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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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, 8, 9, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRAN et al. (US 2012/0240197) in views of THIEBAUT L (WO 2021/205057), REEVES et al. (US 8,848,579), and PUENTE PESTANA et al. (WO 2019/158224).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses a method performed by a User Equipment, UE (Fig.
1A, mobile device 110; p. [0010]), for enforcing tethering policies at said UE, the method comprising:
receiving a tethering policy from a mobile communication system (p. [0010], [0016], [0025], the mobile device includes a hotspot management application, which provides policy-driven, control over subordinate tethered connections to the mobile device and rules engine, the rules engine may be based on one or more carrier tethering policies, the rules engine receive the tethering policies from the carrier), the tethering policy including actions to apply to the traffic of tethered devices (p. [0016], lines 14-end); and
applying the tethering policy to the traffic of a tethered device (p. [0016], lines 14-end; p. [0025], [0028]).
But, Tran does not particularly disclose wherein the UE receives the tethering policy from a Control Plane, CP, entity.
However, Thibeaut teaches wherein the UE receives the tethering policy from a Control Plane, CP, entity (p. [0020], [0021], [0024], [0053], [0070], [0072], [0081], [0090]; the PCF (i.e., CP entity) delivers to the user equipment UE route selection policy including a traffic descriptor to be used by the UE for D2D communications, the traffic descriptor may comprise tethering capabilities information that may comprise one or more values each indicating a tethering method to be used for D2D communication (i.e., tethering policies)). Therefore, 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 Tran with the teachings of Thibeaut, in order for the user equipment to receive policies from a network entity to ensure that the policies comply with the regulations established by the network.
Further, the combination of Tran and Thibeaut does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with a specific value included in a protocol header, wherein the indication includes a source port of the tethering device, such that the indication is different for each tethered device.
However, Reeves teaches a tethering policy that includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with a specific value included in a protocol header (abstract; col. 2, lines 54-67; col. 6, lines 61-col. 7, lines 1-42; the wireless communication device WCD makes a determination as to whether a payload of a packet to be transmitted is a tethered-data payload or a non-tethered data payload, then selects a transport-layer source port number (i.e., mark) based on the determination, and inserts the selected transport-layer source port number (i.e., mark) into a header of the packet…wherein the WCD selecting the transport-layer source port number, includes selecting a transport-layer source port number from the first set associated with tethered data when the determination is that the payload is a tethered payload), wherein the indication includes a source port of the tethering device (col. 7, lines 39-42), such that the indication is different for each tethered device (col. 5, lines 60-col. 6, lines 1-10). Therefore, 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 the combination of Tran and Thibeaut with the teachings of Reeves, since such a modification would allow the UE to identify the data as coming from both tethered or non-tethered sources in order to facilitate differential billing among tethered data and non-tethered data (col. 2, lines 41-67).
The combination of Tran, Thibeaut, and Reeves does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with at least one of a Packet Flow Descriptor (PFD) set or Application identifier that allows a User Plane Function (UPF) to identity a particular application that transmits tethering traffic.
However, Puente Pestana teaches tethering policy includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with at least one of a Packet Flow Descriptor (PFD) set or Application identifier that allows a User Plane Function (UPF) to identity a particular application that transmits tethering traffic (page 7, lines 27-34; page 9, lines 29-end; page 11, lines 1-16; page 13, lines 1-25; the UE transmits application traffic that is mark with a marking type and marking value, the marking may include a Packet Flow Description and application identifier, the UE may transfer different traffic types, e.g., tethered traffic, that share same PFD parameters, these traffic types are identified by different application identifiers).
Therefore, 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 the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, and Reeves with the teachings of Puente Pestana, since such a modification would enable differentiation of traffic transmitted by the UE.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 1, Tran discloses wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to block the traffic of a tethered device (p. [0028], lines 1-5; the policy may disable (i.e., stop) a particular tethered device’s traffic through the mobile device).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 1, Tran discloses wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to only allow traffic transmission of a maximum number of tethered devices connected simultaneously (p. [0016], lines 14-18; the policies may include limiting a maximum of subordinate connections to a mobile device).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 1, Thibeaut discloses wherein the tethering policy is received from an access and mobility management entity in a Protocol Data Unit session response message or in a UE Route Selection Policy, URSP (p. [0020], [0021], [0024], [0051], [0053], [0070], [0072], [0081], [0090]; the PCF delivers to the user equipment UE route selection policy (i.e., URSP) including a traffic descriptor to be used by the UE for D2D communications, the traffic descriptor may comprise tethering capabilities information that may comprise one or more values each indicating a tethering method to be used for D2D communication (i.e., tethering policies); p. [0070], the network (e.g., PCF via the AMF and the gNB) provides the UE route selection policy including a traffic descriptor). Therefore, 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 Tran with the teachings of Thibeaut, in order for the user equipment to receive policies from a network entity to ensure that the policies comply with the regulations established by the network.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 1, Thibeaut discloses wherein the tethering policy is received from a policy control entity in a UE Route Selection Policy, URSP (p. [0020], [0021], [0024], [0053], [0070], [0072], [0081], [0090]; the PCF (i.e., CP entity) delivers to the user equipment UE route selection policy including a traffic descriptor to be used by the UE for D2D communications, the traffic descriptor may comprise tethering capabilities information that may comprise one or more values each indicating a tethering method to be used for D2D communication (i.e., tethering policies)). Therefore, 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 Tran with the teachings of Thibeaut, since it is well-known that a policy control function is a network function that provides policy rules for managing network behavior and thus would be obvious for the UE to receive policies from the PCF.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose a UE of claim 26, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (Tran – p. [0011]), the at least one memory containing instructions executable by the at least one processor such that the UE is operable to perform the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRAN et al. in views of THIEBAUT L, REEVES et al., PUENTE PESTANA et al., and KOTECHA et al. (US 10,412,633).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tran, Thiebeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to report an event to the CP entity or another CP entity in response to the detection of traffic of a tethered device.
However, Kotecha teaches wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to report an event to the CP entity or another CP entity in response to the detection of traffic of a tethered device (col. 8, lines 64-col. 9, lines 1-60; the gateway report the number of bytes of each type of traffic to one or more devices such as policy server or billing system). Therefore, 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 the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Kotecha, since such a modification would allow to inform the CP entity regarding the amount of tethered traffic and implement actions based on the subscription plan.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tran, Thiebeaut, Reeves, Puente Pestana, and Kotecha disclose the method of claim 5, Kotecha discloses wherein the indication to report the event comprises an indication to report the number of tethered devices, the detection of a new tethered device, or the volume of the traffic of a tethered device (col. 8, lines 64-col. 9, lines 1-60; the gateway report the number of bytes of each type of traffic (i.e., volume of traffic) to one or more devices such as policy server or billing system). Therefore, 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 the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Kotecha, since such a modification would allow to inform the CP entity regarding the amount of tethered traffic and implement actions based on the subscription plan.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tran, Thiebeaut, Reeves, Puente Pestana, and Kotecha disclose the method of claim 5, Kotecha discloses wherein applying the tethering policy comprises transmitting a report to the CP entity or another CP entity including the number of tethered devices, the detection of a new tethered device, or the volume of the traffic of a tethered device (col. 8, lines 64-col. 9, lines 1-60; the gateway report the number of bytes of each type of traffic (i.e., volume of traffic) to one or more devices such as policy server or billing system). Therefore, 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 the combination of Tran, Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Kotecha, since such a modification would allow to inform the CP entity regarding the amount of tethered traffic and implement actions based on the subscription plan.
Claims 10, 16, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by THIEBAUT L (WO 2021/205057) in views of REEVES et al., and PUENTE PESTANA et al.
Regarding claim 10, Thiebaut discloses a method performed by a policy control entity for providing a tethering policy to a User Equipment, UE, the method comprising:
receiving subscription information from a subscriber data repository entity of a mobile communication system (p. [0053]; the PCF gets the subscription information from the UDM), the subscription information including an indication of actions to apply to the traffic of tethered devices at the UE (p. [0081], [0086], [0090]); and
transmitting to the UE or to a session management entity handling the data session of the UE, a tethering policy including the received actions to apply to the traffic of tethered devices (p. [0020], [0021], [0024], [0053], [0070], [0072], [0081], [0090]; the PCF (i.e., CP entity) delivers to the user equipment UE route selection policy including a traffic descriptor to be used by the UE for D2D communications, the traffic descriptor may comprise tethering capabilities information that may comprise one or more values each indicating a tethering method to be used for D2D communication (i.e., tethering policies)).
But, Thiebaut does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with a specific value included in a protocol header, wherein the indication includes a source port of the tethering device, such that the indication is different for each tethered device.
However, Reeves teaches a tethering policy that includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with a specific value included in a protocol header (abstract; col. 2, lines 54-67; col. 6, lines 61-col. 7, lines 1-42; the wireless communication device WCD makes a determination as to whether a payload of a packet to be transmitted is a tethered-data payload or a non-tethered data payload, then selects a transport-layer source port number (i.e., mark) based on the determination, and inserts the selected transport-layer source port number (i.e., mark) into a header of the packet…wherein the WCD selecting the transport-layer source port number, includes selecting a transport-layer source port number from the first set associated with tethered data when the determination is that the payload is a tethered payload), wherein the indication includes a source port of the tethering device (col. 7, lines 39-42), such that the indication is different for each tethered device (col. 5, lines 60-col. 6, lines 1-10). Therefore, 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 Thibeaut with the teachings of Reeves, since such a modification would allow the UE to identify the data as coming from both tethered or non-tethered sources in order to facilitate differential billing among tethered data and non-tethered data (col. 2, lines 41-67).
The combination of Thibeaut and Reeves does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with at least one of a Packet Flow Descriptor (PFD) set or Application identifier that allows a User Plane Function (UPF) to identity a particular application that transmits tethering traffic.
However, Puente Pestana teaches tethering policy includes an indication to mark, by the UE, the traffic of a tethered device with at least one of a Packet Flow Descriptor (PFD) set or Application identifier that allows a User Plane Function (UPF) to identity a particular application that transmits tethering traffic (page 7, lines 27-34; page 9, lines 29-end; page 11, lines 1-16; page 13, lines 1-25; the UE transmits application traffic that is mark with a marking type and marking value, the marking may include a Packet Flow Description and application identifier, the UE may transfer different traffic types, e.g., tethered traffic, that share same PFD parameters, these traffic types are identified by different application identifiers).
Therefore, 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 the combination of Thibeaut and Reeves with the teachings of Puente Pestana, since such a modification would enable differentiation of traffic transmitted by the UE.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 10, Thibeaut discloses wherein the tethering policy is transmitted in a UE Route Selection Policy, URSP (p. [0020], [0021], [0024], [0053], [0070], [0072], [0081], [0090]; the PCF (i.e., CP entity) delivers to the user equipment UE route selection policy including a traffic descriptor to be used by the UE for D2D communications, the traffic descriptor may comprise tethering capabilities information that may comprise one or more values each indicating a tethering method to be used for D2D communication (i.e., tethering policies)).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory (p. [0065]) containing instructions executable by the at least one processor such that the apparatus is operable to perform the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10, above)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THIEBAUT L in views of REEVES et al., PUENTE PESTANA et al., and TRAN et al.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose
the method of claim 10, but does not particularly
disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to block the traffic of a tethered device.
However, Tran teaches wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to block the traffic of a tethered device (p. [0028], lines 1-5; the policy may disable (i.e., stop) a particular tethered device’s traffic through the mobile device). Therefore, 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 the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Tran, in order to prevent unauthorized tethering from particular devices.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose
the method of claim 10, but does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to only allow traffic transmission of a maximum number of tethered devices connected simultaneously.
However, Tran discloses wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to only
allow traffic transmission of a maximum number of tethered devices connected simultaneously (p. [0016], lines 14-18; the policies may include limiting a maximum of subordinate connections to a mobile device). Therefore, 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 the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Tran, in order to comply with the tethering data plan.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THIEBAUT L in views of REEVES et al., PUENTE PESTANA et al., and KOTECHA et al. (US 10,412,633).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Thiebeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana disclose the method of claim 10, but does not particularly disclose wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to report an event to the CP entity or another CP entity in response to the detection of traffic of a tethered device.
However, Kotecha teaches wherein the tethering policy includes an indication to report an event to the CP entity or another CP entity in response to the detection of traffic of a tethered device (col. 8, lines 64-col. 9, lines 1-60; the gateway report the number of bytes of each type of traffic to one or more devices such as policy server or billing system). Therefore, 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 the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Kotecha, since such a modification would allow to inform the CP entity regarding the amount of tethered traffic and implement actions based on the subscription plan.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Thiebeaut, Reeves, Puente Pestana, and Kotecha disclose the method of claim 14, Kotecha discloses wherein the indication to report the event comprises an indication to report the number of tethered devices, the detection of a new tethered device, or the volume of the traffic of a tethered device (col. 8, lines 64-col. 9, lines 1-60; the gateway report the number of bytes of each type of traffic (i.e., volume of traffic) to one or more devices such as policy server or billing system). Therefore, 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 the combination of Thibeaut, Reeves, and Puente Pestana with the teachings of Kotecha, since such a modification would allow to inform the CP entity regarding the amount of tethered traffic and implement actions based on the subscription plan.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights