DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/25/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 44-52, 54-66 are presented for examination. Claims 44-50, and 60-63 are withdrawn. This Action is made FINAL.
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 51, 55, 57, 58, and 64 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US Pub. 20200092423 A1) in view of Dao et al. (US Pub. 20200112907 A1).
For claim 51, Qiao discloses a method for differentiated charging in a communication network, performed by a User Plane Function (UPF) of the communication network (Figs. 12, 16, and 17, this is a way of charging differently for data usage inside a communication network, the steps are carried out by the UPF, which is a part of the network that handles user data traffic) [0268, 0243, 0111, 0238-0240, 0262-0266], the method comprising:
performing differentiated usage tracking for two or more components of traffic associated with application identifier, the two or more components of traffic exchanged with a User Equipment (UE) identified by a UE identifier during a communication session involving the UE (Figs. 10A-10B; the UPF keeps track of different types of traffic components e.g. traffic data volume, duration, events separately, even if they belong to the same app or service, this traffic comes from and goes to a device, called User Equipment, and the device is recognized by a unique identifier while it is active in a communication session) [0109, 0213, 0239, 0276-0278, 0355-0356, 0370];
generating a usage report that includes a UE identifier of the UE and indicates component usage information for the two or more components of the traffic, based on the differentiated usage tracking performed by the UPF (Figs. 10, 12, 16, and 17, the UPF creates a report that contains the identifier of the device, and the report shows how much data each component of the traffic used, this information comes from the separate tracking the UPF already did) [0229, 0239-242]; and
sending the usage report to a Session Management Function (SMF), to enable differentiated usage reporting by the SMF for the two or more components of traffic (Figs. 10, 12, 16, and 17, the UPF then sends this report to another network function called the SMF, so that the SMF can also handle and report the usage separately for each type of traffic.) [0229, 0239-242, 0379];
wherein the two or more components of traffic belong to a same Packet Data Unit (PDU) session established between the UE and a Data Network (DN) via the communication network, as the communication session (Figs. 2 and 7) [0111-115, 0138-0142, 0146].
But Qiao doesn’t explicitly teach two or more components of traffic associated with same application identifier;
However, Dao discloses two or more components of traffic associated with same application identifier (Dao supplies that feature through its same-Application-ID PDU-session procedure and its per-QFI UPF monitoring. Both references concern UPF/SMF operation, PDU sessions, N4 signaling, and network reporting.) [0356];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing record keeping used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Qiao with Dao to ensure various mobile traffic can be properly recorded, thus, improving information accuracy.
For claim 55, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses performing the differentiated usage tracking comprises using traffic heuristics to distinguish between the two or more components of traffic within traffic exchanged with the UE for the PDU session [0213, 0239, 0276-0278].
For claim 57, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses performing the differentiated usage tracking in response to receiving information from the SMF indicating that differentiated usage tracking applies for the communication session [0213, 0239, 0276-0278].
For claim 58, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses the two or more components of traffic are carried in a traffic flow associated with the application identifier and comprise a principal component comprising primary traffic and an adjunct component comprising supplementary traffic [0142, 0144, 0229], and
wherein the differentiated usage reporting enables differentiated charging by the CHF for the primary traffic and the supplementary traffic [0142, 0144, 0229].
For claim 64, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses generating a charging report by the SMF based on the usage report, the charging report including the UE identifier, the application identifier, and differentiated usage reporting for the two or more components of traffic [0213, 0239, 0276-0278]; and
sending the charging report by the SMF, to a CHarging Function (CHF) of the communication network, to enable differentiated charging by the CHF for the two or more components of traffic [0232-236].
For claim 65, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses generating one or more Charging Data Records (CDRs) based on the differentiated usage reporting for the two or more components of traffic [0242, 0197]; and
sending the one or more CDRs by the CHF towards a billing system of the communication network, for differentiated charging with respect to the two or more components of traffic [0232-236, 0242].
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US Pub. 20200092423 A1) in view of Dao et al. (US Pub. 20200112907 A1) in further view of Hu (US Pub. 20220124601 A1).
For claim 52, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Qiao, as modified by Dao doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Hu.
Hu discloses the usage report comprises a Packet Flow Control Protocol (PFCP) report generated and sent by the UPF to the SMF on a periodic basis, while a corresponding PFCP session is active between the UPF and the SMF [0221-222].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing record keeping used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Qiao, and Dao with Hu to ensure using PFCP report to track traffic for mobile session, thus, improving record keeping for the user.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US Pub. 20200092423 A1) in view of Dao et al. (US Pub. 20200112907 A1) in further view of Shah (US Pub. 20200404104 A1).
For claim 54, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
Qiao further discloses performing the differentiated usage tracking comprises distinguishing between the two or more components of traffic by detecting Server information within traffic exchanged with the UE for the PDU session [0138, 0181-182].
But Qiao, as modified by Dao doesn’t explicitly disclose the server information can be a
Server Name Indications (SNIs).
But Shah discloses the server information can be a Server Name Indications (SNIs) [0038 and 0041].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing record keeping used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Qiao, and Dao with Shah to ensure using CDR can use to server information to track billing information for the mobile session, thus, improving charge accuracy for the user.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US Pub. 20200092423 A1) in view of Dao et al. (US Pub. 20200112907 A1) in further view of Hain (US Pub. 20170318356 A1).
For claim 59, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
Qiao further discloses the two or more components of traffic comprise application traffic constituting a service provided by an application associated with the application identifier [0229, 0239-242].
But Qiao, as modified by Dao doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprise supplementary application traffic constituting advertisements delivered to the UE in conjunction with providing the service.
However, Hain discloses further comprise supplementary application traffic constituting advertisements delivered to the UE in conjunction with providing the service [0049-51].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing record keeping used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Qiao, and Dao with Hain to ensure the mobile system can transmit both the main content and the secondary content during a mobile session, thus, improving data transmission proficiency.
Claims 56 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US Pub. 20200092423 A1) in view of Dao et al. (US Pub. 20200112907 A1) in further view of Ding (US Pub. 20200336321 A1).
For claim 56, Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Qiao, as modified by Dao doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Ding.
But Ding discloses performing the differentiated usage tracking comprises receiving Packet Flow Descriptors (PFDs) from the SMF and using the PFDs to distinguish between the two or more components of traffic exchanged with the UE for the PDU session [0069-71].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing record keeping used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Qiao, and Dao with Ding to ensure using PFDs to track traffic for mobile session, thus, improving record keeping for the user.
For claim 66, Qiao as modified by Dao and Ding, Ding further discloses providing the one or more PFDs to the UPF comprises including the one or more PFDs in a Packet Flow Control Protocol (PFCP) session establishment request sent to the UPF from the SMF in conjunction with establishing, as a communication session, a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session between the UE and a Data Network (DN) associated with the application identifier [0193-198, 0052-53]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…the two or more components of traffic belong to a same Packet Data Unit (PDU) session established between the UE and a Data Network (DN) via the communication network, as the communication session…”, the Examiner again asserts Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses that multiple traffic components can belong to the same PDU session established between the UE and the DN. Qiao explains that a PDU session is an association between UE 100 and DN 115 providing PDU connectivity [0146]. In the QoS-flow framework of Fig. 7, packets from the application/service layer are mapped or marked at UPF 110 [0139]. A QoS flow provides a class of QoS differentiation “within a PDU session,” its QFI can be unique within that PDU session, and different forwarding treatment can require separate QoS flows [0140-0142]. Qiao therefore teaches multiple separately identifiable traffic flows within the same UE to DN PDU session, not separate PDU sessions merely because the traffic receives different treatment.
Qiao also teaches that multiple traffic flows/components are carried within that same PDU session. For example, the UPF 110 performs “uplink classifier to support routing traffic flows to a data network” and “uplink traffic verification (SDF to QoS flow mapping).” Further, [0139-142] and Fig. 7 explain that packets from different applications/services are mapped into QoS flows within a PDU session, where “the QoS flow may be a granularity of QoS differentiation in a PDU session,” and “user plane traffic with the same QFI within a PDU session may receive the same traffic forwarding treatment.” Because multiple application packets, QoS flows, and traffic flows are handled within a single PDU session between the UE and DN, Qiao teaches two or more components of traffic belonging to the same PDU session established between the UE and the DN via the communication network. Moreover, Paragraph [0110] (detailing UPF packet routing, inspection, uplink classification, and branching point functions), Paragraphs [0112-114] (describing SMF IP address allocation, PDU type selection, and UE IP anchoring), and Paragraph [0115] (explaining the user plane path handling and the UPF's role as the PDU session anchor to the data network).
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…performing differentiated usage tracking for two or more components of traffic associated with application identifier…”, the Examiner reasserts Qiao, as modified by Dao, discloses that the UPF keeps track of different types of traffic components e.g. traffic data volume, duration, events separately, even if they belong to the same app or service, this traffic comes from and goes to a device, called User Equipment, and the device is recognized by a unique identifier while it is active in a communication session [0109, 0213, 0239, 0276-0278];
“… Application identifier may be an identifier that may be mapped to a specific application traffic detection rule…” [0109];
“…the UPF may enforce the at least one packet detection rule by matching a user data/traffic packet with service data flow template (e.g. service data flow filters and/or application identifiers), and may apply other user plane rules (e.g. forwarding action rule, QoS enforcement rule, and usage reporting rule) to the data/traffic packets matched the packet detection rule... at least one usage reporting rule by measuring network resources usage in terms of traffic data volume, duration (i.e. time) and/or events, according to a measurement method in the usage reporting rule;” [0239].
Dao compensates Qiao’s teaching by disclosing two or more components of traffic associated with same application identifier.
In the unified procedure of Figs. 10A-10B, Dao’s subscription information includes UE ID, PDU Session ID, packet filters, Application ID, and UPF reports [0355]. Dao expressly describes a PDU session accessing a DN service having the “same Application ID” [0356]. The SMF then sends the UPF an N4 measurement configuration identifying the UE, PDU session, and QFI and specifying flow-level measurements for QoS flows [0370]. The UPF returns the measured values in an N4 QoS Report to the SMF [0379]. Under the stated broadest reasonable interpretation, the separately identified QoS flows are the traffic components, and their respective measurements are component-usage information.
The Examiner construes the requirement that the report “includes” the UE identifier as encompassing the UE-identifying N4 report context established by the measurement request, including its UE ID and N4 Session ID dedicated to the UE’s PDU session. If Applicant contends that the claim requires the UE identifier to be physically repeated as a separate field within the report payload, that narrower construction must be evaluated against the Specification; Dao does not expressly state that the returned report repeats that field.
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights