DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/01/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1-2,5,8,13-14,17-20, 25-26 and 29-35 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2, 5, 13, 14, 17, 25, 26 and 29 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.
For claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 17, 25, 26 and 29, the term “a predefined value” was introduce numerous consecutive times. The Applicant must define or specify each of the predefined value as claimed by distinctly point out the subject matter. The Applicant fails to distinguish the claimed term. It is not clear whether the 2nd-4th predefined values are same as the 1st predefined value or each predefined value is different from the previous mentioned predefined value.
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 of this title, 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 1-2,5,8,13-14,17-20,25-26 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (WO 2020173548 A1).
For claims 1 and 13, Yang discloses a control plane node (fig. 4) (Page 1, lines 33-34) comprising:
processing circuitry (pg 2, line 9-13) configured to:
determine to one of pause and resume a usage measurement (pg. 10 lines13-17, pg. 14 lines 3-10); and
cause transmission, to a user plane node (fig. 4), of a request indicating to one of pause and resume the usage measurement for a plurality of Usage Reporting Rules, URRs, based on the determination (pg. 10 lines 15-35, pg. 13 Table for Suspend and Resume URRs).
The claim further recites: “wherein the indication to one of pause and resume the usage measurement for the plurality of URRs is one of a first flag and a second flag, wherein the first flag being set to a predefined value indicates that the usage measurement for all URRs of the plurality of URRs should be paused, and wherein the second flag being set to a predefined value indicates that the usage measurement for all URRs of the plurality of URRs should be resumed.” This limitation is rendered obvious by Yang.
Yang discloses a charging architecture in which a control plane function controls usage measurement performed by a user plane function using Usage Reporting Rules (URRs). In particular, Yang explains that the control plane provisions rules such as PDRs, FARs, QERs, and URRs to the user plane to control packet processing and traffic usage measurement. For example, Yang states that “the CP function controls the processing of the packets in the UP function by provisioning Packet Detection Rules (PDRs), Forwarding Action Rules (FARs), QoS Enforcement Rules (QERs), and Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) for measuring traffic usage.” (Page 2 lines 9-20). Thus, Yang teaches the context of usage measurement associated with URRs.
Yang further teaches that the control plane may instruct the user plane to pause the ongoing usage measurement associated with URRs. Specifically, Yang explains that “additional information elements can be introduced to indicate to the UP that it shall suspend the ongoing measurement on the Usage Report Rule (URR).” (Page 4 lines 29-35). Yang also teaches that the user plane may subsequently resume the usage measurement upon receiving a new instruction, stating that the user plane shall “suspend the ongoing measurement on the Usage Report Rule (URR) and wait for the new instruction to resume the measurement.” (Page 4 lines 29-35). Accordingly, Yang discloses both pausing and resuming usage measurement for URRs via signaling between the control plane and the user plane.
Additionally, Yang discloses implementing the pause control through a flag in a control signaling message, explaining that “it is proposed to create a new Flag to support the pause of charging, only applicable for the Sx Session Modification Request message.” (Page 4 lines 2-5). This disclosure teaches that the control instruction to pause usage measurement may be conveyed using a flag indicator within the signaling message exchanged between the control plane and user plane. Yang further illustrates signaling exchanges between the control plane and user plane for modifying charging or measurement behavior in the message flows depicted in Figures 5–7.
The claim further specifies that the indication to pause or resume usage measurement is implemented using a first flag and a second flag set to predefined values, with the first flag indicating pause and the second flag indicating resume. However, Yang already teaches the underlying functionality of controlling URR measurement through signaling and further teaches implementing the pause instruction via a flag. Once the concept of controlling URR measurement via signaling flags is known, the particular manner in which the signaling is encoded—such as using one flag, multiple flags, or predefined values—represents merely an implementation choice.
Under MPEP §2144.04 (Design Choice), a claimed feature may be considered an obvious matter of design choice where the prior art performs the same function and the claimed modification merely involves a different arrangement or representation that does not change the operation or produce a different result. Here, Yang already teaches signaling instructions to pause and resume URR measurement, and further teaches implementing such control through signaling flags. Modifying the signaling format to use a first flag with a predefined value for pause and a second flag with a predefined value for resume instead of another signaling representation (such as a single flag with multiple values or other control indicators) would have been an obvious implementation choice for one of ordinary skill in the art designing communication protocol messages. Such variations are routinely determined by protocol design considerations such as clarity, extensibility, and implementation convenience, and would yield the same predictable result of controlling when URR usage measurement is paused and resumed.
Accordingly, the claimed limitation constitutes merely an obvious variation in the signaling representation of pause and resume instructions, and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice under MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 13 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses a method (fig. 4, pg. 13 Table).
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 25, Yang discloses a user plane node (fig. 4) (Page 1, lines 33-34) comprising: processing circuitry (pg 2, line 9-13) configured to:
receive, from a control plane node, a request indicating to one of pause and resume a usage measurement for a plurality of Usage Reporting Rules, URRs (pg. 6 line 1-9, pg. 10 lines13-17, pg. 14 lines 3-10); and
perform one of pausing and resuming of the usage measurement for the plurality of URRs based at least on the indication (pg. 10 lines 15-35, pg. 13 Table for Suspend and Resume URRs),
The claim further recites: “wherein the indication to one of pause and resume the usage measurement for the plurality of URRs is one of a first flag and a second flag, wherein the first flag being set to a predefined value indicates that the usage measurement for all URRs of the plurality of URRs should be paused, and wherein the second flag being set to a predefined value indicates that the usage measurement for all URRs of the plurality of URRs should be resumed.” This limitation is rendered obvious by Yang.
Yang discloses a charging architecture in which a control plane function controls usage measurement performed by a user plane function using Usage Reporting Rules (URRs). In particular, Yang explains that the control plane provisions rules such as PDRs, FARs, QERs, and URRs to the user plane to control packet processing and traffic usage measurement. For example, Yang states that “the CP function controls the processing of the packets in the UP function by provisioning Packet Detection Rules (PDRs), Forwarding Action Rules (FARs), QoS Enforcement Rules (QERs), and Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) for measuring traffic usage.” (Page 2 lines 9-20). Thus, Yang teaches the context of usage measurement associated with URRs.
Yang further teaches that the control plane may instruct the user plane to pause the ongoing usage measurement associated with URRs. Specifically, Yang explains that “additional information elements can be introduced to indicate to the UP that it shall suspend the ongoing measurement on the Usage Report Rule (URR).” (Page 4 lines 29-35). Yang also teaches that the user plane may subsequently resume the usage measurement upon receiving a new instruction, stating that the user plane shall “suspend the ongoing measurement on the Usage Report Rule (URR) and wait for the new instruction to resume the measurement.” (Page 4 lines 29-35). Accordingly, Yang discloses both pausing and resuming usage measurement for URRs via signaling between the control plane and the user plane.
Additionally, Yang discloses implementing the pause control through a flag in a control signaling message, explaining that “it is proposed to create a new Flag to support the pause of charging, only applicable for the Sx Session Modification Request message.” (Page 4 lines 2-5). This disclosure teaches that the control instruction to pause usage measurement may be conveyed using a flag indicator within the signaling message exchanged between the control plane and user plane. Yang further illustrates signaling exchanges between the control plane and user plane for modifying charging or measurement behavior in the message flows depicted in Figures 5–7.
The claim further specifies that the indication to pause or resume usage measurement is implemented using a first flag and a second flag set to predefined values, with the first flag indicating pause and the second flag indicating resume. However, Yang already teaches the underlying functionality of controlling URR measurement through signaling and further teaches implementing the pause instruction via a flag. Once the concept of controlling URR measurement via signaling flags is known, the particular manner in which the signaling is encoded—such as using one flag, multiple flags, or predefined values—represents merely an implementation choice.
Under MPEP §2144.04 (Design Choice), a claimed feature may be considered an obvious matter of design choice where the prior art performs the same function and the claimed modification merely involves a different arrangement or representation that does not change the operation or produce a different result. Here, Yang already teaches signaling instructions to pause and resume URR measurement, and further teaches implementing such control through signaling flags. Modifying the signaling format to use a first flag with a predefined value for pause and a second flag with a predefined value for resume instead of another signaling representation (such as a single flag with multiple values or other control indicators) would have been an obvious implementation choice for one of ordinary skill in the art designing communication protocol messages. Such variations are routinely determined by protocol design considerations such as clarity, extensibility, and implementation convenience, and would yield the same predictable result of controlling when URR usage measurement is paused and resumed.
Accordingly, the claimed limitation constitutes merely an obvious variation in the signaling representation of pause and resume instructions, and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice under MPEP §2144.04.
For claims 2, 14, and 26, Yang discloses the indication to pause the usage measurement for the plurality of URRs, for which value of an Applicable for Start of Pause of Charging, ASPOC, flag is set to a “1” bit value, is provided by the first flag set to a predefined bit value (Page 13, SxSMReq-Flags; Page 14, Query URR reference box).
For claim 5, 17, and 29, Yang discloses the indication to resume the usage measurement for the plurality of URRs, for which value of an Applicable for Start of Pause of Charging, ASPOC, flag is set to a “1” bit value, is provided by the second flag set to a predefined bit value (Page 13, SxSMReq-Flags; Page 14, Query URR reference box).
For claim 8, 20, and 32, Yang discloses the indication is on a message level in the request (Page 3 lines 31-35, Page 9 lines 4-37).
For claims 18 and 30, Yang discloses the predefined bit value for the second flag is a “1” bit value (Page 20-22, for predefined single bit).
For claims 19 and 31, Yang discloses the second flag is a Resume of Usage Measurement to Un-pause of Charging, RUMPC, flag (pg. 13 Table for Suspend and Resume URRs).
For claim 33, Yang discloses the user plane node is a User Plane Function, UPF, node or Packet Gateway User function, PGW-U, node (Fig. 3, pg. 10 lines 9-10).
For claim 34, Yang discloses the control plane node is a Session Management Function, SMF, node or Packet Gateway Control function, PGW-C, node (Fig. 3, pg. 10 lines 9-10).
For claim 35, Yang discloses the request is one of a Packet Forwarding Control Protocol, PFCP, session establishment request and PFCP session modification request associated with a PFCP session, the PFCP session being associated with the plurality of URRs (Page 8 lines 32-37; Page. 9 lines 5-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new rationale has been used for new ground of rejections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409