al (hereinafter “Talebi”, 2025/0267023).
As per Claim 1, Talebi discloses a communication method, comprising:
sending, by a first network device, a first configuration request message to a second network device, wherein the first configuration request message is useable to configure a management and control operation of the second network device (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; AMF may notify the SMF (and/or one or more other associated SMFs) that the user plane resource has been configured, and/or provide information relating to the user plane resource configuration. The AMF may provide the SMF (and/or one or more other associated SMFs) with one or more AN tunnel endpoint identifiers of the AN. After the SM context update is complete, the SMF may send an update SM context response message to the AMF), wherein
the first network device is a core network device configured to control a network function (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; AMF); and
the second network device is the core network device configured to process at least one of a user plane function or a control plane function (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; SMF); and
receiving, by the first network device, a first configuration response message from the second network device, wherein the first configuration response message comprises a first response result of the second network device for the management and control operation (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; the SMF may send an update SM context response message to the AMF).
As per Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first network device is configured to maintain a topology relationship of the core network device; and before the sending, by the first network device, the first configuration request message to the second network device, the method further comprises: determining, by the first network device, the first configuration request message based on a running status of the core network device in the topology relationship (at least paragraph 63, 67, 86, 346, 347).
As per Claim 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first configuration request message is useable to configure a flow control operation of the second network device; and the first configuration response message comprises a second response result of the second network device for the flow control operation (at least paragraph 109, 169, see also, 224-237).
As per Claim 6. The method according to claim 5, wherein determining, by the second network device, the first configuration response message based on the first configuration request message and one of a first message from a fourth network device or a network management system; the first message is useable to configure the management and control operation of the second network device, and a type of the management and control operation configured by the first message is the same as a type of the management and control operation configured by the first configuration request message; and the fourth network device is a radio access network device configured to provide a communication connection function between a terminal and the core network (at least Fig. 23, par. 378-396; eg. GTP-U message may be sent from the RAN node to the UPF; the RAN node (e.g., NG-RAN node) may send a message to the AMF via N2 interface. The message may comprise the following: NR Composite Available Capacity Group: This IE indicates the overall available resource level per cell and per SSB area in the cell in downlink and uplink; RAN node between UE and AMF/SMF).
As per Claim 10, Talebi discloses a communication method comprising:
sending, by a first network device, a second configuration request message to a fifth network device or a sixth network device, wherein the second configuration request message is useable to configure a management and control operation of the sixth network device (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; AMF may notify the SMF (and/or one or more other associated SMFs) that the user plane resource has been configured, and/or provide information relating to the user plane resource configuration. The AMF may provide the SMF (and/or one or more other associated SMFs) with one or more AN tunnel endpoint identifiers of the AN. After the SM context update is complete, the SMF may send an update SM context response message to the AMF), wherein
the first network device is a core network device configured to control a network function (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; AMF);
the fifth network device is the core network device configured to process at least one of a user plane function or a control plane function (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; SMF); and
the sixth network device is a radio access network device configured to provide a communication connection function between a terminal and the core network (at least Fig. 23, par. 378-382; RAN node between UE and AMF/SMF); and
receiving, by the first network device, a second configuration response message from the fifth network device or the sixth network device, wherein the second configuration response message comprises a first response result of the sixth network device for the management and control operation (at least paragraph 62-63, 161; the SMF may send an update SM context response message to the AMF).
As per Claim 11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the first network device is configured to maintain at least one of a topology relationship of the core network device or a topology relationship of a radio access network device; and before the sending, by the first network device, the second configuration request message to the fifth network device or the sixth network device, the method further comprises: determining, by the first network device, the second configuration request message based on at least one of a running status of the core network device in the topology relationship or a running status of the radio access network device in the topology relationship (at least paragraph 63, 67, 86, 346, 347).
Claims 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17, 19-20 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-3, 6, 10-11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi in view of Park et al (hereinafter “Park”, 2020/0107213).
As per Claim 4, 9. Talebi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first configuration request message is useable to configure a backup operation of the second network device for a user context of a third network device; the first configuration response message comprises a second response result of the second network device for the backup operation; and the third network device is the core network device configured to process at least one of a user plane function or a control plane function. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Park. Park discloses, in an analogous art, using redundancy of devices by having duplication of packets by an SMF for transmission on a backup path (at least paragraph 270-277). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Park’s SMF with Talebi as Park teaches (par. 266-269) such advantages depending on network congestion status, network link reliability status, and/or radio link conditions, network traffic conditions.
As per Claim 13, 18. Talebi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second configuration request message is useable to configure a storage operation of the sixth network device for a backup relationship between a seventh network device and an eighth network device; the second configuration response message comprises a second response result of the sixth network device for the storage operation; and the seventh network device and the eighth network device are core network devices that are connected to the sixth network device and that are configured to process at least one of a user plane function or a control plane function.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Park. Park discloses, in an analogous art, using redundancy of devices by having duplication of packets by an SMF for transmission on a backup path (at least paragraph 270-277). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Park’s SMF with Talebi as Park teaches (par. 266-269) such advantages depending on network congestion status, network link reliability status, and/or radio link conditions, network traffic conditions.
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi in view of Wang (hereinafter “Wang”, 2021/0377097).
Talebi fails to explicitly disclose wherein a priority of the first configuration request message is higher than a priority of the first message, and the first response result is an acknowledgment of the second network device for the management and control operation configured by the first configuration request message.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Wang. Wang discloses, in an analogous art, different network function entities having different priorities and for example, an AMF selecting from multiple SMF elements based on their priority (at least paragraph 87-102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Wang’s priority of network functions with Talebi as Wang teaches in some scenarios, such as vehicle navigation requiring time critical responses, the network functions may be able to communicate with multiple other functions and needing to prioritize to the function closest to the terminal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY G TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571)272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights