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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2022/0022089 A1 hereinafter Zhu ‘089).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu ‘089 discloses a method of managing user plane path (paragraph [0053]; [0062]; [0098]; and so on), the method comprising: receiving, by a first user plane entity (UPE) of a first UP path from a second UPE of a second UP path, a message indicating release of resources associated with a user equipment (UE), the message including one or more of: an identifier (ID) of a PDU session associated with the UE and ID of a third UPE of the second UP path (paragraph [0161], page 10, lines 21-paragraph [0162]; [0164]-[0171]; and so on, illustrating UPF (PSA old) sends information including release the resource to old intermediate UPF including PDU session ID and UPF address); and sending, by the first UPE to a fourth UPE of the first UP path, a UP message for triggering the fourth UPE to forward traffic directed toward the first UPE to the third UPE, the UP message comprising the ID of the third UPE (paragraph [0160]-[0162]; [0171]; and etc. explaining sending a service request message by the intermediate UPF to trigger a new Anchor UPF to forward data to a new intermediate UPF).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein the UP message further comprises information identifying the traffic (paragraph [0161]-[0162]; [0167]-[0171]; and so on).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu ‘089 further discloses comprising: receiving, by the first UPE from the fourth UPE, a first response indicating that the fourth UPE will no longer send the traffic to the first UPE (paragraph [0162]-[0163]; [0166]-[0167]; [0173]); and sending, by the first UPE to the second UPE, a second response indicating the first UPE will no longer send the traffic to the second UPE (paragraph [0162]-[0163]; [0166]-[0167]; [0173]).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu ‘089 in view of Zhu et al. (US 2021/0029586 A1 hereinafter Zhu ‘586).
Regarding claim 2, as taught by Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein: the UP message further comprises a data. However, Zhu ‘089 doesn’t disclose the data is data network name (DNN) associated with the third UPE; the sending, by the fourth UPE to the third UPE, the traffic using a preconfigured tunnel between the fourth UPE and the third UPE comprises: identifying, based on the DNN, the preconfigured tunnel.
Zhu ‘586 teaches the data is data network name (DNN) associated with the third UPE; the sending, by the fourth UPE to the third UPE, the traffic using a preconfigured tunnel between the fourth UPE and the third UPE comprises: identifying, based on the DNN, the preconfigured tunnel (paragraph [0035]-[0038]; [0059]-[0060]; [0080]-[0081]; [0092]-[0093]; [0102]-[0103]; [0116]-[0119]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the data is data network name (DNN) associated with the third UPE; the sending, by the fourth UPE to the third UPE, the traffic using a preconfigured tunnel between the fourth UPE and the third UPE comprises: identifying, based on the DNN, the preconfigured tunnel as taught by Zhu ‘586 into Zhu ‘089 in order to improve resource utilization.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu ‘089 in view of Abraham et al. (US 2019/0090298 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein: the UP message is sent as part of a tunneled data packet, and sending, to a fourth UPE of the first UP path, a UP message comprises including a data packet. However, Zhu ‘089 doesn’t disclose the UP message is indicated in a tunnel header of the tunneled data packet; and data packet as payload of the tunneled data packet.
Abraham teaches the UP message is indicated in a tunnel header of the tunneled data packet; and data packet as payload of the tunneled data packet (paragraph [0102]-[0106]; [0072]-[0075]; [0077]-[0079]; [0087]-[0090]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the UP message is indicated in a tunnel header of the tunneled data packet; and data packet as payload of the tunneled data packet as taught by Abraham into Zhu ‘089 in order to reduce delay and congestion.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu ‘089 in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0098251 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu ‘089 further discloses comprising: sending, by the second UPE to the third UPE, using a first preconfigured tunnel between the second UPE and the third UPE, a UP message indicating a trigger of tunnel (paragraph [0161]-[0167]); and sending, by the third UPE to the second UPE, the traffic using the second preconfigured tunnel (paragraph [0161]-[0167]).
Zhu ‘089 doesn’t explicitly disclose the trigger is of tunnel binding, and binding, by the third UPE, a second preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message.
Li teaches the trigger is of tunnel binding, and binding, by the third UPE, a second preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message (paragraph [0123]; [0119]; [0114]; [0161]-[0167]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the trigger is of tunnel binding, and binding, by the third UPE, a second preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message as taught by Li into Zhu ‘089 in order to reduce communication interruption and dropping of user data.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein the first preconfigured tunnel and the second preconfigured tunnel are one of: same and different (paragraph [0161]-[0167]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein the third UPE is an intermediate UPF and the fourth UPE is an anchor UPF of the second UP path, the method further comprising: sending, by the third UPE to the fourth UPE, a UP message indicating a trigger of tunnel binding using a preconfigured tunnel (paragraph [0162]); and sending, by the fourth UPE to the third UPE, the traffic using the preconfigured tunnel (paragraph [0161]-[0167]).
Zhu ‘089 doesn’t disclose the trigger is of tunnel binding, and binding, by the fourth UPE, the preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message.
Li teaches the trigger is of tunnel binding, and binding, by the fourth UPE, the preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message (paragraph [0123]; [0119]; [0114]; [0161]-[0167]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the trigger is of tunnel binding, and binding, by the fourth UPE, the preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message as taught by Li into Zhu ‘089 in order to reduce communication interruption and dropping of user data.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein the third UPE is an intermediate UPF of the second UP path and the fourth UPE is an intermediate UPF of the first UP path, the method further comprising: sending, by the third UPE to an anchor UPF, a UP message indicating a trigger of tunnel using a preconfigured tunnel (paragraph [0161]-[0167]); sending, by the anchor UPF to the fourth UPE, a first end marker message indicating that the anchor UPF will no longer send DL data to the fourth UPE (paragraph [0162]-[0163]; [0166]-[0167]; [0173]); sending, by the fourth UPE to the third UPE, a second end marker message indicating that the fourth UPE will no longer send DL data to the third UPE (paragraph [0162]-[0163]; [0166]-[0167]; [0173]); and sending, by the anchor UPF UPE to the third UPE, the traffic using the preconfigured tunnel (paragraph [0161]-[0167]).
Zhu ‘089 doesn’t disclose a trigger of tunnel binding, and binding, by the anchor UPF, the preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message.
Li teaches a trigger of tunnel binding, and binding, by the anchor UPF, the preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message (paragraph [0123]; [0119]; [0114]; [0161]-[0167]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a trigger of tunnel binding, and binding, by the anchor UPF, the preconfigured tunnel to a traffic identified in the UP message as taught by Li into Zhu ‘089 in order to reduce communication interruption and dropping of user data.
Regarding claim 10, Zhu ‘089 discloses wherein the preconfigured tunnel is a shared user plane (UP) tunnel, the method further comprising: receiving, by the third UPE from the fourth UPE, a data packet using the preconfigured tunnel, the data packet included in a tunneled data packet (paragraph [0161]-[0167]).
Zhu ‘089 doesn’t disclose selecting, by the third UPE, a user plane connection based on a tunnel header of the tunneled data packet; and routing the data packet according to the user plane connection.
Li teaches selecting, by the third UPE, a user plane connection based on a tunnel header of the tunneled data packet; and routing the data packet according to the user plane connection (paragraph [0149]-[0151]; [0211]; [0219]-[0222]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use selecting, by the third UPE, a user plane connection based on a tunnel header of the tunneled data packet; and routing the data packet according to the user plane connection as taught by Li into Zhu ‘089 in order to reduce communication interruption and dropping of user data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461