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
The action is responsive to the application filed on May 23rd 2025.
This application is a continuation of PCT/EP2022/083029 filed on 11/23/2022
Status of Claims
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 7/28/25, where Applicant amended claims 1-16. Claims 1-16 remain pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Figure 2 and 3 are objected due to blurry and illegible text.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-5, 8-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 12402038 B2) in view of Rajahalme (US 20040107234 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Xiong teaches a client device for re-establishing a
a processor configured to: (See in Xiong, Col. 26, Ln. 45-52, which teaches user equipment (the claimed client device) that can include one or more processors to implement the method).
obtain a trigger for the re-establishing of the (See in Xiong, Fig. 3, Elem: S310, Col. 6, Ln. 33-49, which teaches a handover complete indication (claimed trigger) used for indicating that the user equipment has been handed over)
send a calibration request message(See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60, which teaches after the UE handover, the UE may initiate a PDU session establishment, and send a NAS message to the access and mobility management function (AMF))
the calibration request messaging comprising:
the identifier of the service function, (See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60, which teaches a request type).
a locator address of the client device, (See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60, which teaches an MBS multicast session/broadcast session ID corresponding to MBS multicast session/broadcast session).
a locator address of a particular server device of the service function currently serving the client device; (See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60, which teaches an MBS multicast session/broadcast session ID corresponding to MBS multicast session/broadcast session).
a calibration response message (See in Xiong, Col. 17, Ln. 22-26, which teaches where a response message is sent back based on the request message to the AMF),
the calibration response message comprising:
the identifier of the service function (See in Xiong, Col. 13, Ln. 22-36, which teaches the message containing a request type),
the locator address of the client device, (See in Xiong, Col. 13, Ln. 22-36, which teaches the MBS multicast/broadcast session ID).
Xiong fails to teach the incorporation of an anycast communication session, sending a calibration request message to a routing device, and the client receiving a response from the routing device, in the calibration response message, a locator address of a specific server device of the service function prospectively serving the client device, and the client receiving the response message.
However, Rajahalme is in the same field of anycast communication sessions and binding addresses. (See in Rajahalme, ¶33, which teaches where a client is connected to an IP network to a router which then establishes an anycast link to data sources). See in Rajahalme which discloses where a client initiates communication via the router with a server to an anycast address and then receive a response from a server including a home address destination and a binding update destination. (See in Rajahalme, ¶33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiong to include an anycast communication. In doing so, it could include a further range of devices and communication styles.
Regarding Claim 2, the client device of claim 1, the trigger comprising one of:
a handover indication concerning the client device, (See in Xiong, Col. 8, Ln. 48 – 56, which teaches after the handover indication and the user equipment is changed to a new area, the user equipment can trigger a new PDU session)
Regarding Claim 3, the client device of claim 1, the calibration request message further comprising connection-specific data, such as an authentication token. (See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60, which teaches a NAS message that contains the following parameters (the claimed connection-specific data), S-NSSAI, DNN, PDU session ID corresponding to PDU session, request type, MBS multicast/broadcast session ID, N1 SM container, and the N1 SM container carrying a PDU session establishment request).
Regarding Claim 4, the client device of claim 1, the calibration request message further comprising an affinity request message to the service function being associated with the identifier. (See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60 & Col. 18, Ln. 43-46, which teaches a PDU session establishment request corresponding to PDU session, which teaches that AMF is providing a transfer service for a session of the UE)
Regarding claim 5, the client device of claim 1, the processor further being configured: postpone any affinity request message to the service function being associated with the identifier until receipt of a calibration response message. (See in Xiong, Col. 17, Ln. 22-28, which teaches a response message in return of a request message, in doing so based on the response message, PDU session authentication/authorization is performed)
Regarding Claim 9, the method of claim 8, being performed by the client device of any one of the claims 1 to 7. (See in Xiong, Col. 26, Ln. 45-52, which teaches the user equipment being able to execute the instructions to implement the method)
Regarding Claim 16, a computer program, comprising executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 8. (See in Xiong, Col. 26, Ln. 45-52, which teaches the user equipment including one or more processors and a storage apparatus that stores one or more computer readable instructions that are executed by one or more processors to implement the method)
Independent and dependent method claims 8 and 10-13 represent a different category of invention from client device claims 1-5. Therefore claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected based on the same rationale given for 1-5
Claims 6 -7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (US 12402038 B2) in view of Rajahalme (US 20180262458 A1) further in view of Mathew et al. (US 20180262458 A1) and further in view of Wei et al. (US 12647355 B2)
Regarding claim 6, Xiong teaches the client device of claim 1, calibration request. (See in Xiong, Col. 7, Ln. 47-60, which teaches after the UE handover, the UE may initiate a PDU session establishment, and send a NAS message to the access and mobility management function (AMF))
Xiong and Rajahalme fail to teach the client device of claim 1, the calibration request message being encapsulated.
However, Mathew is in the same field of sending request messages and receiving response messages (See in Mathew, ¶45). Mathew discloses generating a notification message by encapsulating an ARP request message to then broadcast the encapsulated ARP request message to the network (See in Mathew, ¶47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiong’s invention to include the encapsulation of request messages. In doing so, it would provide an easy transfer between devices and allow to hide details when encapsulating update messages.
Xiong, Rajahalme, and Mathew fail to teach encapsulating in an IPv6 extension header.
However, Wei is in the same field of encapsulating messages in an IPv6 extension header (See in Wei, Col. 6, Ln. 42-50). Wei discloses a step of message encapsulating where it encapsulates a bit indexed explicit replication (BIER) header in an IPv6 extension header of an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) message. (See in Wei, Col. 5, Ln. 22-27)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiong’s invention to include the encapsulating in a message in IPv6 extension header. In doing so, would provide the devices to have a more secure communication system between each other.
Regarding claim 7, Xiong teaches the client device of claim 1, the calibration response message, (See in Xiong, Col. 17, Ln. 22-26, which teaches where a response message is sent back based on the request message to the AMF).
However, Xiong and Rajahalme fail to teach the calibration response message being encapsulated.
However, Mathew is in the same field of sending request messages and receiving response messages (See in Mathew, ¶45). Mathew discloses a hypervisor generating an encapsulated ARP response message. (See in Mathew, ¶56).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Xiong based on teachings of in accordance to the rationale given for claim 6.
However, Xiong, Rajahalme, and Mathew fail to teach the message being encapsulated in IPv6 extension header.
However, Wei is in the same field of encapsulating messages in an IPv6 extension header (See in Wei, Col. 6, Ln. 42-50). Wei discloses a step of message encapsulating where it encapsulates a bit indexed explicit replication (BIER) header in an IPv6 extension header of an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) message. (See in Wei, Col. 5, Ln. 22-27)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Xiong based on teachings of in accordance to the rationale given for claim 6.
Dependent method claims 14 and 15 represents a different category of invention from client device claims 6 and 7. Therefore claims 14 and 15 are rejected based on the same rationale given for 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELINE AYLIN IMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0247. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/CELINE AYLIN IMANI/ 07/29/2026Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights