DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments have been fully considered, unfortunately the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant amended the independent claims to recite the limitation “the TD information corresponds to control plane information and includes one or more 812.10 tags”, the independent claims contain subject matter “812.1Q tags” this tag does not exist in the networking standard that supports Virtual LANs (VLANs) on an Ethernet network but, “802.1Q tag” is the correct port tagging which is used to identify and segregate network traffic according to the VLAN it belongs to allow for enhanced security and traffic management.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant specification ¶0084 discloses that TD information may include … one or more 812.1Q tags, this tag does not exist in the networking standard that supports Virtual LANs (VLANs) on an Ethernet network but, “802.1Q tag” is the correct port tagging defined in the networking standard. 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 1-27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 independent claims 1, 15, and 29, the claims recite the limitation “the TD information corresponds to control plane information and includes one or more 812.10 tags”, the independent claims are unclear because the independent claims contain subject matter “812.1Q tags” which does not exist in the networking standard that supports Virtual LANs (VLANs) on an Ethernet network but, “802.1Q tag” is the correct port tagging which is used to identify and segregate network traffic according to the VLAN it belongs to allow for enhanced security and traffic management. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. Regarding dependent claims, the claims failed to rectify the problem raised above, thus, they are subject to the same
rejections.
Examiner Response to Amendments
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “step” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claimlimitation(s) uses the word “step” or “unit” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the word “step” or “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session”, “means for receiving a packet in the PDU session”, and “means for forwarding the packet” as cited in claim 30.
Because this/these claims limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s specification discloses the corresponding structure executed by the means functions where, ¶0049 discloses that the apparatus of a wireless device (e.g., UE 120, network node 110) includes means for establishing a PDU session on a bearer; means for receiving a packet in the PDU session; and means for forwarding the packet where the means for the apparatus to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 150, transmit processor 220, TX MIMO processor 230, modem 232, antenna 234, MIMO detector 236, receive processor 238, controller/processor 240, and memory 242.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 8, 12-14, 15-19, 22, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US20210337456), in view of Vamanan et al (US20250106742).
Regarding claim 15, the cited reference Huang-Fu discloses a method of wireless communication performed by an apparatus of a wireless device, comprising: establishing, basedon traffic policy information determined by a user route selection policy (URSP) module a protocol data unit (PDU) session on a bearer, wherein the traffic policy information comprises traffic descriptor (TD) information associated with URSP rules; receiving, from a network node, the TD information associated with the URSP rules; receiving a packet in the PDU session (Fig. 6 Step 631 where ¶0022 discloses that the PDU session defines the association between the UE and the data network that provides a PDU connectivity service. ¶0021 discloses that the URSP which enables the UE to determine how a certain application should be handled in the context of an existing or new PDU session. ¶0022 discloses that a PDU session defines the association between the UE and the data network that provides a PDU connectivity service. Each PDU session is identified by a PDU session ID, and includes one or more quality of service (QoS) flows and QoS rules. When the upper layers request information of the PDU session via which to send a PDU of an application, UE should evaluate the URSP rules. The UE finds the traffic descriptor in a URSP rule matching the application information, and an established PDU session matching at least one of the route selection descriptors of the URSP rule where ¶0028 discloses that a URSP rule including traffic descriptor); and forwarding the packet based at least in part on whether traffic descriptor (TD) information in the packet matches the TD information associated with the URSP rules (Fig. 6 Steps 641-651. ¶0022 discloses that UE should evaluate the URSP rules. The UE finds the traffic descriptor in a URSP rule matching the application information, and an established PDU session matching at least one of the route selection descriptors of the URSP rule where ¶0028 discloses that a URSP rule including traffic descriptor). However, Huang-Fu does not explicitly teach the URSP rules used to establish the PDU session, at a user-plane level filtering module of the wireless device, ; receiving a packet of an uplink data flow in the PDU session at the user-plane level filtering module, and forwarding of the packet is from user-plane level filtering module to the network node.
In an analogous art Vamanan teaches the URSP rules used to establish the PDU session
(¶0092 discloses determining UE route selection policy (URSP) rules for the application traffic; and based on the URSP rules, initiating establishment of a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session to route the application traffic), at a user-plane level filtering module of the wireless device, , receiving a packet of an uplink data flow in the PDU session at the user-plane level filtering module (¶0132 discloses that the UPF 1202 may act as an anchor point for intra-RAT and inter-RAT mobility, an external PDU session point of interconnect to DN 1203, and a branching point to support multi-homed PDU session. The UPF 1202 may also perform packet routing and forwarding, perform packet inspection, enforce the user plane part of policy rules, and perform QoS handling for a user plane (e.g., packet filtering)), and forwarding of the packet is from user-plane level filtering module to the network node (¶0132 discloses perform packet routing and forwarding… perform QoS handling for a user plane (e.g., packet filtering)…support routing traffic flows to a data network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Vamanan to reduce latency and optimize traffic management.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 15. Huang-Fu further discloses wherein establishing the PDU session includes obtaining a data network name (DNN) and network slice information, and wherein the method includes associating the DNN and the network slice information with the PDU session to form a combination of the DNN, the network slice information, and an identifier of the PDU session
(¶0035 discloses that each PDU session has information including Serving NSSAI,
DNN, and PDU session ID).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 16. Huang-Fu further discloses associating the combination with the traffic policy information that is obtained in a control plane message from the network node (¶0035 discloses that network 602 (via PCF) provides URSP configuration …to UE… UE 601 handles the URSP rule…UE 601 and network 602 establish one or more PDU sessions, each PDU session has information including Serving NSSAI, DNN, and PDU session ID).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 15. Huang-Fu further discloses wherein the TD information of the packet includes one or more of an internet protocol (IP) 3 tuple or one or more TDs (¶0009 discloses that the UE determines an IP 3 tuple component from a traffic descriptor (TD) contained in the URSP rule).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 15. Huang-Fu further discloses wherein forwarding the packet based at least in part on whether the TD information in the packet matches the TD information associated with the URSP rules includes: forwarding the packet based at least in part on the TD information in the packet matching the TD information associated with the URSP rules; or refraining from forwarding the packet based at least in part on the TD information in the packet not matching the TD information associated with the URSP rule (¶0022 discloses that the UE finds the traffic descriptor in a URSP rule matching the application information, and an established PDU session matching at least one of the route selection descriptors of the URSP rule. ¶0036 further discloses if no matching PDU sessions exists, the UE NAS layer may then attempt to establish a new PDU session, which mean using different PDU session than the established one where ¶0028 discloses that a URSP rule including traffic descriptor).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 15. Huang-Fu further discloses wherein the apparatus is responsible for internet protocol routing, traffic filtering, and mitigating traffic policy violations (¶0035).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all
limitations of claim 15. Huang-Fu further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to operate as acentralized routing module for the wireless device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 26. Huang-Fu further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to run the centralized routing module on an operating system of the wireless device (Fig. 2, entity 211).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN discloses all limitations of claim 15. Huang-Fu further discloses receiving the traffic policy information in a signaling message from the network node (¶0030 discloses configuring a traffic descriptor during URSP configuration via NAS signaling).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Huang-Fu discloses an apparatus of a wireless device configured for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Fig. 2), configured to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 15. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 15.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 16. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 16.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 17. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 17.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 18. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 18.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 19. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 19.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing
substantially the same features of the method of claim 22. Therefore, the claim is subject to the
same rejection as claim 22.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing
substantially the same features of the method of claim 26. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 26.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing
substantially the same features of the method of claim 27. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 27.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 28. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, the cited reference Huang-Fu discloses anon-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 15. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 15
Regarding claim 30, the claim is drawn to an apparatus of a wireless device performing
substantially the same features of the method of claim 15. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 15.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US20210337456), in view of Vamanan et al (US20250106742), in further view of Yang et al (US20160360450).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN all limitations of claim 19. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein refraining from forwarding the packet includes refraining from forwarding the packet based at least in part on a detection of a degradation of a quality of service of an application on the wireless device or a detection of unresponsiveness to forwarded packets.
In an analogous art Yang teaches wherein refraining from forwarding the packet includes
refraining from forwarding the packet based at least in part on a detection of a degradation of a quality of service of an application on the wireless device or a detection of unresponsiveness to forwarded packets (¶0067 discloses that the UE determines whether to suspend one or more periodic uplink transmissions … The determination may be based on the signal quality of the serving cell, and/or a specified quality of service). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Yang when quality of service of the services does not meet some conditions, a corresponding protection measure can be taken by suspending transmission of data.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US20210337456), in view of Vamanan et al (US20250106742), in further view of Wilson et al (US20200154466).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN all limitations of claim 19. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein refraining from forwarding the packet includes refraining from forwarding the packet based at least in part on detecting a policy violation by one or more entities, while the apparatus operates via a radio interface layer on one or more of an application processor, a modem processor, or a hardware block.
In an analogous art Wilson teaches wherein refraining from forwarding the packet includes refraining from forwarding the packet based at least in part on detecting a policy violation by one or more entities, while the apparatus operates via a radio interface layer on one
or more of an application processor, a modem processor, or a hardware block (¶0097 discloses that the UE 120 may determine a dropping rule. The dropping rule may indicate one or more communications to be dropped when the scheduling rule is violated… For an uplink communication, the UE 120 may drop the communication by refraining from transmitting the communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Wilson where the UE may conserve resources by avoiding unnecessary processing of communications when a scheduling rule is Violated.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing
substantially the same features of the method of claim 21. Therefore, the claim is subject to the
same rejection as claim 21.
Claims 9-10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US20210337456), in view of Vamanan et al (US20250106742), in further view of 3GPP (ETSI TS 123 503 V16.9.0 (2021-07)).
Regarding claims 23-24, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN all limitations of claim 15. However, the combination does not explicitly teach shutting down an application associated with the packet based at least in part on the TD information in the packet not matching the TD information associated with the URSP rules (Claim 23) and the TD information of the packet includes an application identifier (ID), and wherein the forwarding of the packet is further based at least in part on whether the application ID of the packet matches an application ID of the traffic policy information (Claim 24).
In an analogous art 3GPP teaches:
(Claim 23) shutting down an application associated with the packet based at least in part on the TD information in the packet not matching the TD information associated with the URSP rules (Page 102 lines 1-7 discloses that each URSP rule contains a Traffic descriptor that determines when the rule is applicable. A URSP rule is determined to be applicable when every component in the Traffic descriptor matches the corresponding information from the application. A URSP rule is determined not to be applicable when for any given component in the Traffic descriptor:
- No corresponding information from the application is available; or
- The corresponding information from the application does not match any of the values in the Traffic descriptor component).
(Claim 24) the TD information of the packet includes an application identifier (ID), and wherein the forwarding of the packet is further based at least in part on whether the application ID of the packet matches an application ID of the traffic policy information (See Page 109).
PNG
media_image1.png
285
977
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of 3GPP to make the proper decision and action according to the matching process.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 23. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 23.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 24.
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US20210337456), in view of Vamanan et al (US20250106742), in further view of Srivastava et al (US20240057183).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN all limitations of claim 15. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the forwarding of the packet is further based at least in part on whether a source address of the packet is associated with an application identifier (ID) that matches an application ID of the traffic policy information.
In an analogous art Srivastava teaches wherein the forwarding of the packet is further based at least in part on whether a source address of the packet is associated with an application identifier (ID) that matches an application ID of the traffic policy information (¶0020-¶0021 discloses a URSP is a policy element in the 3GPP 5G system architecture which allows a UE to make the determination on how the application traffic for a given application is to be routed… a URSP includes a number of rules in which each rule includes … a traffic descriptor portion, and a route selection portion. The traffic descriptor portion of a URSP rule can include descriptors/information that can be used by a UE to identify traffic for a given application in which such descriptors/information may include, but not be limited to an application identifier (ID) for an application, Internet Protocol (IP) descriptors for traffic associated with the application (e.g., source/destination address)… that can be used to match domain names for traffic associated with the application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Srivastava to secure communication exchange and deny rules for particular applications that are deemed to be against the security
policy for the system.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is drawn to the apparatus of a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 25. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 25.
Claims 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US20210337456), in view of Vamanan et al (US20250106742), in further view of Liu et al (US 20230289432).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Huang-Fu and VAMANAN all limitations of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the TD information of the packet includes one or more of an operating system (OS) identifier (ID), an OS application ID, an OS application ID type, or a remote port range type.
In an analogous art Liu teaches wherein the TD information of the packet includes one or more of an operating system (OS) identifier (ID), an OS application ID, an OS application ID type, or a remote port range type (See Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
253
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Liu where the traffic descriptor field is used to carry information (or a parameter) corresponding to the foregoing traffic characteristic that needs to be transmitted on the network slice.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights