DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 8/21/2026 is acknowledged.
The Specification has been amended. The previous objection is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-10 filed 12/24/2024 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12238566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as shown below.
Pending claim 1 and patent claim 1 each recite methods for receiving AF influenced traffic steering information including user plane latency requirement information comprising a maximum allowed user plane latency and performing PSA-UPF relocation with a PSA-UPF entity having a minimum user plane latency among at least one PSA-UPF entity satisfying the maximum allowed user plane latency.
Pending claim 1 (PCF) and patent claim 1 (SMF) only differ from the perspective of the particular entity in the network performing the method. As both the PCF and SMF are known in the art in sharing functionality performing similar control/management of respective data sessions, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider pending claim 1 and patent claim 1 as obvious variants considering the limitations these claims have in common. Similar analysis applies between the apparatus claims of pending claim 6 (PCF) and patent claim 7 (SMF).
Pending dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are substantially the same as patent claims 3, 5, 2, 4, 10, 11, 8, and 9, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannebro et al. (US20210099943A1), hereafter Dannebro, in view of Ramle et al. (US20200112898A1), hereafter Ramle.
Regarding claims 1 and 6,
Dannebro discloses a method (i.e. Fig. 5, 8) and function for handling traffic for an application (Title) performed in a wireless communication system by a PCF entity comprising a transceiver and a controller coupled with the transceiver (Fig. 1-3, 9; paragraphs 209-220; PCF/SMF interaction via transceiver/processor).
Dannebro shows receiving, from a NEF entity, an AF request message including user plane latency requirement information (Fig. 5, step 508; AF traffic steering request with AF transaction ID; paragraph 7-12, 75; transaction/service having user plane path optimized for low latency) and transmitting, to a SMF entity, an AF influenced traffic steering enforcement control information (Fig. 5, steps 509-518; update SMF in response to AF traffic steering request), wherein a PSA-UPF relocation is performed with one among PSA-UPF entities (Fig. 8, step 801-806; paragraph 10-12, 57-60; UPF relocation to selected one of candidate locations).
Dannebro does not expressly disclose performing PSA-UPF relocation with a PSA-UPF entity having a minimum user plane latency among PSA-UPF entities satisfying a maximum allowed user plane latency.
Ramle discloses analogous art including PCF (paragraphs 5-10) and performing PSA-UPF relocation with a PSA-UPF entity (paragraph 5-10, 23, 71; handling PDU session suppoting SSC mode 2 with UPF relocation during handover) having a minimum user plane latency among at least one PSA-UPF entity satisfying the maximum allowed user plane latency (Fig. 3a-d, interactions between PCF, AMFs and SMF for UPF relocation; paragraph 71-76; lowest delay of the max delay indications for the PDU sessions are candidates for handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Li by performing PSA-UPF relocation with a PSA-UPF entity having a minimum user plane latency among PSA-UPF entities satisfying the maximum allowed user plane latency, as shown by Ramle, thereby enabling access and mobility management and session/service continuity through handover in 5G networks.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 7, and 8,
The combination of Dannebro and Ramle discloses the AF influenced traffic steering enforcement control information is included in a PCC rule (Fig. 5, steps 509-512; paragraph 8, 9, 44, 81-99, 113-119; AF rules between AF/PCF/SMF) and the AF request message is received from an AF entity via the NEF entity (Fig. 5, step 505-508; AF traffic steering request from AF to NEF to PCF).
5. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannebro and Ramle as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Godin (US20200314686A1).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 9, and 10,
The combination of Dannebro and Ramle does not expressly disclose the user plane latency is based on an estimated user plane latency between a UE and the at least one PSA-UPF entity satisfying the maximum allowed user plane latency based on information from a NWDAF entity.
Godin discloses analogous art pertaining to benchmarking of delay estimates in a 5Gnetwork for QoS flow setup and monitoring (Title) including determining user plane latency based on an estimated user plane latency between a UE and the at least one PSA-UPF entity satisfying the maximum allowed user plane latency based on information from a NWDAF entity (paragraph 22-27, 52-53; UPF anchor selection based on delay estimates satisfying QoS characteristics from an analytic function of Fig. 9, AMF/SMF/PCF/AF/NRF/etc. similar to Fig. 1-2 in Dannebro).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Dannebro and Ramle by determining user plane latency based on an estimated user plane latency between a UE and the at least one PSA-UPF entity satisfying the maximum allowed user plane latency based on information from a NWDAF entity, thereby ensuring PDU sessions can meet estimated QoS requirements including latency.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 7-8 of the Amendment, Applicant contends the claims of the ‘566 patent (SMF) and the present application (PCF) are directed to entirely different entities such that the present claims are patentably distinct.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider the difference between network entities SMF and PCF as obvious given the overlap among all other limitations presented in the ‘566 claims and the instant pending claims. Therefore, the rejections are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-11 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Dannebro does not disclose or suggest information transmitted from the PCF to SMF includes a maximum allowed user plane latency much mess that a PSA-UPF is selected based on a minimum user plane latency among PSA-UPFs satisfying such a maximum allowed user plane latency. Applicant further contends the purpose and meaning of the relied upon disclosure from Ramle is entirely different from that of the claims, alleging that Ramle is not concerned with a user plane latency requirement, is not transmitting from PCF to SMF as user plane latency information, and does not define a maximum allowed user plane latency for PSA-UPF.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection, Dannebro is admitted to not expressly disclose a PSA-UPF is selected based on a minimum user plane latency among PSA-UPFs satisfying such a maximum allowed user plane latency. With regards to the contested disclosure in Ramle, the purpose and meaning of the applied disclosure is not entirely different from the claims, as alleged. Ramle clearly discloses applicability of the contested disclosure for UPF relocation during handover (paragraph 23, 71) while also expressly showing the selecting of a minimum value among maximum delay value indications between PCF, AMF and SMF (paragraphs 71-76; Fig. 3a-d). Given these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the primary teachings of Dannebro with the disclosure in Ramle, in order to enable session/service continuity during handover in 5G networks. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the rejections are properly maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights