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 .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 4/28/2026 where claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Applicant’s argument are moot based on the new prior art rejection comprising D’ Acunto (US 20200186462). D’ Acunto provides for one of ordinary skill in the art to contemplate Applicant’s newly amended claims.
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, 5-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over ETSI, “MEC in 5G Networks”, June 2018 in view of Feder (US 11,310,731) and in further view of D’ Acunto (US 20200186462)
Regarding claim 1, ETSI discloses a method implemented by a gateway management device and comprising:
receiving, from a steering function (SF) device, a service request comprising service information of a terminal device that is to perform access (ETSI;
See e.g. Page 10
PNG
media_image1.png
413
1263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See e.g. Page 11
PNG
media_image2.png
297
1238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The “Application Function (AF)” is a network function that initiates traffic steering, which is functionally equivalent to the claimed “steering function (SF)” because both initiate control of routing of UE traffic.
The phrase “request services to configure the rules” explicitly discloses a service request sent from the AF to the core network.
The phrase “traffic steering request may contain ... information about target UE(s)” explicitly disclose that the service request comprises service information of a terminal device.
The UE is the terminal device , and the request is made for routing/access of the UE’s traffic, which corresponds to the terminal device “that is to perform access”
);
determining, based on the service information, a first user plane (UP) device and a first sliced network (ETSI;
see e.g. Page 9
PNG
media_image3.png
287
1230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See e.g. Page 7
PNG
media_image4.png
221
1227
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See e.g. Page 10
PNG
media_image5.png
416
1271
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The phrase “selection/re-selection and control of the UPF” and “selecting and controlling the UPF” explicitly discloses determining a UPF.
The phrase “traffic steering requests may contain ... information about target UE(s)” discloses that the determination is made based on service information of the UE.
Therefore the reference explicitly discloses determining based on service information, a first user plane (UPF device)
PNG
media_image6.png
225
1264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This determination is based on user/service information, because the slice is selected “for users” Therefore the reference discloses determining a first network slice)
Although ETSI discloses that a steering function can transmit user data, and not merely control plane signaling, ETSI does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first sliced network is between the first UP device and the SF device and is for transmitting a data packet of the terminal device
sending, to the first UP device, first user entry information based on a device identifier of the first UP device and a network identifier of the first sliced network, where a first interface corresponding to the first user entry information comprises an interface corresponding to the first sliced network on the first UP device.
However in analogous art Feder discloses:
wherein the first sliced network is between the first UP device and the SF device and is for transmitting a data packet of the terminal device (Feder;
The Examiner notes that the limitation is equivalent to the problem of enforcing steering decisions on slice-based UPF selection and user plane path changes
Feder teaches that steering decisions are not abstract control decisions, but are enforced by changing which UPF is selected and by changing which UPF is selected an by changing the user-plane path during an active PDU session. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand that, to apply steering based on slice selection, the steering function must operate at the interface between control plane decisions (SMF) and user plane enforcement (UPF), because PF reallocation and path changes are the concrete mechanism by which steering is realized. Thus Feder provides a predictable way to place the steering function between the control plane and the user plane in order to solve the problem of enforcing slice based steering on user traffic.
See e.g. Column 9, Lines 34 – 39 “... AMF can report UE presence in an Area of Interest, reporting usage via “UE mobility event notification” service, as described in ETSI TS 123 501 clause 5.3.4.4. Upon reception of a notification from AMF, the SMF determines how to deal with the PDU Session, e.g. reallocate UPF. When a PDU Session is established or modified, or when the user plane path has been changed, such as UPF re-allocation/addition/removal ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Feder’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of providing data to UEs.
ETSI in view of Feder does not expressly disclose:
sending, to the first UP device, first user entry information based on a device identifier of the first UP device and a network identifier of the first sliced network, where a first interface corresponding to the first user entry information comprises an interface corresponding to the first sliced network on the first UP device.
D’Acunto discloses:
network identifier of the first sliced network (D’Acunto teaches a Slice ID used during session establishment;
see e.g. [0185] “... the slice ID ...”);
UPF (D’Acunto teaches selection of the UPDF chain for the PDU session;
see e.g. [0186] “... the selection of UPFs ...”)
device identifier (D’Acunto teaches a device identifier of the first UP device by disclosing a UPF ID and teaches interface information associated with the UPF;
see e.g. [0195] “... UPF id ...”,
see e.g. [0093] “ ... N1-N6 interfaces ... “)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate D’Acunto’s provisioning elements. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of delivering network traffic.
Etsi in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose:
sending, to the first UP device, first user entry information based on a device identifier of the first UP device and a network identifier of the first sliced network, where a first interface corresponding to the first user entry information comprises an interface corresponding to the first sliced network on the first UP device (The combined solution already determines the first UP device and the first sliced network based on the service information. D’Acunto’s teachings facilitate implantation of the previously determined relationship by providing the information used to provision it. Specifically, the taught UPF ID identifies the determined first UP device, the taught Slice ID identifies the determined first sliced network, the taught interface information identifies the interface corresponding to the determined first sliced network on the determined first UP device, and the taught PDU session establishment and UPF selection provide the user entry information that is sent to the determined first UP device to implement the previously determined UP-device/slice relationship. Therefore it would have been obvious to include the taught identifiers and interface information in the first user entry information sent to the first UP device, as claimed. )
Regarding claim 5, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the service information comprises 5. a user identifier of the terminal device (ETSI teaches service information is mapped to target UES which requires a generic identifier to be necessarily present (e.g. associated with a data structure) such that the mapping may be executed;
See e.g. Page 11
PNG
media_image2.png
297
1238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 6, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising sending a configuration 6. instruction to the SF device for instructing the SF device to configure an interface corresponding to the first sliced network on the SF device (ETSTI in view of Feder teaches a steering function device that is connected to the user plane via a slice network, as required by claim 1, As a matter of necessary operation, the presence of a slice network between the steering function device and the user plane device requires an interface on the steering function device corresponding to that slice network. ETSI further teaches sending configuration instructions to network functions in order to establish and configure communication interfaces for traffic steering and forwarding. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in order to enable the slice between the steering function device and the user plane device, a configuration instruction must be sent to the steering function device to configure the corresponding interface).
Regarding claim 7, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising sending a configuration instruction to the SF device for instructing the SF device to transmit packets of the terminal device to the first sliced network (The combined solution per Independent claim 1 provide for a sliced network positioned between the steering function device and the user plane device. As a matter of necessary operation, once a terminal device is mapped to the first slice network, the steering function must transmit packets of the terminal device to that slice network. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that a configuration instruction must be sent to the steering function device to instruct it to transmit packets to the first slice network)
Regarding claim 8, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the configuration instruction 8. comprises a network identifier of the first sliced network (Per Independent claim 1 a NSSAI is readily available to facilitate sliced network identification).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 154 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 , 10, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over ETSI, in view of Feder (US 11,310,731) and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Ghadge (US 20200145278)
Regarding claim 2, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose the method of claim 1, ETSI does not disclose further comprising managing multiple user plane (UP) devices of a broadband network gateway (BNG) system, wherein the multiple UP devices comprise the first UP device.
Ghadge discloses:
managing multiple user plane (UP) devices of a broadband network gateway (BNG) system, wherein the multiple UP devices comprise the first UP device (Ghadge;
see e.g. [0037] In some embodiments, when a user plane entity becomes active, the user plane entity may use a border gateway protocol (BGP) to advertise one or more routes to neighboring routers with lower cost. Accordingly, the active user plane entity may (e.g., always) receive new data that is routed to the user plane entity)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ghadge’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing ad delivering network traffic.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Ghadge disclose the BNG system of claim 17, wherein the gateway management device is configured to manage the multiple UP devices of the BNG system, and wherein the multiple UP devices comprise the first UP device (Per independent claim 17, once the gateway management device is configured to select and control a first UP device among multiple UP devices, it necessarily manages the multiple UP devices of the BNG system, and the first UP device is one of those multiple UP devices).
Regarding claim 20, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Ghadge disclose The BNG system of claim 17, wherein the gateway management 20. device is further configured to send a configuration instruction to the SF device, and wherein the SF device is configured to transmit packets of the terminal device to the first sliced network based on the configuration instruction ETSTI in view of Feder teaches a steering function device that is connected to the user plane via a slice network, as required by claim 1, As a matter of necessary operation, the presence of a slice network between the steering function device and the user plane device requires an interface on the steering function device corresponding to that slice network. ETSI further teaches sending configuration instructions to network functions in order to establish and configure communication interfaces for traffic steering and forwarding. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in order to enable the slice between the steering function device and the user plane device, a configuration instruction must be sent to the steering function device to configure the corresponding interface).
.
Claims 3-4 , 11 – 12, are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Yang (US 10,530,645)
Regarding claim 3, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto disclose the method of claim 1, ETSI does not disclose further comprising:
obtaining a first service-level agreement (SLA) level based on the service information; and further determining, based on the first SLA level, the first UP device and the first sliced network, wherein the first sliced network meets the first SLA level.
However in analogous art Yang discloses:
obtaining a first service-level agreement (SLA) level based on the service information (Yang;
see e.g. Column 6, Lines 40 – 62: Process 400 may further include provisioning (at 475) resources within edge cloud 110. For example, mSON management device 130 may provision (at 475) the configurable network equipment in edge cloud 110 to provide various centralized control plane, user plane, management (e.g., mobility management, session management, access management, radio resource management, other management services), supplemental services, and/or other functionalities to UE 120 based on the requirements associated with UE 120. mSON management device 130 may alternatively provision (at 475) resources of edge cloud 110 to a set of network slices, and map each network slice to a different target SLA based on services, functionalities, and performance characteristics of the resources provisioned to each network slice. In provisioning (at 475) the resources, mSON management device 130 may select, based access requirements associated with the obtained (at 420) profile, a particular network slice that is mapped to a target SLA that meets or exceed requirements of UE 120 or services requested by UE 120.); and
further determining, based on the first SLA level, the first UP device and the first sliced network, wherein the first sliced network meets the first SLA level (Yang;
see e.g. Column 6, Lines 40 – 62: Process 400 may further include provisioning (at 475) resources within edge cloud 110. For example, mSON management device 130 may provision (at 475) the configurable network equipment in edge cloud 110 to provide various centralized control plane, user plane, management (e.g., mobility management, session management, access management, radio resource management, other management services), supplemental services, and/or other functionalities to UE 120 based on the requirements associated with UE 120. mSON management device 130 may alternatively provision (at 475) resources of edge cloud 110 to a set of network slices, and map each network slice to a different target SLA based on services, functionalities, and performance characteristics of the resources provisioned to each network slice. In provisioning (at 475) the resources, mSON management device 130 may select, based access requirements associated with the obtained (at 420) profile, a particular network slice that is mapped to a target SLA that meets or exceed requirements of UE 120 or services requested by UE 120.).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yang’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and delivering network traffic.
Regarding claim 4, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Yang disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising:
obtaining a second SLA level; and
determining, based on the second SLA level, a second UP device and a second sliced network, wherein the second sliced network is between the second UP device and the SF device,
Per dependent claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art if readily able to implement multiple SLA level elements (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) with respect to the slice networks being in between the other multiple elements comprising UP devices and SF devices.
See MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Ghadge and in further view of Yang
Regarding claim 19, ETSI in view of Feder and in further view of D’Acunto and in further view of Ghadge disclose the BNG system of claim 17, ETSI does not disclose wherein the gateway management 19. device is further configured to: obtain a first service-level agreement (SLA) level based on the service information; and further determine, based on the first SLA level, the first UP device and the first sliced network, wherein the first sliced network meets the first SLA level.
However in analogous art Yang discloses:
obtain a first service-level agreement (SLA) level based on the service information information (Yang;
see e.g. Column 6, Lines 40 – 62: Process 400 may further include provisioning (at 475) resources within edge cloud 110. For example, mSON management device 130 may provision (at 475) the configurable network equipment in edge cloud 110 to provide various centralized control plane, user plane, management (e.g., mobility management, session management, access management, radio resource management, other management services), supplemental services, and/or other functionalities to UE 120 based on the requirements associated with UE 120. mSON management device 130 may alternatively provision (at 475) resources of edge cloud 110 to a set of network slices, and map each network slice to a different target SLA based on services, functionalities, and performance characteristics of the resources provisioned to each network slice. In provisioning (at 475) the resources, mSON management device 130 may select, based access requirements associated with the obtained (at 420) profile, a particular network slice that is mapped to a target SLA that meets or exceed requirements of UE 120 or services requested by UE 120.);
and further determine, based on the first SLA level, the first UP device and the first sliced network, wherein the first sliced network meets the first SLA level information (Yang;
see e.g. Column 6, Lines 40 – 62: Process 400 may further include provisioning (at 475) resources within edge cloud 110. For example, mSON management device 130 may provision (at 475) the configurable network equipment in edge cloud 110 to provide various centralized control plane, user plane, management (e.g., mobility management, session management, access management, radio resource management, other management services), supplemental services, and/or other functionalities to UE 120 based on the requirements associated with UE 120. mSON management device 130 may alternatively provision (at 475) resources of edge cloud 110 to a set of network slices, and map each network slice to a different target SLA based on services, functionalities, and performance characteristics of the resources provisioned to each network slice. In provisioning (at 475) the resources, mSON management device 130 may select, based access requirements associated with the obtained (at 420) profile, a particular network slice that is mapped to a target SLA that meets or exceed requirements of UE 120 or services requested by UE 120.).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing da te of the claimed invention to incorporate Yang’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing and delivering network traffic.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights