Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/725,050

TRAFFIC HANDLING METHOD FOR QUIC APPLICATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q
Art Unit
2455
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
ZTE CORPORATION
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
517 granted / 668 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
686
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 668 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Detailed Action This office action is in response to the amended listing of claims filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1 and 7 are currently amended. Claims 6, 12-35, 37, and 39-46 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 36, and 38 are pending. 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 1-4, 7-10, 13, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarker et al (US PGPub No: 2021/0345162) in view of Yu (US PGPub No: 2021/0168905), hereafter referred to as Sarker and Yu, respectively. With regards to claims 1 and 36, Sarker teaches through Yu, a wireless communication method comprising: receiving, by a session management node from a user plane node, a quick UDP Internet connection (QUIC) traffic handling support indication (Sarker teaches the UPF (user plane function/node) responding to the SMF (session management function/node) with a PFCP session modification response wherein, a successful response implies (indication) the UPF has accepted the PDR (packet detection rules) rules; see paragraph 121, Sarker. PDR can have QUIC CID pool information; see paragraph 120, Sarker), wherein the QUIC traffic handling support indication indicates to the session management node that a QUIC handling instruction can be supported by the user plane node (see Yu below); and transmitting, by the session management node to the user plane node, a QUIC handling instruction in response to the QUIC traffic handling support indication to request the user plane node to detect a QUIC traffic (Sarker teaches the SMF answers back to the UPF with a PFCP session report (QUIC handling instruction) response and generates a CDR with YouTube volume and RG1; see paragraph 123, Sarker. YouTube using QUIC as a transport protocol; see paragraph 113, Sarker). While Sarker teaches QUIC and user planes, Sarker does not explicitly cite an indication that the user plane node supports the QUIC handling instruction. In the same field of endeavor, Yu also teaches a network that supports QUIC and user planes; see paragraph 9 and 13, Yu. In particular, Yu teaches an indication that a terminal or a user plane function network element supports at least one QUIC capability; see paragraph 343, Yu. Using indication information allows the terminal and the network side to use the same access technology when sending service flows; see end of paragraph 13, Yu. Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Yu with those of Sarker, to improve network efficiency. With regards to claims 2 and 8, Sarker teaches through Yu, the wireless communication method wherein the QUIC handling instruction comprises at least one of a QUIC traffic detection indication, or a QUIC traffic reporting indication, wherein the QUIC traffic detection indication indicates to the user plane node that a QUIC traffic detection is required, and wherein the QUIC traffic reporting indication instructs the user plane node to report a detection of a QUIC traffic (Sarker teaches support for traffic detection. In particular, Sarker teaches the UPF (user plane function/node) responding to the SMF (session management function/node) with a PFCP session modification response wherein, a successful response implies (indication) the UPF has accepted the PDR (packet detection rules) rules; see paragraph 121, Sarker. PDR can have QUIC CID pool information; see paragraph 120, Sarker. In addition, PFCP session reporting is also supported; see paragraphs 123 and 127, Sarker). With regards to claims 3 and 9, Sarker teaches through Yu, the wireless communication method wherein the QUIC traffic handling support indication is received through a Packet Forwarding Control Protocol (PFCP) association setup request (Sarker teaches the UPF (user plane function/node) responding to the SMF (session management function/node) with a PFCP session modification response wherein, a successful response implies (indication) the UPF has accepted the PDR (packet detection rules) rules; see paragraph 121, Sarker. PDR can have QUIC CID pool information; see paragraph 120, Sarker). With regards to claim 4, Sarker teaches through Yu, the wireless communication method of any wherein the QUIC handling instruction is transmitted through a PFCP session establishment request (Sarker teaches PFCP session modification/establishment request; see paragraphs 41 and 120-121, Sarker). With regards to claims 7 and 38, Sarker teaches through Yu, a wireless communication method comprising: transmitting, by a user plane node to a session management node, a quick UDP Internet connection (QUIC) traffic handling support indication to notify the session management node that a QUIC handling instruction can be supported (see Yu below); receiving, by the user plane node from the session management node, the QUIC handling instruction (Sarker teaches the SMF (session management function/node) providing a successful response and modifying a PFCP session towards the UPF (user plane function/node); see paragraph 120, Sarker. The PFCP includes PDR with a field for QUIC CID; see paragraph 120, Sarker); and transmitting, by the user plane node to the session management node, a QUIC traffic report in response to the QUIC handling instruction (Sarker teaches the UPF responds back to the SMF with session modification response, successful response implying UPF has accepted the PDR rules; see paragraph 121, Sarker. The UPF then also triggers towards SMF, a PFCP Session Report Request to report volume for the YouTube application; see paragraph 123, Sarker). While Sarker teaches QUIC and user planes, Sarker does not explicitly cite an indication that the user plane node supports the QUIC handling instruction. In the same field of endeavor, Yu also teaches a network that supports QUIC and user planes; see paragraph 9 and 13, Yu. In particular, Yu teaches an indication that a terminal or a user plane function network element supports at least one QUIC capability; see paragraph 343, Yu. Using indication information allows the terminal and the network side to use the same access technology when sending service flows; see end of paragraph 13, Yu. Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Yu with those of Sarker, to improve network efficiency. With regards to claim 10, Sarker teaches through Yu, the wireless communication method wherein the QUIC traffic report is transmitted through setting a report type of the QUIC traffic report as QUIC traffic detection, and setting the QUIC traffic report to comprise QUIC traffic parameters (Sarker teaches support for traffic detection. In particular, Sarker teaches the UPF (user plane function/node) responding to the SMF (session management function/node) with a PFCP session modification response wherein, a successful response implies (indication) the UPF has accepted the PDR (packet detection rules) rules; see paragraph 121, Sarker. PDR can have QUIC CID pool information; see paragraph 120, Sarker. In addition, PFCP session reporting is also supported; see paragraphs 123 and 127, Sarker). With regards to claim 13, Sarker teaches through Yu, the wireless communication method further comprising: transmitting, by the user plane node to the session management node, a QUIC traffic handling support indication to notify the session management node that the QUIC handling instruction can be transmitted (Sarker teaches the UPF (user plane function/node) responding to the SMF (session management function/node) with a PFCP session modification response wherein, a successful response implies (indication) the UPF has accepted the PDR (packet detection rules) rules; see paragraph 121, Sarker. PDR can have QUIC CID pool information; see paragraph 120, Sarker). 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 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarker et al (US PGPub No: 2021/0345162) in view of Yu (US PGPub No: 2021/0168905), and in further view of Hart et al (US Patent No: 11,706,135), hereafter referred to as Sarker, Yu, and Hart, respectively. With regards to claim 5, Sarker teaches through Yu and Hart, the wireless communication method further comprising: receiving, by the session management node from the user plane node, a QUIC detection report comprising QUIC traffic parameters comprising at least one of: a transport protocol type setting to QUIC, an Internet Protocol (IP) address and a port number of a user equipment for a QUIC connection, a QUIC connection identification used by the user equipment, an IP address and a port number of a remote server for the QUIC connection, or a QUIC connection identification used by the remote server; and transmitting, by the session management node to the user plane node, a request to update Packet Forward Control Protocol (PFCP) rules according to the QUIC traffic parameters While Sarker and Yu teach detecting and reporting on QUIC traffic, neither explicitly cite setting parameters such as IP address and port numbers. In the same field of endeavor, Hart also teaches a network that supports QUIC and provides reporting flow identification based on QUIC connection id; see column 4, lines 46-54, Hart. In particular, Hart explains how maintaining topology information including ingress/egress IP addresses and port numbers for each device within a plane; see column 4, lines 15-35, Hart. The detection and reporting is set by command parameters; see column 28, lines 35-43, Hart. Tracking and reporting network information pertaining to network devices helps improve efficiency and scalability in networks; see column 2, lines 46-51, Hart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Hart with those of Sarker and Yu, to improve network efficiency and scalability; see column 2, lines 46-51, Hart. With regards to claim 11, Sarker teaches through Yu and Hart, the wireless communication method wherein the QUIC traffic report comprises QUIC traffic parameters comprising at least one of: a transport protocol type setting to QUIC, an Internet Protocol (IP) address and a port number of a user equipment for a QUIC connection, a QUIC connection identification used by the user equipment, a IP address and a port number of a remote server for the QUIC connection, or a QUIC connection identification used by the remote server, and the wireless communication method further comprises: receiving, by the user plane node from the session management node, a request to update Packet Forward Control Protocol (PFCP) rules according to the QUIC traffic parameters While Sarker and Yu teach detecting and reporting on QUIC traffic, neither explicitly cite setting parameters such as IP address and port numbers. In the same field of endeavor, Hart also teaches a network that supports QUIC and provides reporting flow identification based on QUIC connection id; see column 4, lines 46-54, Hart. In particular, Hart explains how maintaining topology information including ingress/egress IP addresses and port numbers for each device within a plane; see column 4, lines 15-35, Hart. The detection and reporting is set by command parameters; see column 28, lines 35-43, Hart. Tracking and reporting network information pertaining to network devices helps improve efficiency and scalability in networks; see column 2, lines 46-51, Hart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Hart with those of Sarker and Yu, to improve network efficiency and scalability; see column 2, lines 46-51, Hart. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The principle argument focuses on the newly amended claim limitation of, “…the QUIC traffic handling support indication indicates to the session management node that a QUIC handling instruction can be supported by the user plane node.” In light of this latest claim amendment, an updated search has been performed and the newly found Yu prior art has been applied in the updated rejections. Yu teaches an indication that a terminal or a user plane function network element supports at least one QUIC capability; see paragraph 343, Yu. Using indication information allows the terminal and the network side to use the same access technology when sending service flows; see end of paragraph 13, Yu. As such, the newly amended claims continue to stand rejected. 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 AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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. /AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603792
Systems and Methods for Enforcing Compliance or Private Transactions
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598461
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR CONNECTING A VEHICLE TO A WIRELESS LOCAL NETWORK OF A WORKSHOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587384
Method and Apparatus for Tracking the Creative Process
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580778
TRACEABILITY AND OBSERVABILITY FOR DISTRIBUTED APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580810
COMMISSIONING AND CONTROLLING LOAD CONTROL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+13.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 668 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month