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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/724,862 last filed on August 08th, 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined, directed to 5G USER TERMINAL IP ADDRESS CONFIRMATION METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations were found in claims 8 and 9, for example:
In claim 8: An apparatus…comprising:
an allocation determination unit configured to determine…
and a first/second processing unit configured to configure…
Similarly, in claim 9: A system…comprising:
Multiple “functions” (i.e., UPFs and SMF) with the SMF at least configured to configure…
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the filed Specifications shows that these “units” and functions are repeated verbatim without further clarifications. And there is an open-ended section on how the described embodiments are non-limiting (e.g., Filed Specifications: page 13, ll. 6-31 and page 16, ll. 17-27).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-10 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.
Claims 8 and 9 contain language directed to:
An apparatus…comprising:
An allocation unit configured to determine…
And a first/second processing unit configured to configure…
and
A system…comprising:
Multiple “functions” (i.e., UPFs and SMF) with the SMF at least configured to configure…
All of which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The present application’s filed Specifications as mentioned above, shows an open-ended section on how the described embodiments are non-limiting (e.g., Filed Specifications: page 13, ll. 6-31 and page 16, ll. 17-27).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0319533 A1 to Ly et al. (referred to hereafter as “Ly”).
As to claim 1, Ly further discloses a method for determining an Internet Protocol (IP) address of a 5G user terminal, applied to a system for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal, wherein the system for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal comprises a first User Plane Function (UPF) and a second UPF, and the method comprises:
determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF) and according to preset configuration information, a target Data Network Name (DNN) that matches with the SMF, and determining a type of a terminal address pool configured for the target DNN (Ly discloses of an overall similar system wherein a SMF is involved with the establishing of a UE’s connection(s) and the SMF can determine a target DNN from amongst a list (or plurality) (e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 40 and 80). Additionally, the type of the terminal address (pools) associated with the selected target DNN can variably change if the connection needs to change and be updated depending on the target/destination (DNN) network/access, following ATSSS (Access Traffic Steering, Switching, Splitting) rules (e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 64-68, 74, and 136), which will be further explained with the next two limitation steps);
in response to the type of the terminal address pool configured for the target DNN being a dynamic configuration, configuring, by the SMF, the first UPF and the second UPF in a load balancing mode to allocate IP addresses of the terminal address pool to the first UPF and the second UPF in a preset proportion, and selecting, by the first UPF or the second UPF, an IP address from respective IP address pools as a dynamic IP address of the user terminal accessing the target DNN, wherein the user terminal is capable of establishing a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session with the first UPF or the second UPF through the dynamic IP address (Ly discloses that the SMF can determine and generate ATSSS rules and configure the one or more UPFs in a load balancing mode (e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 64, 68, and 74)); and
in response to the type of the terminal address pool configured for the target DNN being a fixed acquisition, configuring, by the SMF, the first UPF and the second UPF in an active-standby mode to allocate the terminal address pool to both the first UPF and the second UPF, and determining, by one of the first UPF and the second UPF which is configured as an active apparatus, a fixed IP address of the user terminal accessing the target DNN from the respective IP address pool, wherein the user terminal is capable of establishing the PDU session with the active apparatus through the fixed IP address (Similarly, Ly discloses that for the fixed or static steering mode, the SMF can determine and generate ATSSS rules and configure the one or more UPFs in an active-standby mode, e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 64, 66, and 79).
As to claim 2, Ly further discloses the method for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 1, wherein after determining, by a Session Management Function (SMF) and according to preset configuration information, a target Data Network Name (DNN) that matches with the SMF, and determining a type of a terminal address pool configured for the target DNN, the method further comprises:
in response to the target DNN being configured with both the terminal address pool with the type of dynamic configuration and the terminal address pool with the type of fixed acquisition, allocating the IP addresses in the terminal address pool with the type of dynamic configuration evenly to the first UPF and the second UPF so as to configure the first UPF and the UPF in the load balancing mode (Following claim 1, for the load balancing mode, the traffic would be dynamically split and load balanced amongst different UPFs. e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 74); and
allocating the IP addresses in the terminal address pool with the type of fixed acquisition to both the first UPF and the second UPF so as to configure the first UPF and the second UPF in the active-standby mode (Following claim 1, for the fixed or static steering mode, the SMF can determine and generate ATSSS rules and configure the one or more UPFs in an active-standby mode, e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 64, 66, and 79).
As to claim 3, Ly further discloses the method for determining an Internet Protocol (IP) address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 1, further comprising:
in the active-standby mode and in a case that the first UPF is the active apparatus, in response to the first UPF failing, interrupting, by the first UPF, the PDU session with the user terminal to enable the user terminal to establish the PDU session with the second UPF (Following claim 1, by being in an active-standby mode, the system and components are already operating in the designated fashion, wherein when the active UPF is unavailable, the other standby UPF would take over, e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 66 and 79).
As to claim 8, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1, as the system carrying out the same steps/concepts.
As to claim 9, Ly further discloses a system for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal, comprising:
a first User Plane Function (UPF) in communication connection to the user terminal and a data network respectively (Ly discloses that there can be different UPFs being utilized, especially with load balancing scenarios, which mean in other words, there are at least two or more UPFs that are utilized to handle the traffic connected between the UEs and the target networks, e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 74 and 79);
a second UPF in communication connection to the user terminal and the data network respectively (As stated above, Ly discloses of different UPFs, so that would mean there’s at least two UPFs being utilized, connecting UEs to their target networks, e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 74 and 79); and
at least one Session Management Function (SMF) connected to the first UPF and the second UPF respectively, and configured to configure the first UPF and the second UPF according to a type of a terminal address pool configured by a Data Network Name (DNN), wherein the type of the terminal address pool comprises a dynamic configuration and a fixed acquisition, and in the dynamic configuration, the SMF configures the first UPF and the second UPF in a load balancing mode, and in the fixed acquisition, the SMF configures the first UPF and the second UPF in an active-standby mode, the first UPF is an active apparatus, the second UPF is a standby apparatus, and the user terminal preferentially establishes a PDU session through the active apparatus (See the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 as the SMF configuring the two or more UPFs in either configuration modes (e.g., load-balancing or active-standby modes), to establishing a PDU session is all covered by the limitations in claim 1).
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0319533 A1 to Ly in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0312538 A1 to Zhang et al. (referred to hereafter as “Zhang”).
As to claim 4, Ly does not fully further disclose of the method for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 3, wherein after in response to the first UPF failing, interrupting, by the first UPF, the PDU session with the user terminal to enable the user terminal to establish the PDU session with the second UPF, the method further comprises:
in response to the second UPF receiving a downlink message sent to the user terminal by a data network, determining whether an uplink message corresponding to the downlink message exists in the second UPF (Following claims 1 and 3, Ly does not expressly disclose of the specific routing mechanics involved with any particular message down to the UE nor any particular messages back from the UE.
Zhang more expressly discloses of how a UE with a multi-sim can form two separate connections to different networks, such that USIM_A can connect to a first UPF (and network 660/662) via a first radio access network (RAN) node, and USIM_B can connect to a different UPF (and network 670/672) via a second RAN node (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 92-94, 96-99 and Figs. 6A-B). Zhang also more expressly describes the flow of the messages, whether it’s in the downlink direction from the UPF to the UE or the uplink direction from the UE to the UPF (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 59 and 79). And when one of the connections (or UPF associated with a connection) changes from an active state to an inactive/suspended/idle/standby state, the data can still be stored/buffered and retrieved later or discarded depending on the situation (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 61, 63, 107-109, 111, and 115). In addition, while Zhang discloses and uses one UPF in the examples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that each connection with a different network can have its own UPF, since it is a “function” that is specific to its own session connection.
Given all of these features discussed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that the current claimed scenario can be achieved or carried out.
In this specific scenario, Zhang discloses that data or messages can be received, coming “from the UE” which would be the uplink data messages, and those could be stored/buffered between the UPF and the RAN node (e.g., Zhang; ¶¶ 57, 59, 79, and 113). The concept with multiple UPFs is also further supported within Ly (as established in claim 1, e.g., Ly: ¶¶ 64, 68, 74, and 79), and so while the first UPF is suspended or unavailable, another second UPF can be utilized, so this concept would easily be incorporated within Ly’s overall system and teachings).
Based upon Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Zhang’s teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings because the resulting combined system would be more capable and efficient with handling the data messaging that’s going back and forth between UPFs and endpoints;
in response to the uplink message corresponding to the downlink message not existing in the second UPF, determining whether the first UPF returns to normal (Following the above step(s) and interpretations, once again, Ly does not expressly disclose of the specific routing scenario with checking for uplink messages from the UE.
Zhang more expressly discloses that a UPF can recover or resume operations (e.g., Zhang; ¶¶ 98-100 and 113-118), which means a UE can revert back and resume communicating with the original UPF again, using the buffered data, and therefore the returning or uplink data messages may not be with the second UPF anymore as that buffered data can be copied or moved back to the original UPF (e.g., Zhang; ¶¶ 117).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings); and
in response to the first UPF returning to normal, forwarding the downlink message to the first UPF (Following the above step(s) and interpretations, once again, Ly does not expressly disclose of the specific routing scenario.
Zhang more expressly discloses of the entirety of the whole sequence with a first UPF becoming inactive/suspended and then back to active status. The data messages to and from the UE would be buffered and moved around between UPFs/RAN nodes and the system and resuming working with the first UPF meaning all data messages would be forwarded or routed back to the first UPF again (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 98-100 and 113-118).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 5, Ly does not fully further disclose of the method for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 4, wherein forwarding the downlink message to the first UPF comprises:
adding a custom tag to the downlink message to indicate that the downlink message is a forwarded message (Following claims 1, 3, and 4, Ly does not expressly disclose of this specific feature with respect to the routing of downlink messages to the UE.
Zhang more expressly discloses that data messages within each particular connected session, with any UE(s) would have identifiers (e.g., flow identifiers, session identifiers, etc.) and any messages that are redirected or forwarded between different UPFs would be clearly identified as to which session the data messages pertain to (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 103-105 and 62).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings); and
forwarding the downlink message with the custom tag to the first UPF (As established above, Ly does not expressly disclose of this specific feature.
Zhang more expressly discloses of this forwarding or redirecting of the data messages concept (e.g., Zhang: ¶ 62).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 6, Ly does not fully further disclose of the method for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 4, wherein after in response to the first UPF returning to normal, forwarding the downlink message to the first UPF, the method further comprises:
in response to the first UPF receiving the downlink message, determining whether the uplink message corresponding to the downlink message exists in the first UPF (Following claims 1, 3, and 4, Ly does not expressly disclose of this specific feature with respect to the routing of downlink messages to the UE.
Zhang more expressly discloses of this concept in that supposing the first UPF is actively in use and receiving downlink messages, that would mean the UE is also connected and communicating with the UPF, and therefore the uplink messages would be coming or existing at the first UPF. And in the scenario that the first UPF is resuming from an inactive or suspended state, the data messages would also be forwarded back to the first UPF (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 79 and 113).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings); and
in response to the uplink message corresponding to the downlink message existing in the first UPF, sending the downlink message to the user terminal (As established above, Ly does not expressly disclose of this specific feature.
Zhang more expressly discloses of this concept because if the UPF is operational, that would mean all the messages are routed to that UPF including any coming from the UE, and therefore, any downlink messages to the UE would also be forwarded onwards to the UE as well (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 79, 113, and 117).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 7, Ly does not fully further disclose of the method for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 6, wherein after in response to the first UPF receiving the downlink message, determining whether the uplink message corresponding to the downlink message exists in the first UPF, the method further comprises:
in response to the uplink message corresponding to the downlink message not existing in the first UPF, discarding the downlink message (Following claims 1, 3, 4, and 6, Ly does not expressly disclose of this specific feature.
Zhang more expressly discloses of this concept in that if the UPF is not getting any uplink messages from the UE, the UPF may be inactive or suspended and another alternate UPF is handling the messages. And if the UPF is in an inactive/suspended state, the system can decide to either buffer or discard the messages (e.g., Zhang: ¶¶ 63 and 99).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Zhang’s specific teachings altogether within Ly’s overall system and teachings).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0319533 A1 to Ly in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0078047 A1 to Yao et al. (referred to hereafter as “Yao”).
As to claim 10, Ly does not fully further disclose of the system for determining an IP address of a 5G user terminal according to claim 9, wherein the first UPF and the second UPF are connected through a General Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunnel (Following claim 9, Ly does not expressly disclose of utilizing GRE tunneling.
Yao more expressly discloses of similar network layouts and more expressly discloses of the use of various tunnels, including GRE tunneling (e.g., Yao: ¶ 66).
Based upon Yao’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Yao’s teachings within Ly’s overall system and teachings because the resulting combined system can better handle routing more efficiently with the use of the tunneling).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455