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 § 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, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU et al PG PUB 2024/0007901 in view of CHO et al PG PUB 2019/0150023.
Re Claims 1, 16 and 20, ZHU et al teaches in figure 7, a UE 702 (a apparatus includes a memory and processor) receiving from AMF 750 a QoS profile (one more configurations at least one QoS characteristics) [0111] based on Traffic Influence Description 710 from AF 770 (a network device) wherein the QoS profile is associated with QoS parameters such as FDB and FER [0104] the downlink and uplink data flow between the UE 702 (the apparatus) and the AF 770 (network device); the AMF 750 interacts with AUSF 220 and UE 702 to support a authentication process [0057] wherein the UE receives intermediate key or security material (securing information) from the AMF 750 to complete the authentication process wherein the authentication process secures the information based on the configured the intermediate key or security material (securing information).
ZHU et al fails to explicitly teach “transmitting or receiving a SDAP message.”. However, CHO et al teaches SDAP refer to a user plane AS protocol layer for the 5G QoS wherein the UEs QoS rules related to the PDU session from 5GC and receives AS mapping rule(s) and DRB configuration information for the PDU session from NG-RAN to receive DL SDAP data PDU [0100-0108].
By combining the teachings, PDU in ZHU et al can be modified with DL SDAP data PDU to maintain and manage QoS flows between the 5G core network and the radio access.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to maintain and manage the QoS flow between the core network and radio access using the known SDAP protocol layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 17, ZHU et al teaches type of information can be identified by a file type [0111].
Re Claims 3, 18, ZHU et al teaches the AMF includes location services for the UE [0057], this includes identifying a position information.
Re Claim 7, ZHU et al teaches the securing information includes ciphering and integrity protection information [0044] which can be generated in RLC/PDCP [0108].
Re Claims 8, 9, ZHU et al teaches the uplink data flow supports SDAP headers [0108].
Re Claim 10, ZHU et al teaches traffic identifiers are conveyed in the SDAP header [0108] wherein the traffic identifiers are associated with the QoS profile [0109].
Re Claim 12, ZHU et al teaches the RRC signaling [0051] for receiving one or or configuration.
Re Claim 13, ZHU et al teaches figure 5 teaches a plurality of flows in bursts associated with the QoS profiles (the traffic QoS characteristic) for a plurality of flows in a PDU sessions [0101] wherein each flow are configured via RRC.
Re Claim 14, ZHU et al teaches each burst are associated with a respective QoS profile (traffic QoS characteristic).
Re Claim 15, ZHU et al teaches QoS flow mapping to a traffic flow among the plurality of traffic flows in the PDU session [0058 also See figure 5].
Claims 4-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU et al PG PUB 2024/0007901 in view of CHO et al PG PUB 2019/0150023 as applied to Claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of KAHTAVA et al PG PUB 2018/0054248.
Re Claims 4, 6 and 19, ZHU et al in view of CHO et al fails to explicitly teach " a capability report." However, KAHTAVA et al teaches the UE receiving from a base station measurement information based on the UE capability parameters transmitted by the UE to the base station [0010]. In so doing, the QoS of data to be transmitted in the communication bearer can be determined to improve reliability. One skilled in the art would have been motivated improve reliability based on the UE capability parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 5, KAHTAVA et al indicates the measurement scheme [0010].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU et al PG PUB 2024/0007901 in view of CHO et al PG PUB 2019/0150023 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of KIM et al PG PUB 2022/0014966.
Re Claim 11, ZHU et al in view of CHO et al fails to teach " indicating a message category in the SDAP header." However, KIM et al teaches classifying a 1-bit D/C field (a message category) of the SDAP header to indicate SDAP user data and SDAP control data (category) [0198]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the classifying bit in the SDAP header in ZHU et al to differentiate between the control or user data in the SDAP message. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the teachings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claims 1, 16 and 20, Applicant argues that ZHU et al fails to teach “intermediate key” is comprised in the “one or more configurations” and “the information is secured based on the securing information”.
Examiner disagrees.
ZHU et al teaches the AMF interacts with the UE and the Authentication Server Function (AUSF) and receives the intermediate key to complete the authentication process or when the authentication based on UMTS, the AMF retrieves the security material to interact with the UE [0057]. The intermediate key or security material can read on the claimed “security information” wherein based on this interaction, the UE would have received the intermediate key or security material to manage/control authentication process and/or access to “secure the information” transmitted or received as claimed.
Applicant is requested to argue this point in the next response.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights