DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: claim language includes “IE” on line 2 which should be “information element (IE)”; “IP” on line 6 which should be “Internet protocol (IP)”.
Regarding claim 2: claim language includes “IPv4” on line 2 which should be “Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4)”.
Regarding claim 3: claim language includes “IPv6” on line 2 which should be “Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6)”.
Regarding claim 7: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 9: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reasons as claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1: claim language includes “each bit indicating the outer header to be created” which introduces ambiguity as to whether one or both of (“each bit” of a “bitmask”) and (“instructions to create an outer header”) is/are related to the creation. Further, “each bit” has not been clearly tied to “bitmask” and thus, does not provide clarity as “encoded and containing instructions” implies “bits”. In light of the specification, the limitation is interpreted as being similar to each bit of the bitmask determining a type of outer header to be created. Further, line 4 includes “the outgoing packet”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. Further, lines 5-6 includes “creation of an IP header, a source IP address is included in an IP header of an outgoing packet” and lines 7-8 includes “sending the outgoing packet including a source IP in the newly added outer IP header” which introduces ambiguity as to any relationship between the elements. In light of the specification, the limitation is interpreted as being similar to a source IP address is determined, and the determined source IP address is either added to an IP header that encapsulates a packet, or replaces (thereby an outer IP header being created) an existing IP address in an IP header.
Regarding claim 2, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 9: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 10: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 11: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 12: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2022/0377043 A1) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for creating an outer header for a packet (create an outer header; para. 119), comprising: receiving an outer header creation IE type (user plane (UP) function instructed (receiving) Information Element (IE) create outer header for IP header modification; para. 72 and para. 119) encoded (create outer header encoded with instructions; para. 119) and containing instructions to create an outer header (create outer header contains instruction to create outer header; para. 119), an outer header creation description field taking a form of a bitmask (outer header creation description in form of bitmask; para. 120-121), each bit indicating the outer header to be created in the outgoing packet (each bit indicates the outer header to be created in the outgoing packet; para. 120-121); wherein when the outer header creation packet creation IE requests creation of an IP header (create outer header instruction for IP address / IP header; para. 119-121 and para. 133-134, UP function performs IP header modification; para. 79), a source IP address is included in an IP header of an outgoing packet (replacing original source IP address at IP header; para. 146, modifying IP header of packets in transit across device; para. 53); and sending the outgoing packet including a source IP in the newly added outer IP header (replacing original source IP address at IP header; para. 146, modifying IP header of packets in transit across device; para. 53).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein when the outer header creation packet creation IE requests creation of an IPv4 header (outer header creation description for creating IPv4 header; para. 119-122), a source IPv4 address is included in an IPv4 header of an outgoing packet (outer header creation description for instructions for IPv4 address; para. 119-122, replacing original source IP address at IP header; para. 146, modifying IP header of packets in transit across device; para. 53).
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein when the outer header creation packet creation IE requests creation of an IPv6 header (outer header creation description for create IPv6 header; para. 119-122), a source IPv6 address is included in an IPv6 header of an outgoing packet (outer header creation description for instructions for IPv6 address; para. 119-122, replacing original source IP address at IP header; para. 146, modifying IP header of packets in transit across device; para. 53).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein the packet is a Packet Data Network (PDN) Gateway (PGW) uplink packet (packets being UL packets by Packet Data Network (PDN) Gateway (PGW); para. 121 and para. 125-126).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions, when executed (processor executing program in memory; para. 255).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zhu et al. (US 2023/0147272 A1) hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the packet is a Serving Gateway (SGW) downlink packet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches wherein the packet is a Serving Gateway (SGW) downlink packet (for outer header creation, serving gateway (SGW) for data forwarding; para. 139-142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zhu to the system of Yang, where Yang’s forwarding for UP (para. 09 and para. 49 and para. 65) along with improved forwarding solution for UP (para. 07-08) improves efficiency of system resources.
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the packet is a Serving Gateway (SGW) uplink packet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches wherein the packet is a Serving Gateway (SGW) uplink packet (for outer header creation, SGW for uplink (UL) data forwarding; para. 139-142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Zhu to the system of Yang, where Yang’s forwarding for UP (para. 09 and para. 49 and para. 65) along with improved forwarding solution for UP (para. 07-08) improves efficiency of system resources.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ORANGE et al. (S2-1903863) discloses proper naming of the reference point between two UPFs for direct routing.
Yang et al. (US 2022/0150166 A1) discloses methods and apparatuses for supporting a local area network (LAN).
Wu (US 2021/0127271 A1) discloses methods for support of user plane separation and user plane local offloading for 5G non-3Gpp access.
Martinez et al. (US 2022/0353336 A1) discloses functions and methods for handling pre-configured profiles for sets of detection and enforcement rules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit
/MICHAEL THIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights