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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08-19-2026 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1 and 11-23 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1 and 11-23 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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, 11-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (KR 20190041909) in view of Tsiatsis et al (US 2022/0124488, hereinafter referred to as Tsiatsis) and further in view of ALMEIDA (EP 4165904).
Regarding claims 1 and 17. Ko discloses a method by a user equipment (UE) supporting a plurality of group communications having different qualities of service (QoS) in a wireless communication system (The 5G QoS method currently being discussed seems to be attempting a new approach such asadding a flow identifier such as QFI (QoS Flow ID), but in reality it is not beyond the limit of theexisting 4G. 5G also provides QoS by performing traffic flow classification based on an SDF (ServiceData Flow) template that can be compared to an access control list (ACL) of a wired router as in 4G.), the method comprising determining that a plurality of groups mapped to a predetermined address value are associated with different protocol data unit (PDU) sessions (see at least figure 2 : The AN (Access Network) and the UPF between the UE and the mobile core network provide QoS foreach flow using the QFI information thus marked…2 is a view for explaining a method of providing QoS for each PDU session according to 3GPPstandards.); establishing a first PDU session for a data network name (DNN) targeting a first group among the plurality of groups (see at least figures 1-2: ).
Ko discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of having the plurality of groups mapped to predetermined address value is associated to different data network name (DNN)and different PDU sessions are used to transfer data sent to different groups. However, Tsiatsis, from the same field of endeavor teaches the plurality of groups mapped to predetermined address value is associated to different data network name (DNN) and different PDU sessions are used to transfer data sent to different groups (see at least paragraph [0083] and figure 9). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Tsiatsis, as indicated, into the communication method of Ko, form the purpose of improving security and data delivery.
Ko in view of Tsiatsis discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of transmitting data to a user plane function (UPF) based on a first QoS corresponding to the first PDU. However, ALMEIDA , from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting data to a user plane function (UPF) based on a first QoS corresponding to the first PDU (see at least figures 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching ALMEIDA , as indicated, into the communication method of Ko for the purpose of maintaining flow transmission in both directions.
Regarding claims 11 and 18. Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA discloses a method wherein the predetermined address value is an internet protocol (IP) address or an Ethernet address (see at least abstract: IP flows).
Regarding claims 12 and 19. Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA discloses a method further comprising: establishing a second PDU session for a DNN targeting a second group among the plurality of groups; and transmitting data to the UPF based on a second QoS corresponding to the second PDU session (see at least figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 13 and 20. Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA discloses a method wherein the first group and the second group are configured by an application function (AF) (Barreto: The techniques described herein are implemented by an application function (AF) node).
Claims 14-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA and Further in view of GUERZONI et al (PCT/EP2020/083669, hereinafter referred to as GUERZONI ).
Regarding claims 14 and 21. Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of Barreto discloses receiving traffic from an application via the UPF based on a determined forwarding path; and transmitting the traffic to a application corresponding to the predetermined address value (see at least figures 2)
Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that transmitting and receiving are to different Applications. However, GUERZONI, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting and receiving are to different Applications (see at least claim 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Guerzoni, as indicated, into the communication method of Ko in view of ALMEIDA for the purpose of expanding the network, enhancing capabilities and enforcing policies
Regarding claim 15 and 22. Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of adding a generic public subscription identifier (GPSI) of the UE as a member to the first group. However, Guerzoni, from the same field of endeavor, teaches adding a generic public subscription identifier (GPSI) of the UE as a member to the first group (see at least paragraphs [0054] and [0064]: an UE address (e.g. GPSI), if it is associated with the PDU Session, a DNN). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Guerzoni, as indicated, into the communication method of Ko in view of Almeida for the purpose of providing a stable, globally unique address for a subscriber without revealing private identifiers.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA and Further in view of Karampatsis et al (US 2023/0422341, hereinafter referred to as Karampatsis).
Regarding claims 16 and 23. Ko in view of Tsiatsis in view of ALMEIDA discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of receiving traffic from at least one application client having an address value associated with the first group, wherein the traffic is directed toward an application server. However, Karampatsis, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving traffic from at least one application client having an address value associated with the first group, wherein the traffic is directed toward an application server (see at least figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Karampatsis, as indicated, into the communication method of Ko in view of Almeida for the purpose of expanding network range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11-23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
