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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A1) The argument by the applicants states “The QUIC connection in Salkintzis is NOT between the remote unit 105 and the interworking function 137 but is clearly between the UE 201 and UPF (element 141 in Figure 1 and element 203 in Examiner cited Figures 2A and 2B) which is located in the mobile core network 140” [Reply; page 9] and “please clarify precisely what the Examiner is equating to the ‘first QUIC connection between the first UE and the N3IWF’ and where precisely the Salkintzis reference describes an N3IWF ‘performing a QUIC connection’” [Reply; page 14].
Response by the examiner: The term “performing” is very broad and can be broadly reasonably interpreted as execute or support. As shown in the instant disclosure, the Non-3GPP Interworking Function (“N3IWF”) helps execute (“supports”) a QUIC connection between a user (“UE”) and a user plane function (“UPF”) [Instant Application; figure 2 and paragraph 0074]. The Salkintzis reference, also shows the Non-3GPP Interworking Function (137) as supporting a QUIC connection between a UE and UPF [Salkintzis; cited figure 1]. Salkintzis further discloses the interworking function (137) is N3IWF and provides (“performing”) interworking (“connection”) between a UE and a mobile core network (which contains the UPF). This interworking function (137) (“N3IWF”) supports the connection of the non-3DPP networks to the mobile core network (5GC) by establishing a MA PDU session [Salkintzis; figure 2A; para 0060, 0077, and 0086]. Therefore, the Salkintzis reference discloses the broad claim limitation of “performing a QUIC connection setup with a first user equipment (UE) to establish a first QUIC connection between the first UE and the N31WF”, as in claim 1.
A2) The argument by the applicants states “The QUIC connection cited by the Examiner in the Salkintzis reference is NOT used in communicating authentication request and response messages between the first UE and the N3IWF as part of a UE registration procedure. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn for at least these reasons. The Mazinani reference which is cited by the Examiner as disclosing "communicating authentication request and response messages as part of a UE registration procedure" does not in any way make up for the deficiencies of the Salkintzis reference and even if combined with the Salkintzis reference would not result in or render obvious the features of claim 1” [Reply; page 9].
Response by the examiner: The 103 rejection cited the Salkintzis reference as disclosing a UE registration procedure to establish a QUIC connection between the UE and UPF, through the N3IWF [Salkintzis; fig 2A; para 0052, 0065, and 0067]. The Mazinani reference further disclose the communicating authentication request and response messages, as part of a UE registration procedure [Mazinani; fig 2-3; para 34-35]. Therefore, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani discloses “communicating authentication request and response messages via the first QUIC connection between the first UE and the N3IWF as part of a UE registration procedure”, as in claim 1.
A3) The argument by the applicants states “the QUIC connection 148 in the Salkintzis does not termination at the interworking function 137 but rather at the UPF 141 (in Fig 1)” [Reply; page 10].
Response by the examiner: The instant claim 1 does not state the connection “termination at the interworking function 137”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “termination at the interworking function 137”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A4) The argument by the applicants, for Claim 9, states “Salkintzis paragraphs [0076-0078] do not mention a QUIC header in a PDU session establishment request that indicates "control plane signaling". In fact, the paragraphs do not mention a "QUIC header". The PDU session establishment request mentioned in paragraph [077] is NOT a "QUIC header" [Reply, page 15].
Response by the examiner: The “QUIC header” is broad terminology. The Salkintzis reference discloses HTTP HEADERS frame in the QUIC layer, which would be a QUIC Header [Salkintzis; fig 2B; para 100 and 103]. Claim 9 broadly states “indicates” control plane signaling. The Salkintzis reference disclose HTTP/3 and QUIP layers, which supports a QUIC connection. The HTTP/3 layer communicates on the control plane using HTTP. The combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani would disclose a “QUIC header in the PDU session establishment request indicates control plane signaling” [Salkintzis; para 0076-0078, further disclosed in para 0132-0134] [Mazinani; para 0053 and 0100], as in claim 9. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8, which has been objected to as containing allowable subject matter. Therefore, the 103 rejection, of claim 9, has been withdrawn as a claim being dependent upon an objected claim.
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, 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, 3-7, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis [PGPUB 2025/0202801] in view of Vahidi Mazinani et al. ("Mazinani") [PGPUB 2023/0080836].
Regarding claim 1, the Salkintzis reference discloses a method of operating a Non-3GPP Interworking Function (N31WF) to support user equipment (UE) communications, the method comprising:
performing a QUIC connection setup with a first user equipment (UE) to establish a first QUIC connection between the first UE and the N31WF [Salkintzis; figures 1 and 2A-2B; paragraph 0037, 0074-0075 and 0079-0080]; and
The Salkintzis reference discloses MASQUE (Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption) and communication of request/response messages via the first QUIC connection between the first UE and the N31WF as part of a UE registration procedure [Salkintzis; fig 2A; para 0066-0067]. The Salkintzis reference does not specifically disclose communicating authentication request and response messages as part of a UE registration procedure.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Mazinani reference discloses communicating authentication request and response messages as part of a UE registration procedure [Mazinani; fig 2 and 3; para 0030-0034]. The Salkintzis and Mazinani references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to accessing non-3GPP networks. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the authentication protocol, taught by Mazinani, into the system, taught by Salkintzis. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish connections using a trusted registration procedure.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses wherein the UE is one end point of the first OUIC connection and the N3IWF is another end point of the first OUIC connection [the instant description does not further define “another end point”; the N3IWF is a relay (“end point”) between the UE and mobile core network; Salkintzis; para 0040-0041 and 0060] [Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098]; communicating authentication request and response messages via the first QUIC connection between the first UE and the N31WF as part of a UE registration procedure includes: using a first stack in the N31WF to communicate with the first UE, said first stack including a HTTP/3 layer with an extension for proxying GRE in HTTP, a QUIC layer and a UDP layer ["for proxying ... " is intended use and is not significance to the structure or process or making the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02); Salkintzis; para 0040-0041 and 0075] [Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses the first stack further includes a GRE layer above the HTTP/3 layer [ie. NAS signaling; Salkintzis; fig 6A; para 0065] [ie. "sending NAS messages encapsulated within EAP-5G packets"; Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses the first stack further includes an EAP-SG layer above the GRE layer [ie. NAS signaling; Salkintzis; fig 6A; para 0065] [ie. "sending NAS messages encapsulated within EAP-5G packets"; Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses the first stack does not include an IKEv2 layer [ie. the stack does not have IKEv2 layer; Salkintzis; para 0065 and 0131-0132] [Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses receiving at the N31WF, following registration of said first UE via said UE registration procedure, a PDU session establishment communication via the QUIC connection, the PDU session establishment communication using a QUIC connection identifier and including information communicating a PDU session establishment request from the first UE in encrypted form [Salkintzis; para 0055, 0066 (“Authentication and Key Agreement ("AKA") credentials”, and 0084-0086] [Mazinani; fig 3; para 0032 (“IKE messages are encrypted”) and 0060-0068].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses the PDU session establishment communication is processed in N31WF using a second protocol stack including an inner IP layer, a HTTP/3 layer with an extension for proxying IP in HTTP, a QUIC layer and a UDP layer ["for proxying ... " is intended use and is not significance to the structure or process or making the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02); Salkintzis; fig 6B; para 0133-0136] [Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses receiving at the N31WF a QUIC traffic data communication including traffic data via the QUIC connection [Salkintzis; para 0074-0075] [Mazinani; para 0184].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses receiving at the N31WF a QUIC traffic data communication including traffic data via the QUIC connection, said traffic data communication including a QUIC connection identifier and a payload type indicator indicating user plane traffic data [Salkintzis; para 0074-0075 and 0110] [Mazinani; para 0184 and 0192].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani further discloses processing, at the N31WF, the traffic data using a third stack which includes a HTTP/3 layer with an extension for proxying GRE in HTTP, a QUIC layer, and a UDP layer ["for proxying ... " is intended use and is not significance to the structure or process or making the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02); Salkintzis; para0040-0041 and 0075] [Mazinani; fig 3; para 0029 and 0098].
Regarding claims 14 and 16-19, the apparatus of claims 14 and 16-19 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1, 3-5, and 7. The combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani teaches the method of claims 1, 3-5, and 7, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a" receiver", "transmitter" and "processor" are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0140 and 0179 of Salkintzis. Therefore, claims 14 and 16-19 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7, by the teachings of combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani.
Regarding claim 20, the article of manufacture of claim 20 performs the similar steps as the process of claim 1. The combination of Salkintzis-Mazinani teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as referenced above. The additional limitation of a" non-transitory computer readable medium" is rejected with the citation of paragraph 0022 of Salkintzis. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Salkintzis-Mazinani.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 9, 15, 21, and 22 are 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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458