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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 35 U.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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First user plane network element (claims 18)
Session management network element (claim 18)
Second user plane network element (claim 20)
Because this/these claim 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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (US 2022/0150166) in view of LI et al. (US 2019/0158408).
- In reference to claim 1
Yang et al. teaches a route configuration method, wherein the method comprises:
a first terminal in a first group (e.g. UE A in first group comprising UE A; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061) and a second terminal in a second group (e.g. UE B or C in second group comprising UE B or C; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061); and
sending, by a session management network element (e.g. SMF 208; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0060), first forwarding information (e.g. Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062) to a first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062), wherein the first user plane network element is configured to provide a service (e.g. 5G service; par. 0045-0047) for the first terminal, the first forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element to forward a first packet (e.g. first packet of traffic; par. 0058-0068), and the first packet is to be sent by the first terminal to the second terminal (e.g. first packet of traffic is to be sent by UE A to UE B or C; par. 0058-0068) wherein the first group and the second group are not the same group (e.g. first group comprises UE A and second group comprises UE B or C, the groups are not the same; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061).
Yang et al. does not teach determining, by the session management network element, that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal.
LI et al. teaches determining, by a session management network element (e.g. SMF determines if communication between UE-1 and UE-2 is allowed via information received from PCF; par. 0271-0282), that a first terminal (e.g. UE-1 102; Fig. 2, par. 0087) is allowed to communicate with a second terminal (e.g. UE-1 104; Fig. 2, par. 0087).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yang et al. to include determining, by the session management network element, that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal as suggested by LI et al. because it would allow the SMF to allow/disallow communications between terminals based upon information received from a PCF to ensure only authorized communications between terminals may occur.
- In reference to claim 2, 12
The combination of Yang et al. and LI et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Yang et al. further teaches the first forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element (e.g. UPF1 206; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068), to forward the first packet to a second user plane network element (e.g. UPF2 214; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068) in response to the first user plane network element and the second user plane network element being different user plane network elements, and the second user plane network element is configured to provide a service (e.g. 5G service; par. 0045-0047) for the second terminal (par. 0060-0068).
- In reference to claim 3
The combination of Yang et al. and LI et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Yang et al. further teaches wherein the first forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element (e.g. UPF1 206; Fig. 2A par. 0057-0058), to forward the first packet to a first access network device (e.g. RAN node connected to UE B 204; par. 0057-0058) in response to the first user plane network element and a second user plane network element being a same user plane network element, the second user plane network element is configured to provide a service for the second terminal, and the first access network device is configured to be accessed by the second terminal (par. 0057-0058).
- In reference to claim 4-7, 13-14
The combination of Yang et al. and LI et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Yang et al. further teaches the first forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element to forward the first packet to a first forwarding device (e.g. UPF 214; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068), and the first forwarding device is configured to forward a packet destined for one or more terminals in the second group (par. 0060-0068) wherein the first forwarding device is a user plane network element (e.g. UPF2 214; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068) configured to provide a service (e.g. 5G service; par. 0045-0047) for the one or more terminals (e.g. UE C; Fig. 2B, par. 0060-0068) in the second group wherein the method further comprises sending, by the session management network element, first forwarding information (e.g. Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0062-0068) to the first forwarding device, wherein the first forwarding information is useable by the first forwarding device to forward the first packet (par. 0060-0068); the first forwarding information is useable by the first forwarding device (e.g. UPF 214; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068) to forward the first packet to the second user plane network element in response to the first forwarding device being a device other than the second user plane network element (par. 0060-0068).
- In reference to claim 8, 15
The combination of Yang et al. and LI et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Yang et al. further teaches sending, by the session management network element (e.g. SMF 208; 2B par. 0060), second forwarding information (e.g. Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0062-0068) to the second user plane network element (e.g. UPF2 214; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068), wherein the second forwarding information is useable by the second user plane network element to forward a second packet (e.g. second packet of traffic; par. 0058-0068), the second packet is to be sent by the second terminal to the first terminal, and the second user plane network element is configured to provide a service (e.g. 5G service; par. 0045-0047) for the second terminal (par. 0060-0068).
- In reference to claim 11
YANG et al. teaches a session management network element (e.g. SMF; Fig. 15 par. 0173), comprising: at least one processor (e.g. processor; Fig. 15, par. 0173); and a memory (e.g. memory; Fig. 15, par. 0173) coupled to the at least one processor, the memory configured to store non-transitory instructions, and the at least one processor being configured to execute the non-transitory instructions to thereby cause the session management network element to:
a first terminal in a first group (e.g. UE A in first group comprising UE A; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061) and a second terminal in a second group (e.g. UE B or C in second group comprising UE B or C; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061); and
sending first forwarding information (e.g. Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062) to a first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062), wherein the first user plane network element is configured to provide a service (e.g. 5G service; par. 0045-0047) for the first terminal, the first forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element to forward a first packet (e.g. first packet of traffic; par. 0058-0068), and the first packet is to be sent by the first terminal to the second terminal (e.g. first packet of traffic is to be sent by UE A to UE B or C; par. 0058-0068), wherein the first group and the second group are not the same group (e.g. first group comprises UE A and second group comprises UE B or C, the groups are not the same; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061)..
Yang et al. does not teach determining, by the session management network element, that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal.
LI et al. teaches determining, by a session management network element (e.g. SMF determines if communication between UE-1 and UE-2 is allowed via information received from PCF; par. 0271-0282), that a first terminal (e.g. UE-1 102; Fig. 2, par. 0087) is allowed to communicate with a second terminal (e.g. UE-1 104; Fig. 2, par. 0087).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yang et al. to include determining, by the session management network element, that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal as suggested by LI et al. because it would allow the SMF to allow/disallow communications between terminals based upon information received from a PCF to ensure only authorized communications between terminals may occur.
- In reference to claim 18
YANG et al. teaches a communication system comprising a first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062) and a session management network element (e.g. SMF 208; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0060), the first user plane network element being configured to provide a service for a first terminal (e.g. UE A in first group comprising UE A; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061) and a second terminal (e.g. UE B in second group comprising UE B and C; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061), the first terminal being configured to belong to a first group, and the second terminal being configured to belong to a second group;
the session management network element is configured to:
send first forwarding information (e.g. Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062) to the first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062), wherein the first forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element to forward a first packet to a first access network device (e.g. RAN node connected to UE 204; par. 0057-0058), the first packet is to be sent by the first terminal to the second terminal, and the first access network device is configured to be accessed by the second terminal accesses (par. 0057-0058); and
the first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062) is configured to: receive the first forwarding information, and store the first forwarding information (e.g. receive and store Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062) wherein the first group and the second group are not the same group (e.g. first group comprises UE A and second group comprises UE B or C, the groups are not the same; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061)..
Yang et al. does not teach the session management network element is configured to determine that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal.
LI et al. teaches determining, by a session management network element (e.g. SMF determines if communication between UE-1 and UE-2 is allowed via information received from PCF; par. 0271-0282), that a first terminal (e.g. UE-1 102; Fig. 2, par. 0087) is allowed to communicate with a second terminal (e.g. UE-1 104; Fig. 2, par. 0087).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the session management network element of Yang et al. to determine that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal as suggested by LI et al. because it would allow the SMF to allow/disallow communications between terminals based upon information received from a PCF to ensure only authorized communications between terminals may occur.
- In reference to claim 19
The combination of Yang et al. and LI et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Yang et al. further teaches wherein the session management network element is further configured to send second forwarding information (e.g. second Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062) to the first user plane network element, wherein the second forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element to forward a second packet (e.g. second packet of traffic; par. 0058-0068) to a first access network device (e.g. RAN node connected to UE A 204; par. 0057-0058), the second packet is to be sent by the second terminal to the first terminal (e.g. second packet of traffic is to be sent by UE B to UE A; par. 0058-0068), and the first access network device is configured to be accessed by the first terminal (e.g. UE A 204 access RAN node connected to UE A; par. 0057-0058); and the first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062) is further configured to: receive the second forwarding information, and store the second forwarding information (e.g. receive and store second Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062).
- In reference to claim 20
The combination of Yang et al. and LI et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Yang et al. further teaches a second user plane network element (e.g. UPF2 214; Fig. 2B par. 0060-0068), and the second user plane network element being configured to provide a service (e.g. 5G service; par. 0045-0047) for a third terminal in the second group (e.g. UE C in second group comprising UE B and C; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061); the session management network element (e.g. SMF 208; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0060) is further configured to: send second forwarding information (e.g. second Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0058, 0062) to the first user plane network element, wherein the second forwarding information is useable by the first user plane network element to forward a second packet to the second user plane network element (par. 0060-0068),, and the second packet is to be sent by the first terminal to the third terminal (e.g. second packet of traffic is to be sent by UE A to UE C; par. 0058-0068); and the first user plane network element (e.g. UPF 206; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057-0058, 0061-0062) is further configured to: receive the second forwarding information, and store the second forwarding information (e.g. receive and store second Forwarding Action Rules; par. 0060-0068).
Yang et al. does not teach the session management network element is configured to determine that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with the third terminal.
LI et al. teaches determining, by a session management network element (e.g. SMF determines if communication between UE-1 and UE-2 is allowed via information received from PCF; par. 0271-0282), that a first terminal (e.g. UE-1 102; Fig. 2, par. 0087) is allowed to communicate with a third terminal (e.g. UE-1 104; Fig. 2, par. 0087).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the session management network element of Yang et al. to determine that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a third terminal as suggested by LI et al. because it would allow the SMF to allow/disallow communications between terminals based upon information received from a PCF to ensure only authorized communications between terminals may occur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered with respect to the independents claims 1, 11, and 18 but they are not persuasive.
-----
The Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because the Office failed to properly determine the scope and content of the cited references.
Claim 1 recites "determining, by a session management network element, that a first terminal in a first group is allowed to communicate with a second terminal in a second group" and "wherein the first group and the second group are not the same group."
The Office alleged that Yang disclosed "a first terminal in a first group (e.g. UE A in first group comprising UE A; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061) and a second terminal in a second group (e.g. UE B or C in second group comprising UE B or C; Fig. 2A, 2B par. 0057, 0061)[.]" (See Office Action, page 5).
Paragraph 0058 of Yang states that: "According to embodiments, the SMF 208 configures UPF 206 using PFCP signaling. In certain aspects, the SMF 208 can provide the UPF with both a set of Packet Detection Rules (PDRs) and Forwarding Action Rules (FARs), which define how traffic from UEs 202, 204 is handled. In this example, the UPF is able to forward traffic from one UE to another UE (e.g., from UE-A 202 to UE-B 204) for the case when both UEs are served by the same UPF ("local Switch") and are part of a 5G-LAN group.
However, paragraph 0058 of Yang states that UE-A 202 and UE-B 204 are part of the same group. Thus, the UE-A 202 and UE-B 204 of paragraphs 0057-0058 and 0061 of Yang cannot reasonably correspond to "determining, by a session management network element, that a first terminal in a first group is allowed to communicate with a second terminal in a second group" and "wherein the first group and the second group are not the same group" of claim 1.
Therefore, Yang does not disclose or suggest "determining, by a session management network element, that a first terminal in a first group is allowed to communicate with a second terminal in a second group" and "wherein the first group and the second group are not the same group" of claim 1.
The Office admitted that Yang does not disclose "determining, by the session management network element, that a first terminal is allowed to communicate with a second terminal" of claim 1.”
-----
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is not relying upon a 5G-LAN group to read upon the first group or the second group limitations. The fact that UE-A and UE-B may be part of a 5G-LAN group as recited in paragraph 0058 does not preclude UE-A and UE-B from being a part of different groups (i.e., UE A in first group comprising UE A; UE B in a second group comprising UE B). If the claim language read “determining, by a session management network element, that a first terminal in a first 5G-LAN group is allowed to communicate with a second terminal in a second 5G-LAN group; wherein the a first 5G-LAN group and the second 5G-LAN group are not the same group”, then the Examiner would agree that paragraph 0058 of Yang does not read upon the claim language. However, the current claim language fails to define the first group and the second group to preclude Yang from reading upon the first group comprising UE A and the second group comprising UE B or UE C as described in the above rejection. Consequently, the rejection for independent claim 1, and similarly for independent claims 11 and 18 are maintained.
The Examiner recommends amending claim 1 and similarly independent claims to further define the first group and second group to overcome the rejection. For example, the first group being a first 5th generation virtual network group and the second group being a second 5th generation virtual network group.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to claim 9 and similarly claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 9-10 and 16-17 are now objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2020/0228936 pertains to the AMF selects a session management function (SMF) for the group communication session of the wireless device. The AMF sends to a unified data management function (UDM), a second message to create a group context information. The second message comprises the group communication session identifier and an identifier of the SMF associated with the group communication session identifier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466