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 is a reply to the application filed on 9/30/2024, in which, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024(2), 1/8/2025, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/16/2024 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim(s) 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,576 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-24 of the current application are anticipated by claims 1-30 of the parent application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-14 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0084657 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170367026 A1; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Lee discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first core network device, a packet data unit (PDU) session establishment request message, wherein the PDU session establishment request message comprises [a medium access control (MAC) address] for a wireless device (the SMF receiving request from the UE for a PDU session established request, one that includes RQ types that support by the UE [Lee; ¶71-73; fig. 3 and associated text]); and
sending, by the first core network device to a second core network device, an Ethernet packet filter set [comprising the MAC address] (the SMF send to the UPF a session establishment/modification request/response, which includes the QoS policy rule and a set of packet filters for applying the UL traffic [Lee; ¶78-80, 123, 155; fig. 3 and associated text]). Lee discloses applied to intelligent services based on the 5G communication technology and the IoT-related technology, such as smart home, smart building, smart city, smart car, connected car, health care, digital education, smart retail, security and safety services. Lee does not explicilty discloses wherein the PDU session establishment request message comprises a medium access control (MAC) address for a wireless device, and an Ethernet packet filter set comprising the MAC address; however, in a related and analogous art, Li teaches this feature.
In particular, Li teaches the PCF is configured to generate or determine policy rules to be applied to the user equipment (UEs) or protocol data unit (PDU) sessions, according to parameters which can include one or more of subscription data, application profiles, service profiles, application requests or other parameters as would be readily understood. In a network capability exposure framework, the PCF may provide an authorization functionality as noted above, wherein this authorization functionality can include verifying a request against a policy of an operator network. As a UE moves, a different caching function may be selected for the UE to reduce content delivery delay and delivery cost. A further example relates to critical communications, where UE mobility may result in a changing set of User Plane Gateways (UP-GW) (for providing parallel connections or multiple PDU sessions or multi-homing connections) together with one or multiple AS locations selected for the UE traffic in order to achieve a desired level of reliability and QoS. An UP landmark can be an identifier associated with an access location associated with a data network, which may be considered a data network access identifier (DNAI) or other identifier. The UP functions and AS locations may be specified using network addresses such as IP address, MAC address, or other type of addresses. In some embodiments, the request includes time intervals indicating when the requested UP path (re)selection should be applied. In some embodiments, the request includes AS relocation capability/possibility for the PDU session associated with the application. The request may include UE filter information that indicates the UE. It is noted that a universal UE attribute set may be pre-defined, for example, including subscriber ID, device type, MAC address, geographic location, remaining energy, etc. The UE filter may be defined with respect to UE attributes. It may additionally depend on intended application (address and port), traffic type, DSCP (i.e. differentiated services code point), etc. [Li; ¶52, 101-105, 122, 140-143; Fig. 5E, 6B, 10A and associated text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Li with the motivation to better discover the exposed network capabilities [Li; ¶56].
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Lee-Li combination discloses wherein the PDU session establishment request message further comprises at least one of: an Ethertype; a virtual local area network tag; or an Internet protocol packet filter set (QoS rules, filters and address [Lee; ¶71-73, 129-140; fig. 6 and associated text]).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Lee-Li combination discloses wherein the PDU session establishment request message comprises the Ethernet packet filter set (A set of packet filters for applying the UL traffic during selection of the QoS flow corresponding to the QoS rule [Lee; ¶123; fig. 5 and associated text]).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Lee-Li combination discloses further comprising receiving, by the first core network device from the second core network device, a message indicating establishment of a PDU session (step 322, SM response PDU session established accept [Lee; ¶81; fig. 3 and associated text]).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 21, Lee-Li combination discloses wherein the first core network device comprises a session management function, and wherein the second core network device comprises a user plane function (SMF and UPF communication [Lee; ¶80-81; fig. 3 and associated text]).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 22, Lee-Li combination discloses wherein the receiving the PDU session establishment request message comprises receiving the PDU session establishment request message from the wireless device via an access and mobility management function (the UE request PDU session to AMF at step 302 [Lee; ¶71; fig. 3 and associated text]).
Claim(s) 7-8, 15-16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Li combination in view of Li et al. (US 20180192390 A1; hereinafter Li II).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 23, Lee-Li combination does not explicilty discloses further comprising: receiving, by the first core network device from a policy control function, a policy and charging control (PCC) rule, wherein the PCC rule is based on the MAC address; however, in a related and analogous art, Li II teaches this feature.
In particular, Li II teaches the PCF provides the SMF with PCC rules that may contain application information (i.e. application identifier), and/or information about the DNAI(s) towards which the traffic routing should apply, and/or a list of traffic steering profile IDs, and/or spatial validity conditions, and/or information on AF subscription to SMF events. In embodiments where the N6 routing information associated to the application is explicitly provided in the AF request, the PCF may also provide the N6 routing information to the SMF as part of PCC rules. This is done by providing policies at PDU-CAN session set-up or by initiating a PDU-CAN Session Modification procedure. In some embodiments, the PCF periodically evaluates the temporal validity condition of the AF request and informs the SMF to activate or deactivate the corresponding PCC rules [Li II; ¶142]. The request may include UE filter information that indicates the UE for which the requested UP path (re)selection is applied. It is noted that a universal UE attribute set may be pre-defined, for example, including subscriber ID, device type, MAC address, geographic location, remaining energy, etc. The UE filter may be defined with respect to UE attributes. It may additionally depend on intended application (address and port), traffic type, DSCP (i.e. differentiated services code point), etc. [Li; ¶52, 101-105, 122, 140-143; Fig. 5E, 6B, 10A and associated text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee-Li combination in view of Li II to include the MAC address, along with the perimeters corresponding to the PCC rules with the motivation to easier initiating/modifying the PDU session procedure and periodically evaluates the temporal validity conditions [Li II; ¶142].
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 24, Lee-Li-Li II combination discloses further comprising sending, by the first core network device to the policy control function, a request for the PCC rule, wherein the request comprises the MAC address (The UP functions and AS locations may be specified using network addresses such as IP address, MAC address, or other type of addresses. In some embodiments, the request includes time intervals indicating when the requested UP path (re)selection should be applied. In some embodiments, the request includes AS relocation capability/possibility for the PDU session associated with the application. The request may include UE filter information that indicates the UE for which the requested UP path (re)selection is applied. It is noted that a universal UE attribute set may be pre-defined, for example, including subscriber ID, device type, MAC address, geographic location, remaining energy, etc. The UE filter may be defined with respect to UE attributes. It may additionally depend on intended application (address and port), traffic type, DSCP (i.e. differentiated services code point), etc. [Li; ¶52, 101-105, 122, 140-143; Fig. 5E, 6B, 10A and associated text]. The motivation to easier initiating/modifying the PDU session procedure and periodically evaluates the temporal validity conditions [Li II; ¶142].
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432