DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 1, 3, 7-8, 10 and 13-14 have been amended.
Claims: 5-6 and 12 have not been amended.
Claims: 17-28 have been added.
Claims: 2, 4, 9, 11 and 15-16 have been cancelled.
EXAMINER NOTES:
The examiner notes that the previous 35 USC 101 rejection and 35 USC 112 rejection indicated on pages 2-6 of the previous officed filed on 04/28/26 has been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s current amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-13 and 17-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The reasons for allowance are clear on the record. And after a thorough search and further examination, Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-13 and 17-28 are found to be allowable because the closest prior art found of Kim et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0287116) and NPL Document “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for 5G system architecture (Release 16)” (3GPP TR 23.716 V16.0.0 (2018-12)) and PARK et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0275513) fails to disclose, teach or suggest either alone or render obvious in a combined teachings of the prior art, the uniquely distinct features in the specific order, structure and combination of limitations together as a whole as recited, inter alia, by independent claim 1 and independent claim 8 and independent claim 17 and independent claim 21 and independent claim 25 of the claimed invention.
The dependent claims are found to be allowable based on their dependency on the allowed independent claims and for the same reasons as indicated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/28/26 with regards to claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that The Office submits that original claims 14 and 15 are obvious in view of Kim in view of the 3GPP reference, disregarding the optional feature of claim 15. Original claim 14 is amended to include the original subject matter of claim 15 including its optional feature "wherein the user device is a bridged residential gateway configured to communicate with a virtual gateway executable in the user plane system." Kim does not even disclose a residential gateway, only core network gateways. Applicant submits neither Kim nor the 3GPP reference discloses this specific feature and "wherein the user device is a bridged residential gateway configured to communicate with a virtual gateway executable in the user plane system" and therefore claim 14 as amended is novel and not obvious over the cited combination (See Page 15 of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 07/28/26).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s argued limitations of “wherein, optionally the user device is a bridged residential gateway configured to communicate with a virtual gateway executable in the user plane system” recites the word “optionally” which is an alternative or contingent limitation indicating that the recited limitation may be performed or may not be performed as it is just an option of it occurring and does not need to occur and as such, the applicant’s arguments are moot as the argued limitations of “wherein, optionally the user device is a bridged residential gateway configured to communicate with a virtual gateway executable in the user plane system” are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”.
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0287116 herein after referenced as Kim) in view of NPL Document “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on the Wireless and Wireline Convergence for 5G system architecture (Release 16)” (3GPP TR 23.716 V16.0.0 (2018-12) herein after referenced as 3GPP).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses:
A user device configured to establish a protocol data unit, PDU, session (Kim, [0407] discloses the PDU session establishment request (i.e. reads on establish a PDU session) message transmitted by UE-1 (i.e. reads on from a user device) may further include information indicating that the PDU session establishment request message is for a Remote UE and/or information indicating that it is related to a relay UE operation. Information indicating that it is for a Remote UE and/or information indicating that it is related to a Relay UE operation may be included in a PDU session establishment request message that is a Session Management SM NAS message that SMF can interpret; Kim, [0051] discloses a user equipment UE is illustrated by way of example, but the illustrated UE may also be referred to in terms of UE 100 terminal, mobile equipment ME, and the like. In addition, the UE may be a portable device such as a notebook computer, a mobile phone, a PDA, a smartphone, or a multimedia device or may be a non-portable device such as a PC or vehicle-mounted device).
with a telecommunications network comprising a session management system and a user plane system (Kim, Fig. 1 & [0054]-[0055] discloses FIG. 1 is a structural diagram of a next-generation mobile communication network (i.e. reads on with a telecommunications network comprising) and discloses 5GC 5G Core may include various components, part of which are shown in FIG. 1, including an access and mobility management function AMF 410, a session management function SMF 420 (i.e. reads on session management system), a policy control function PCF 430, a User Plane Function UPF 440 (i.e. reads on a user plane system), an application function AF 450, a unified data management UDM data network 460, and a non-3GPP interworking function N3IWF 490).
for forwarding data for the PDU session, (Kim, [0269] discloses For a PDU session (i.e. reads on for a PDU session) of the Ethernet PDU session type, the SMF may notify the UPF to add or remove an Ethernet Packet Filter Set and a forwarding rule(s) (i.e. reads on for forwarding data); Kim, [0061] discloses The UPF 440 operates as a boundary point between a next generation radio access network NG-RAN and the core network and maintains a data path between the gNB 200 and the SMF 420. The UPF 440 may perform a function of handling a PDU. For mobility within the NG-RAN which is defined after 3GPP Release-15, the UPF 440 may route packets. The UPF 440 may correspond to a termination point of a data interface toward the data network).
the user plane system having a protocol stack with a first communication layer for a first communication protocol and a second communication layer for a second communication protocol, wherein the first communication layer exists below the second communication layer in the protocol stack, (Kim, Fig. 10 shows the UPF (i.e. reads on the user plane system) having L1, L2 (i.e. reads on a protocol stack with a first communication layer for a first communication protocol), UPD/IP (i.e. reads on a second communication layer for a second communication protocol), GTP-U and PDU layers wherein layers L1 and L2 are below the UDP/IP layer (i.e. reads on wherein the first communication layer exists below the second communication layer in the protocol stack); Kim, Fig. 10 & [0341] discloses The protocol stack (i.e. reads on a protocol stack) of FIG. 10 may be a protocol stack for Layer-3 UE-to-Network Relay. The UE-to-Network Relay and the Remote UE may perform communication based on the protocol stack as illustrated in FIG. 10. For example, the UE-to-Network Relay may relay unicast traffic UL and DL traffic between the Remote UE and the network based on the protocol stack as illustrated in the example of FIG. 10; Kim, [0381] discloses The PDU session type information may be information indicating the type of the PDU session that UE-2 intends to use. The PDU session type information may be one of IPv4, IPv6, IPv4v6, Unstructured or non-IP, and Ethernet. Applicant’s Claim 4 recites “… wherein the one or more first forwarding rules include at least one of: at least one Ethernet-based forwarding rule … the one or more second forwarding rules include at least one of: at least one Internet Protocol (IP)-based forwarding rule; …”).
wherein the user device is configured to transmit a PDU session establishment request (Kim, [0407] discloses the PDU session establishment request message transmitted (i.e. reads on transmit) by UE-1 (i.e. reads on user device is configured to) may further include information indicating that the PDU session establishment request message is for a Remote UE and/or information indicating that it is related to a relay UE operation. Information indicating that it is for a Remote UE and/or information indicating that it is related to a Relay UE operation may be included in a PDU session establishment request message (i.e. reads on a PDU session establishment request) that is a Session Management SM NAS message that SMF (i.e. reads on to the session management system) can interpret; Kim, [0051] discloses a user equipment UE is illustrated by way of example, but the illustrated UE may also be referred to in terms of UE 100 terminal, mobile equipment ME, and the like. In addition, the UE may be a portable device such as a notebook computer, a mobile phone, a PDA, a smartphone, or a multimedia device or may be a non-portable device such as a PC or vehicle-mounted device).
to trigger the session management system to establish a (Kim, [0201] discloses The SMF (i.e. reads on to trigger the session management system to) transmits an N4 Session Establishment/Modification request message (i.e. reads on establish a PDU session) to the UPF (i.e. reads on in the user plane system). And, the SMF may provide packet discovery, execution, and reporting rules of packets that are to be installed in the UPF for the PDU session).
wherein the user device has a protocol stack up to the first communication layer for communicating with the user plane system, (Kim, Fig. 10 & [0341] discloses The protocol stack of FIG. 10 may be a protocol stack for Layer-3 UE-to-Network Relay. The UE-to-Network Relay and the Remote UE may perform communication based on the protocol stack as illustrated in FIG. 10. For example, the UE-to-Network Relay may relay unicast traffic UL and DL traffic (i.e. reads on for communicating with) between the Remote UE (i.e. reads on user device) and the network (i.e. reads on the UPF) based on the protocol stack (i.e. reads on has a protocol stack up to the first communication layer) as illustrated in the example of FIG. 10 and Fig. 10 shows the UE having multiple layers corresponding to L1 (i.e. reads on up to the first communication layer), MAC, RLC, etc. communicating with the UPF having L1, L2, UPD/IP, GTP-U and PDU layers wherein layers L1 and L2 are below the UDP/IP layer; Kim, [0056] discloses a UE 100 is connected to a data network via the UPF 440 through a Next Generation Radio Access Network NG-RAN including the gNB 200; Kim, [0223] discloses The SMF transmits information to the UE through the UPF. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative or contingent limitation format by reciting the conditional term “optionally” and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein, optionally the user device is a bridged residential gateway configured to communicate with a virtual gateway executable in the user plane system”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Kim discloses a UE transmitting a PDU session establishment request and establishing a PDU session Ethernet type PDU session or an IP type PDU session and furthermore, Kim, [0346] discloses In 5GS, a method of introducing one or both of Layer 2 Relay (ie, Layer-2 UE-to-Network Relay) and Layer 3 Relay (ie, Layer-3 UE-to-Network Relay) is being discussed but fails to explicitly recite the PDU session being established for both ethernet and IP where the UE transmits a PDU session establishment request for a combination of both ethernet and IP PDU session and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the user device is configured to transmit a PDU session establishment request containing a dual-layer session type indication to the session management system to trigger the session management system to establish a dual layer PDU session in the user plane system.”
In a related field of endeavor, 3GPP discloses:
wherein the user device is configured to transmit a PDU session establishment request containing a dual-layer session type indication to the session management system to trigger the session management system to establish a dual layer PDU session in the user plane system (3GPP, Page 74, Fig. 6.10.2-1 & Lines 1-6 & Page 75, Lines 1-11 discloses Step 1: The UE 5G RG (i.e. reads on wherein the user device is configured to) or in case of FN RG the AGF may be configured e.g. URSP to request a PDU Session of the Combo IP + Ethernet PDU Session Type (i.e. reads on transmit a PDU session establishment request containing a dual-layer session type indication). Other parameters of the PDU Session may be the same than in IP PDU Session Type E.g. the PDU Session establishment request may contain PCO asking for a P-CSCF address, ACS address, etc. and discloses The SMF (i.e. reads on to the session management system to trigger the session management system to) may indicate to the PCF that the PDU Session is of Combo IP + Ethernet PDU Session Type. Per PDU Session policies sent by the PCF may contain a control on the Maximum Number of IP address to allocate as part of the PDU Session to devices in the customer premises MNIP. Step 10a. The N4 session between the SMF and an UPF (i.e. reads on in the user plane system) acting as PSA for the PDU Session may be associated by the SMF with a Combo IP + Ethernet PDU Session Type (i.e. reads on establish a dual layer PDU session); the SMF controls the UPF to report MAC addresses detected in UL traffic of the PDU Session. If the SMF requests the UPF to forward DHCP/RS Router Solicitation traffic from devices using the PDU Session, the SMF may request the UPF to report the "access side layer 2 header" on which the DHCP/RS has been received; 3GPP, Page 75, Lines 23-38 discloses For Combo PDU Session Type, the SMF requests the UPF to forward DHCP / RS signalling over N4; the reporting from UPF shall contain the MAC address of the device. When during the life time of a PDU Session, an IP address is allocated to a device supported by a PDU Session established with the Combo IP + Ethernet PDU Session Type, the following applies: 1) In band UE IP allocation procedure RS/RA, DHCPv4, DHCPv6. The SMF / UPF uses policies received in step 7 of Figure 6.10.2-1 IP index, max number of IP addresses for the PDU Session to determine whether to grant an IP address to the device and if yes to determine the IP pool / allocation method to use. NOTE : The usage of DHCPV4 signalling to allocate IP address to devices behind the UE does not require sending dedicated NAS signalling with a request of deferred IP address allocation. ; it is possible that the IP address allocated to the RG itself is provided via NAS to the RG while in band IP address allocation applies for the devices behind the RG. 2) if this corresponds to a PCRT Policy Control Request Trigger received previously from the PCF, the SMF initiates the SM Policy Association Modification procedure described in TS 23.502 [3] clause 4.16.5.1. The reception of new policies from the PCF in step 2 may trigger the network initiated PDU Session modification procedure per TS 23.502 [3] clause 4.3.3 which may include a corresponding N4 session modification procedure to create or update the corresponding PDR/FAR/QER/URR on the UPF; 3GPP, Page 71, Lines 9-19 & Lines 40-44 discloses A dedicated PDU Session Type called "Combo Ethernet + IP" is used for that purpose. It basically supports an access Router in the PSA while an Ethernet PDU Session supports a bridge in the PSA; In case of "combo Ethernet + IP" PDU Session Type: 1. Ethernet frames are exchanged between the UE RG and the UPF acting as PSA. 2. Ethernet frames exchanged between the UE RG and the UPF acting as PSA carry IP traffic and IP auxiliary protocols: ARP, ND. 3. An IP service is delivered at N6 where for example IP addresses are allocated to individual devices behind the UE RG devices in the Customer Premises. Any User Plane address delivery mechanism may be used to deliver an IP address to the devices behind the RG i.e. SLACC, DHCPV4 or DHCPV6. The SMF related subscription data associated with the RG apply to a whole PDU Session regardless of whether multiple IP addresses are allocated on this PDU Session and discloses For a Combo Ethernet and IP PDU session type the UE exchanges with the 5GC IP packets each carried within an Ethernet frame. The 5GC delivers an IP service to the RG and to devices locally connected to the RG while it is able to identify traffic of these devices by the MAC address they are using. NOTE 6: No new traffic filters PDR or PCC rule or N1 SM QoS related signalling need to be defined as traffic filters from the Ethernet PDU Session Type are reused; 3GPP, Page 72, Fig. 6.10.1-1 discloses protocol stack for the combo PDU session type that shows the UPF having Ethernet L2 and IP layers; 3GPP, Page 169, Lines 1-10 discloses Finally, the N4 session with the UPF is updated too, in order to provide to UPF the TWIF address and port tunnel information which downlink traffic should be forwarded to. 18. This completes the establishment of the delegated PDU Session. After this point, all data user-plane traffic sent by the UE is forwarded by the trusted WLAN AP to the TWIF via the L2 connection, and from the TWIF is forwarded to the UPF via the established N3 tunnel. This N3 tunnel was established during the delegated PDU Session setup and may be configured based on the received QoS Rules with one or more QoS flows. In Fig. 7.4.3.2-1 an example is shown with two QoS flows. In the uplink direction, the TWIF applies the provisioned QoS Rules and determines to which QoS flow to forward an uplink data packet. In the downlink direction, the UPF applies the provisioned Packet Detection Rules and determines to which QoS flow to forward a downlink data packet; 3GPP, Page 97, Lines 11-15 discloses Session, Packet Detection Rules may contain Frame Route information. NOTE 3: both UL and DL Packet Detection Rules may contain Frame Route information. UL Packet Detection Rules may contain Frame Route information to ensure proper charging or specific forwarding of the corresponding traffic).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of 3GPP for the purpose of providing the system with a means to utilize a combo ethernet and IP service and corresponding PDU establishment and forwarding procedures by conforming to the teachings of a widely known and utilized standard and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of establishing a PDU session according to a PDU session type as taught by Kim) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of establishing a PDU session according to a PDU session type, wherein the PDU session type includes a combo ethernet + IP as taught by 3GPP) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of establishing a PDU session according to a PDU session type (i.e. as taught by both Kim & 3GPP) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PARK et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0275513) discloses system wherein a UE may synchronously access 2 data networks by using a multi-Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session and For a PDU session of an Ethernet PDU session type, the SMF may notify to the UPF that an Ethernet Packet Filter Set and forwarding rule(s) are to be added or removed.
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 MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights