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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/6/2026 has been entered.
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) 1, 6-9, 12-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al (US 2022/0338050)) in view of STOJANOVSKI et al (US 2021/0306912)
Regarding claim 1, LIU et al (US 2022/0338050)) discloses a method, comprising:
establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session by a user equipment (UE) in a 5G mobile communication network (LIU: Fig. 6, ¶59, Fig. 1, PDU session is established by a UE in a 5G network);
receiving a downlink (DL) data packet comprising a QoS flow indicator (QFI), a reflective QoS indicator (RQI) (LIU: ¶104, ¶101, QFI, RQI, is included in a DL packet received at the UE), and multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs deriving a packet filter component from the multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs (LIU: ¶101., the DL packet includes C-TAGs and S-TAGs), wherein the packet filter component is derived from an C-TAG or S-TAG (LIU: ¶101, the uplink filter derivation is based on at least S-TAG, among the S-TAGs, C-TAGS, and other fields of the 5-tuple in the downlink/DL packet);
evaluating a packet header of an uplink data packet and find a matching packet filter of a QoS rule of the packet header (LIU: ¶102-103, uplink packets are matched with the rule based on the UL packet header assessment at the modem of the UE); and
transmitting the uplink data packet using the matched QoS rule (LIU: ¶76, uplink packet is transmitted in the uplink direction using the matched QoS rule).
LIU remains silent regarding the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs.
However, STOJANOVSKI et al (US 2021/0306912) discloses the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs (STOJANOVSKI: ¶14, S-Tag is the outmost S-Tag that is used for deriving a packet filter for uplink data packet).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU would have been motivated to use the teachings of STOJANOVSKI as it provides an efficient way to match filter with only outer S-TAG without increasing unnecessary load on the filtering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU with teachings of STOJANOVSKI in order to reduce filtering load on the receiver and processor of the packet.
Regarding claim 6, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 1, wherein the deriving of the packet filter component involves creating the packet filter component from a value of the outmost C-TAG or S-TAG (LIU: ¶101, the S-TAG is used to derive the packet filter; STOJANOVSKI: ¶14, S-Tag is the outmost).
Regarding claim 7, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 1, wherein the evaluating of the packet header of the uplink data packet involves finding a packet filter from QoS rules that matches with a packet filter of the uplink data packet (LIU: ¶119-120, at least one packet filter is found to be matching the QoS rules for an UL packet ).
Regarding claim 8, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 1, wherein the packet header of the uplink data packet carries multiple C-TAG or S-TAG, and wherein the UE evaluates the outmost C-TAG or S-TAG of the uplink data packet (LIU: ¶76, ¶101, where the S-TAG within the 5-tuple is a match; STOJANOVSKI: ¶14, S-Tag is the outmost).
Regarding claim 9, LIU discloses a method, comprising:
establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session or a Packet data network (PDN) connection by a user equipment (UE) in a mobile communication network (LIU: Fig. 6, ¶59, Fig. 1, PDU session is established by a UE in a 5G network);
obtaining QoS rule configuration for the PDU session or Traffic Flow Template (TFT) configuration for the PDN connection, wherein the QoS rule configuration or the TFT configuration comprises a number of packet filters having packet filter components (LIU: ¶65, UE obtains an explicit QoS rule configuration from the network);
evaluating a header of an uplink data packet that carries multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs wherein the UE evaluates an C-TAG or S-TAG of the uplink data packet based on the QoS rule or the TFT configuration (LIU: ¶102, ¶67, ¶76, uplink packets are matched with the rule based on the UL packet header assessment at the modem of the UE; this evaluation looks for C-TAGs and S-TAGs in the header of the packet); and
transmitting the uplink data packet using a matched QoS rule or a matched TFT (LIU: ¶76, uplink packet is transmitted using the matched QoS rule).
LIU remains silent regarding the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs.
However, STOJANOVSKI et al (US 2021/0306912) discloses the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs (STOJANOVSKI: ¶14, S-Tag is the outmost S-Tag that is used for deriving a packet filter for uplink data packet).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU would have been motivated to use the teachings of STOJANOVSKI as it provides an efficient way to match filter with only outer S-TAG without increasing unnecessary load on the filtering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU with teachings of STOJANOVSKI in order to reduce filtering load on the receiver and processor of the packet.
Regarding claim 12, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 9, wherein the evaluating involves the UE finding a packet filter from the QoS rule or the TFT configuration that matches with packet filter components associated with the outmost C-TAG or S-TAG of the uplink data packet (LIU: ¶102, ¶67, ¶76, uplink packets are matched with the rule based on the UL packet header assessment at the modem of the UE; this evaluation looks for C-TAGs and S-TAGs in the header of the packet).
Regarding claim 13, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 9, wherein the QoS rule or the TFT configuration is provided via a NAS signaling from the network (LIU: ¶86, NAS signaling used for configuring the QoS rule).
Regarding claim 14, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 9, wherein the QoS rule or the TFT configuration is derived by the UE from a downlink data packet (LIU: ¶86, QoS rule derived from the NAS signaling).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of KIM (US 2020/0314690)
Regarding claim 2, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses method of Claim 1, wherein the DL data packet is a PDU comprising a header portion and data portion, (LIU: ¶101, ¶104, Table 4, header portion and payload portion).
LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI remains silent regarding the data portion further comprises an Ethernet Frame header.
However, KIM (US 2020/0314690) discloses the data portion further comprises an Ethernet Frame header (KIM: ¶572, Fig. 2U, Fig. 2G, SDAP payload includes Ethernet frame header).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI would have been motivated to use the teachings of KIM as it provides a way to conserve the protocol layer structure of 5G protocol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI with teachings of KIM in order to maintain compatibility with the protocol structure and conserve resources by using header compression.
Regarding claim 3, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM discloses method of Claim 2, wherein the header portion comprises a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) header, and the SDAP header further comprise the RQI and the QFI (LIU: ¶132, SDAP header includes QFI, and RQI).
Regarding claim 10, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses the method of Claim 9, wherein the uplink data packet is a PDU comprising a header portion and data portion, (LIU: ¶101, ¶104, Table 4, header portion and payload portion).
LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI remains silent regarding the data portion further comprises an Ethernet Frame header.
However, KIM (US 2020/0314690) discloses the data portion further comprises an Ethernet Frame header (KIM: ¶572, Fig. 2U, Fig. 2G, SDAP payload includes Ethernet frame header).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI would have been motivated to use the teachings of KIM as it provides a way to conserve the protocol layer structure of 5G protocol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI with teachings of KIM in order to maintain compatibility with the protocol structure and conserve resources by using header compression.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of TOY (US 2014/0126368)
Regarding claim 4, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM discloses method of Claim 2 and above. LIU modified by KIM remains silent regarding, however TOY discloses that the Ethernet Frame header comprising one or more TAG Protocol Identification (TPID) fields, wherein the Ethernet Frame header comprising one or more TAG Protocol Identification (TPID) fields (TOY: Fig. 1B, ¶43, TPID field are in the header).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM would have been motivated to use the teachings of TOY as it provides a standard format compliance for the 802.3-2005. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM with teachings of TOY in order to improve standard compliance.
Regarding claim 5, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM modified by TOY modified by discloses a method of Claim 4, wherein the one or more TPID fields carries multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs in the Ethernet Frame header (TOY: Fig. 1B, ¶43, TPID fields carry C-TAG and S-TAG in the frame header).
Regarding claim 11, LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM remaisn silent, however, TOY discloses wherein the Ethernet Frame header comprises one or more TAG Protocol Identification (TPID) fields that carries the multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs (TOY: Fig. 1B, ¶43, TPID fields carry C-TAG and S-TAG in the frame header)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM would have been motivated to use the teachings of TOY as it provides a standard format compliance for the 802.3-2005. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM with teachings of TOY in order to improve standard compliance.
Claim(s) 15, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al (US 2022/0338050)) in view of GUO (US 2020/0145884) further in view of TOY (US 2019/0222523)
Regarding claim 15, LIU discloses method, comprising:
establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session or a Packet data network (PDN) connection with a user equipment (UE) by a network entity (LIU: Fig. 6, ¶77-78, ¶the UPF and UE has a PDU session established between them);
evaluating a header of a downlink data packet that carries multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs wherein the network entity evaluates an C-TAG or S-TAG of the downlink data packet based on the QoS rule or the TFT configuration (LIU: ¶101, ¶76, ¶78, the 5-Tupple is matched with the DL packet’s header’s 5-tupple which includes at least an S-TAG based on the filter rule); and
transmitting the downlink data packet to the UE using a matched QoS rule or a matched TFT (LIU: ¶78-79, Fig. 6, the DL packet is transmitted based on the matched QoS rule).
LIU remains silent regarding obtaining QoS rule configuration for the PDU session or Traffic Flow Template (TFT) configuration for the PDN connection, wherein the QoS rule configuration or the TFT configuration comprises a number of packet filters having packet filter components;
However, GUO (US 2020/0145884) discloses regarding obtaining QoS rule configuration for the PDU session or Traffic Flow Template (TFT) configuration for the PDN connection, wherein the QoS rule configuration or the TFT configuration comprises a number of packet filters having packet filter components (GUO: ¶70, ¶93, ¶30, the filter information for the DL packet filtration is provided to the UPF for the PDU session);
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU would have been motivated to use the teachings of GUO as it avoids the problem of transmitting a large number of NAS messages carrying the uplink QoS rule to the UE and at the same time uses UPF instructions from SMF to configure filter information to enable such a avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU with teachings of GUO in order to improve packet filtering process in both uplink and downlink direction.
LIU modified by GUO remains silent regarding the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs.
However, STOJANOVSKI et al (US 2021/0306912) discloses the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs (STOJANOVSKI: ¶14, S-Tag is the outmost S-Tag that is used for deriving a packet filter for uplink data packet).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by GUO would have been motivated to use the teachings of STOJANOVSKI as it provides an efficient way to match filter with only outer S-TAG without increasing unnecessary load on the filtering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by GUO with teachings of STOJANOVSKI in order to reduce filtering load on the receiver and processor of the packet.
Regarding claim 18, LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI method of Claim 15, wherein the evaluating involves the network entity finding a packet filter from the QoS rule or the TFT configuration that matches with packet filter components associated with the outmost C-TAG or S-TAG of the downlink data packet (LIU: ¶101, ¶76, ¶78, the 5-Tupple is matched with the DL packet’s header’s 5-tupple which includes at least an S-TAG based on the filter rule; GUO: ¶174, evaluation includes matching the downlink data packet with the filter).
Claim(s) 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of KIM (US 2020/0314690)
Regarding claim 16, LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI discloses a method of Claim 15, wherein the downlink data packet is a PDU comprising a header portion and data portion, (LIU: ¶101, ¶104, Table 4, header portion and payload portion).
LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI remains silent regarding the data portion further comprises an Ethernet Frame header.
However, KIM (US 2020/0314690) discloses the data portion further comprises an Ethernet Frame header (KIM: ¶572, Fig. 2U, Fig. 2G, SDAP payload includes Ethernet frame header).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI would have been motivated to use the teachings of KIM as it provides a way to conserve the protocol layer structure of 5G protocol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI with teachings of KIM in order to maintain compatibility with the protocol structure and conserve resources by using header compression.
Claim(s) 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of TOY et al (US 2014/0126368)
Regarding claim 17, LIU modified by GUO modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM discloses method of Claim 16, and, remains silent regarding, however, TOY discloses wherein the Ethernet Frame header comprises one or more TAG Protocol Identification (TPID) fields that carries the multiple C-TAGs or S-TAGs (TOY: Fig. 1B, ¶43, TPID fields carry C-TAG and S-TAG in the frame header)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM would have been motivated to use the teachings of TOY as it provides a standard format compliance for the 802.3-2005. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU modified by STOJANOVSKI modified by KIM with teachings of TOY in order to improve standard compliance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
242
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
156
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's argument. Applicant argues that LIU modified by TOY does not disclose “…the packet filter component is derived from an outmost C-TAG or S-TAG. Applicants take a position that the combination of references LIU modified by TOY does not disclose (1) “…the packet filter component is derived from an outmost C-TAG or S-TAG and (2) does not address a “multi-tag ambiguity”.
Examiner respectfully submits, as an initial note, that nowhere in the claimed invention, any “ambiguity” regarding the C-TAGs or S-TAGs being used to derive the packet filter is addressed. This feature is being read into the claim, from the teachings of the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
LIU, in ¶101, teaches deriving a packet filtering component using at least, C-TAG VID, C-TAG PCP/DEI, S-TAG VID, and S-TAG PCP/DEI.
[0101] … the 5-tuple parameters from which the packet filter may be derived may further include, for example, (6) a security parameter index of the downlink packet, (7) a destination MAC address of the downlink packet, (8) a source MAC address of the downlink packet, (9) an 802.1Q C-TAG VID of the downlink packet, (10) an 802.1Q C-TAG PCP/DEI of the downlink packet, (11) an 802.1Q S-TAG VID of the downlink packet, and/or (12) an 802.1Q S-TAG PCP/DEI of the downlink packet.
LIU, however, does not disclose how C-TAGs and S-TAGs are arranged in a downlink packet. That is, it remains silent when an S-TAG, among other S-TAGs or C-TAGs, is used to derive a packet filter, whether the S-TAG is an outermost S-TAG or not in the packet header.
However, newly cited reference STOJANOVSKI et al (US 2021/0306912) discloses the packet filter component is selected value is a value of an outmost C-TAG among the multiple C-TAGs or from a value of an outmost S-TAG among the multiple S-TAGs (STOJANOVSKI: ¶14, S-Tag is the outmost S-Tag that is used for deriving a packet filter for uplink data packet).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LIU would have been motivated to use the teachings of STOJANOVSKI as it provides an efficient way to match filter with only outer S-TAG without increasing unnecessary load on the filtering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LIU with teachings of STOJANOVSKI in order to reduce filtering load on the receiver and processor of the packet.
A person of ordinary skill in the world reasonably interpret the combination as disclosing “…the packet filter component is derived from an outmost C-TAG or S-TAG…”
Furthermore, the claim remains broader than what is argued by the Applicants. There is not teaching in the claim that claims “only” the outermost S-Tag or C-Tag being the one use for deriving the filter. The only includes the outermost S-Tag or C-Tag but does not exclude the remaining S-Tags or C-Tags from being used for derivation.
All arguments are based on the arguments addressed as above, and are fully responded to as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights