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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zia et al. (US 2024/0056955 A1, hereinafter “Zia”).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20, Zia discloses a network entity for wireless communications, comprising: a processing system configured to: establish, via a first radio access technology (RAT) (see para. 0076, non-cellular RAT), a secure tunnel between the network entity (see para. 0106, NX interface may be secured using transport layer security (TLS); para. 0114, tunnel between the UE and PDU session anchor (PSA)(e.g. the UPF) and a user plane function (UPF) (see Figure 4, UPF 450) of a core network (see para. 0076, Figure 4, core network 405)associated with a second RAT that is different from the first RAT (see para. 0076, cellular RAT); perform, via the secure tunnel, an authentication and key establishment procedure with the UPF to obtain a key (see para. 0097, secure tunnel establishment with key exchange IKE); establish one or more protocol data unit (PDU) sessions with the UPF (see Figure 7A-7B; para. 0101, UPF communicates with …the UE via the non-integrated IP network over NX interface; para. 0102, enables a non-integrated (NIA) PDU session in which downlink and/or uplink user plane is steered, switched, and /or split across the 3GPP access via the N3 interface and/or the non-the non-integrated IP network via the NX interface); and communicate, using the key, data communications with the core network via the UPF and via the one or more PDU sessions (see Figure 7, communication path between UE and data network via IP-network, UPF, and established PDU sessions).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Zia discloses wherein, to encapsulate the data communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate, based on support for functionality associated with the one or more PDU sessions, at least one data communication of the data communications, wherein the functionality includes a steering functionality, a switching functionality, or a splitting functionality (see para. 0097, encapsulate/decapsulate packets; para. 0093, and 0102, NIA PDU session in which downlink and/or uplink user plane traffic is steered, switched, and/or split across the 3GPP access via the N3 interface and/or the non-integrated IP network via the NX interface) .
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Zia discloses wherein, to encapsulate the data communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate the data communications using a type of encapsulation, wherein the type of encapsulation includes either a multi-path-quick user datagram protocol (UDP) internet communication (MPQUIC)-based encapsulation or a multi-path transport control protocol (MPTCP)-based encapsulation (see para. 0093, 0097, 0102, 0104-0108, MPQUIC and MPTCP).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Zia discloses wherein, to encapsulate the data communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate the data communications using a type of encapsulation, wherein the type of encapsulation includes either a multi-path-quick user datagram protocol (UDP) internet communication (MPQUIC)-based encapsulation or a multi-path transport control protocol (MPTCP)-based encapsulation, and wherein the data communication comprise internet protocol (IP)-based communications using either the MPQUIC-based comprise internet protocol (IP)-based communications using either the MPQUIC-based encapsulation or the MPTCP-based encapsulation (see para. 0093, 0097, 0102, 0104-0108, MPQUIC and MPTCP)
Regarding claim 5, Zia discloses wherein the processing system is configured to: encapsulate, based on non-support for a functionality associated with the one or more PDU sessions, at least one data communication of the data communications, wherein the functionality includes a steering functionality, a switching functionality, or a splitting functionality (see para. 0093,, 0098, 0100,0104, 0107, 0110, 0118, steering, switching and splitting functionalities).
Regarding claim 8, wherein, to encapsulate the data communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate the data communications using a type of encapsulation, wherein the type of encapsulation includes an internet protocol (IP) header-level encapsulation, and wherein the data communications comprise internet messaging service (IMS) or voice-over WiFi communications (see para. 0097).
Regarding claim 9, Zia discloses wherein, to encapsulate the data
communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate the data
communications using a type of encapsulation, and wherein the type of encapsulation
excludes a multi-path-quick user datagram protocol (UDP) internet communication
(MPQUIC)-based encapsulation and a multi-path transport control protocol (MPTCP)-based encapsulation. (see para. 0093, 0097, 0102, 0104-0108, MPQUIC and MPTCP)
Regarding claim 11, Zia discloses wherein the first RAT comprises a non-cellular RAT and the second RAT comprises a cellular RAT (see para. 0076).
Regarding claim 12, Zia discloses wherein the secure tunnel is associated with a non-integrated non-third generation partnership project (3GPP) access PDU session management procedure (see para. 0076).
Regarding claim 13, Zia discloses wherein, to establish the secure tunnel, the processing system is configured to establish the secure tunnel using a type of protocol, and wherein the type of protocol includes a transport control protocol (TCP)- transport layer security (TLS) protocol (see para. 0106).
Regarding claim 14, Zia discloses wherein the processing system is configured to: terminate a TCP-TLS session established using the TCP-TLS protocol upon establishment of the one or more PDU sessions (see para. 0106).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zia in view of Shah et al. (US 2006/0050696 A1, hereinafter “Shah”).
Regarding claim 6, Zia discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein, to encapsulate the data communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate the data communications using a type of encapsulation, and wherein the type of encapsulation includes a point-to-point (PTP)-vendor specific network protocol (VSNP) internet protocol (IP) header-level encapsulation. However, Shah from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein, to encapsulate the data communications, the processing system is configured to encapsulate the data communications using a type of encapsulation, and wherein the type of encapsulation includes a point-to-point (PTP)-vendor specific network protocol (VSNP) internet protocol (IP) header-level encapsulation (see para. 0025, claims 6 and 8, VSNCP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include VSNCP scheme of Shah into Zia transmission scheme. The method can be implemented in an IP header. The motivation of doing this is to establish secure tunnel.
Regarding claim 7, Zia discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein one or more fields associated with a PTP-VSNP IP header used in the PTP-VSNP IP header-level encapsulation indicate at least one of a PDU session identifier, a data network name (DNN), or identify the one or more PDU sessions. However, Shah from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein one or more fields associated with a PTP-VSNP IP header used in the PTP-VSNP IP header-level encapsulation indicate at least one of a PDU session identifier, a data network name (DNN), or identify the one or more PDU sessions (see para. 0025, claims 6 and 8, VSNCP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include VSNCP scheme of Shah into Zia transmission scheme. The method can be implemented in an IP header. The motivation of doing this is to establish secure tunnel.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zia in view of Abdo et al. (US 2004/0052257 A1, hereinafter “Abdo”).
Regarding claim 10, Zia discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein, to establish the secure tunnel, the processing system is configured to establish the secure tunnel using a point- to-point-link control protocol (PTP-LCP). However, Abdo from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein, to establish the secure tunnel, the processing system is configured to establish the secure tunnel using a point- to-point-link control protocol (PTP-LCP) (see para. 0065-0067, PPP link control protocol negotiation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Abdo tunnel scheme into Zia tunnel scheme. The method can be implemented in packet. The motivation of doing this is to provide secure communication.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zia in view of Hoffmann et al. (US 2024/0414120 A1, hereinafter “Hoffmann”).
Regarding claim 15, Zia discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the one or more PDU sessions are in accordance with a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) discover message, wherein the DHCP discover message identifies a data network name (DNN), and wherein the DHCP discover message identifies the one or more PDU sessions. However, Hoffmann from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the one or more PDU sessions are in accordance with a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) discover message, wherein the DHCP discover message identifies a data network name (DNN), and wherein the DHCP discover message identifies the one or more PDU sessions (see para. 0321, DHCP discover message). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Hoffmann DHCP scheme into Zia transmission scheme. The method can be implemented in a message. The motivation of doing this is to establish PDU session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights