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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/10/2023, 10/31/2024, and 3/31/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble includes “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a network apparatus of a core network to perform a process, the process comprising”; to obviate issues regarding a potential software-per-se interpretation, the examiner recommends clarifying language to be similar to - a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program instructing a processor to cause a network apparatus of a core network to perform a process, the process comprising. Appropriate correction is required.
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: session management functional unit [transmitting/receiving] in claims 1 and 8-9, and policy management functional unit [notifies] in claims 1-3 and 5-6, which are considered processor/memory/software as described in para. 51 and Fig. 8.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for Gi-local area network (Gi-LAN), does not reasonably provide enablement for a general local area network (LAN). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Para. 14 of the specification indicates “The LAN may be referred to as a Gi-LAN” which appears to imply “LAN” may be other than a Gi-LAN. While a local area network (LAN) is generally considered a computer network that interconnects computers within a limited area such as a residence, school, laboratory, university campus or office building (see Wikipedia entry for “Local area network”), the description is clearly directed to Gi-local area network (Gi-LAN) which is generally considered a network infrastructure connected over Gi reference point/interface that provides different value-added IP-based services to user data as it flows through the network, where the value-added services may include: NAT (Network Address Translation), anti-malware, parental control, DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) protection, firewall, policy and charging enforcement, traffic detection (Policy and Charging Enforcement Function / Traffic Detection Function (PCEF/TDF), content delivery network (CDN) caches, video transparent caching and optimization, TCP optimization (e.g., to prepare the traffic for the Radio Access Network), shaping traffic with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), HTTP header enrichment to support partner services, providing analytics information, differentiated charging, and acronyms include “(S)Gi-LAN, Gi-LAN, GiLAN, vGiLAN (virtualized GiLAN), SGiLAN, Gi LAN or SGi LAN” (see “The Edge of the Cloud - 5G Technology Blog”, Jonen Testit). Further, Figs. 2, 4-5, and 7 clearly depict a Gi-LAN, and corresponding descriptions are clearly directed to Gi-LAN. The examiner respectfully recommends amendments to the claims to include Gi-LAN rather than a general LAN.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 claim 1: line 10 includes the limitation "the policy management functional unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, lines 7-11 include idiomatic issues where the limitation currently indicates “notifying, when a control signal transmitted from a session management functional unit receiving a connection instruction of the terminal is received via a transmission control protocol (TCP)-based interface or a stream control transmission protocol (SCTP)-based interface, the policy management functional unit notifies a local area network (LAN)” and thus, what element is performing the “notifying” and what element is being “notified” is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption the claim limitation is analogous with limitations of claims 8-9.
Regarding claims 2-7: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartmell (US 2016/0006883 A1) hereinafter Cartmell in view of Yousaf et al. (US 2019/0081894 A1) hereinafter Yousaf.
Regarding claim 1, Cartmell teaches a network apparatus of a core network (policy charging and rules function (PCRF); para. 64 and Fig. 5, PCRF in core network 412; para. 77 and Fig. 4), the network apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (memory including software; para. 110), and at least one processor configured to execute, according to the instructions, a process (software executed by processor; para. 110) comprising: managing a policy for a terminal (PCRF sends rules regarding service data/content of Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU)/end user device [terminal]; para. 72-74), notifying, when a control signal transmitted from a session management functional unit receiving a connection instruction of the terminal is received via a transmission control protocol (TCP)-based interface or a stream control transmission protocol (SCTP)-based interface, the policy management functional unit notifies (converged gateway (CGW) controls session; para. 93, CGW detects request to connect, CGW sends authentication and authorization (AA) request about request to connect to PCRF; para. [03, 94], CGW sends notification to PCRF; para. 64, CGW supports transmission control protocol (TCP)-based interface or a stream control transmission protocol (SCTP)-based interface; para. 108, terminal uses Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in web browser to request data/content that reaches CGW [at least suggesting received via TCP-based interface based on use of URL in web browser]; para. [71, 79], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference, PCRF transmits AA answer [notify] 314/512 to CGW; para. [72, 80] and Figs. [3, 5]).
While Cartmell discloses local entities and TCP/SCTP protocol, Cartmell does not explicitly disclose a local area network (LAN) located between the core network and the Internet of the policy via the TCP-based interface or the SCTP-based interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yousaf teaches a local area network (LAN) located between the core network and the Internet (service function chaining (SFC) domain within SGi local area network (SGi-LAN) between evolved packet core (EPC) [core network] and external network [Internet]; para. [04, 09, 56-57] and Figs. 1-2) of the policy (SFC domain receives information in packet header to determine service level agreement (SLA) by classification function (CF) [policy]; para. [05, 60, 66] and Fig. 3) via the TCP-based interface or the SCTP-based interface (use of TCP protocol header for service chain (SC); para. 09, SC determined by CF; para. [05, 60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yousaf to the system of Cartmell, where Cartmell’s offloading traffic (para. [03, 78]) along with Yousaf’s control policy to relieve congestion (para. [78, 84-86]) improves system efficiency by reducing congestion by offloading traffic.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cartmell and Yousaf teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Cartmell further teaches wherein the core network is an evolved packet core (EPC) (applicable to evolved packet core (EPC) network core network; para. [65, 95]), and the policy management functional unit notifies the LAN of the policy via an SCTP-based Diameter interface (transport layer protocol being SCTP; para. [100, 108], application layer protocol being Diameter protocol; para. [66, 99, 107]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cartmell and Yousaf teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Cartmell further teaches wherein the policy management functional unit is a policy and charging rules function (PCRF) (PCRF; para. 64 and Fig. 5, PCRF in core network 412; para. 77 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cartmell and Yousaf teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Cartmell further teaches wherein the control signal is a credit control message (credit control message indicating detach/termination/re-authorization [connection instruction]; para. [05, 81, 88, 108]).
Regarding claim 8, Cartmell teaches a method to be performed by a network apparatus of a core network (policy charging and rules function (PCRF); para. 64 and Fig. 5, PCRF in core network 412; para. 77 and Fig. 4), the method comprising: managing a policy for a terminal (PCRF sends rules regarding service data/content of Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU)/end user device [terminal]; para. 72-74), and notifying, when a control signal transmitted from a session management functional unit receiving a connection instruction of the terminal is received via a transmission control protocol (TCP)-based interface or a stream control transmission protocol (SCTP)-based interface (converged gateway (CGW) controls session; para. 93, CGW detects request to connect, CGW sends authentication and authorization (AA) request about request to connect to PCRF; para. [03, 94], CGW sends notification to PCRF; para. 64, CGW supports transmission control protocol (TCP)-based interface or a stream control transmission protocol (SCTP)-based interface; para. 108, terminal uses Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in web browser to request data/content that reaches CGW [at least suggesting received via TCP-based interface based on use of URL in web browser]; para. [71, 79], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference, PCRF transmits AA answer [notify] 314/512 to CGW; para. [72, 80] and Figs. [3, 5]).
While Cartmell discloses local entities and TCP/SCTP protocol, Cartmell does not explicitly disclose a local area network (LAN) located between the core network and the Internet of the policy via the TCP-based interface or the SCTP-based interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yousaf teaches a local area network (LAN) located between the core network and the Internet (service function chaining (SFC) domain within SGi local area network (SGi-LAN) between evolved packet core (EPC) [core network] and external network [Internet]; para. [04, 09, 56-57] and Figs. 1-2) of the policy (SFC domain receives information in packet header to determine service level agreement (SLA) by classification function (CF) [policy]; para. [05, 60, 66] and Fig. 3) via the TCP-based interface or the SCTP-based interface (use of TCP protocol header for service chain (SC); para. 09, SC determined by CF; para. [05, 60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yousaf to the system of Cartmell, where Cartmell’s offloading traffic (para. [03, 78]) along with Yousaf’s control policy to relieve congestion (para. [78, 84-86]) improves system efficiency by reducing congestion by offloading traffic.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program (memory including software; para. 110: Cartmell) causing a network apparatus of a core network to perform a process (software executed by processor; para. 110: Cartmell).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartmell in view of Yousaf, and further in view of Shan et al. (US 2019/0174449 A1) hereafter Shan.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cartmell and Yousaf teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While Cartmell discloses notification via TCP, Cartmell does not explicitly disclose wherein the core network is a 5G core network, the policy management functional unit notifies the LAN of the policy via a TCP-based service-based interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yousaf further teaches the policy management functional unit notifies the LAN of the policy via a TCP-based service-based interface (use of TCP protocol header for service chain (SC); para. 09, SC determined by CF; para. [05, 60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yousaf to the modified system of Cartmell and Yousaf, where Cartmell and Yousaf’s modified system along with Yousaf’s control policy to relieve congestion (para. [78, 84-86]) improves system efficiency by reducing congestion by offloading traffic.
The combination of Cartmell and Yousaf does not explicitly disclose wherein the core network is a 5G core network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shan teaches wherein the core network is a 5G core network (access to 5G core network; para. 67 and Table 1, core network (CN) 320 including Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) 321; para. 99 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Shan to the modified system of Cartmell and Yousaf, where Cartmell and Yousaf’s modified system along with Shan’s registration with network (para. [03, 23]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as V2X and services with low latency.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cartmell and Yousaf teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Cartmell and Yousaf does not explicitly disclose wherein the policy management functional unit is a policy control function (PCF).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shan teaches wherein the policy management functional unit is a policy control function (PCF) (core network including policy control function (PCF) 326 providing policy rules; para. [44, 79] and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Shan to the modified system of Cartmell and Yousaf, where Cartmell and Yousaf’s modified system along with Shan’s registration with network (para. [03, 23]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as V2X and services with low latency.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartmell in view of Yousaf, and further in view of Batta et al. (US 10,033,589 B1) hereinafter Batta.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cartmell and Yousaf teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Cartmell and Yousaf does not explicitly disclose wherein the control signal is a policy control request message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Batta teaches wherein the control signal is a policy control request message (policy control request received from subscriber when registering [connection instruction]; Col. 8 lines 5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Batta to the modified system of Cartmell and Yousaf, where Cartmell and Yousaf’s modified system along with Batta’s managing service connection to ensure efficient utilization of core network resources(Col. 2 lines ) improves user satisfaction by enabling various differentiating value-added services.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (US 10,623,980 B1) discloses transmission control protocol (TCP) based control of a wireless user device.
Starsinic et al. (US 2018/0227221 A1) discloses MTC service selection in the (S)Gi-LAN.
Chen et al. (US 2018/0367323 A1) discloses a charging method and apparatus.
Testit, (The Edge of the Cloud - 5G Technology Blog) discloses understanding 5G and LTE - SGi-LAN.
Wikipedia, (entry for Local area network) discloses general description/technologies of local area network.
Wikipedia, (entry for Hypertext Transfer Protocol) discloses relation with HTTP, URLs, TCP, browsers.
Zhang et al., (L4-L7 Service Function Chaining Solution Architecture) discloses architecture of L4-L7 service function chaining.
Dunbar et al. (Architecture for Chaining Legacy Layer 4-7 Service Functions) discloses analysis of the issues associated with chaining existing Layer 4-7 service functions that are not aware of service encapsulation layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474