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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed 12/6/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0264307 (Sasi et al.) in view of 2019/0306188 (Medvedovsky et al.).
As to claims 1, 15 and 20, Sasi teaches an apparatus (300C, fig 5), comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
identify, in a mobile network, a network attack from an electronic device (see paragraphs 162, 172-178, SMF identifies a network attack from a malicious UE using information provided by NWDAF);
and in response to the network attack being identified, limit use, by the electronic device, of a protocol data unit (PDU) session for connectivity between the electronic device and the mobile network (see paragraphs 162 and 172-178, SMF takes measures on PDU session to limit the attack on the core network and reports these measures to NWDAF),
wherein, to limit the use, the processing circuitry is configured to release the PDU session (see paragraphs 177 and 210, measures to limit attack may include PDU session release and back off timer, UPF responsible for handling this traffic would be involved in this process).
What is specifically lacking from Sasi is identifying a denial of service network attack based on a first transmission rate of domain name system (DNS) queries greater than a first threshold or a second transmission rate of dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) requests greater than a second threshold, irrespective of types of the DNS queries and types of DHCP requests.
In analogous art, Medvedovsky teaches determining a network attack in the form of a DDoS attack by determining that a rate of DNS requests exceed a predetermined threshold irrespective of types of the DNS queries and types of DHCP requests (see Medvedovsky, paragraphs 13).
It would have been obvious to apply this teaching to Sasi, so as to detect network attacks in a system where DNS is used.
As to claims 2 and 17, Sasi further teaches wherein the release process is performed through a user plane function (UPF) (see paragraphs 177 and 210, measures to limit attack may include PDU session release and back off timer, UPF responsible for handling this traffic would be involved in this process).
As to claims 3, 18 and 22, Sasi further teaches wherein the release process includes indicating, to the electronic device, a first backoff time, the first backoff time being a duration during which the electronic device is prohibited from re-establishing the PDU session (see paragraphs 177 and 210, measures to limit attack may include PDU session release and back off timer, UPF responsible for handling this traffic would be involved in this process).
As to claims 16 and 21, Sasi further teaches wherein the PDU session is released based on a release process of the PDU session initiated by a session management function (SMF) in the mobile network (see paragraphs 177 and 210, measures to limit attack may include PDU session release and back off timer, UPF responsible for handling this traffic would be involved in this process).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641