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 .
Response to Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed 10/28/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are cancelled; claims 22-41 are new. Claims 22-41 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2024 and 11/22/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 27, 29, 32, 37, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “receiving, by a policy control function (PCF), application function (AF) request from an AF, the AF request includes…sending, by the PCF, the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF), the PCC rule is for” (line 5), which is not grammatically correct. Examiner suggests the amendment “receiving, by a policy control function (PCF), an application function (AF) request from an AF, wherein the AF request includes…sending, by the PCF, the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF), wherein the PCC rule is for”.
Claim 27 contains grammatical/typographical errors. Examiner suggests the amendment:
“the PCC rule includes at least one of:
information to identify [[the]] traffic for generating a packet detection rule (PDR),
N6 traffic routing requirements related to selected location of a data processing function (DPF) in the service function chain, wherein the N6 traffic routing requirements [[is]] are used for generating a forwarding action rule (FAR), or
the information on selective traffic steering for generating the PDR or the FAR.”
Claim 29 recites “receiving, by a session management function (SMF), PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF), the PCC rule is for” (line 2), which is not grammatically correct. Examiner suggests the amendment “receiving, by a session management function (SMF), a PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF), wherein the PCC rule is for”.
Claim 32 recites “receiving application function (AF) request from an AF, the AF request includes…sending the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF), the PCC rule is for” (line 8), which is not grammatically correct. Examiner suggests the amendment “receiving an application function (AF) request from an AF, wherein the AF request includes…sending the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF), wherein the PCC rule is for”.
Claim 37 contains grammatical/typographical errors. Examiner suggests the amendment:
“the PCC rule includes at least one of:
information to identify [[the]] traffic for generating a packet detection rule (PDR),
N6 traffic routing requirements related to selected location of a data processing function (DPF) in the service function chain, wherein the N6 traffic routing requirements [[is]] are used for generating a forwarding action rule (FAR), or
the information on selective traffic steering for generating the PDR or the FAR.”
Claim 39 recites “receiving PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF), the PCC rule is for” (line 5), which is not grammatically correct. Examiner suggests the amendment “receiving a PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF), wherein the PCC rule is for”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of U.S. Pat. 12,088,501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the instant claims is anticipated by the patented claims. For example, compare instant claim 22 with patented claim 1, and instant claim 29 with patented claims 26.
U.S. Pat. 12,088,501
App. No. 18/799,196
1. A method, comprising:
22. A method, comprising:
sending, by an application function (AF), an AF request to a policy control function (PCF), the AF request including information indicating that traffic is to be routed through a service function chain, the service function chain including one or more functions arranged in an order;
receiving, by a policy control function (PCF), application function (AF) request from an AF, the AF request includes information on selective traffic steering for a traffic;
generating, by the PCF, one or more policy and charging control (PCC) rules based on the AF request;
generating, by the PCF, PCC rule based on the AF request; and
sending, by the PCF, the one or more PCC rules to a session management function (SMF); and
enforcing, by the SMF, the one or more PCC rules on a protocol data unit (PDU) Session that is used to route the traffic and is served by the SMF.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the AF request further includes information on selective traffic steering that indicates that packets of the traffic should be selectively steered or routed to the service function chain, the method further comprising:
configuring, by the SMF, the at least one UPF to perform the selective traffic steering for the traffic in accordance with the information on the selective traffic steering.
sending, by the PCF, the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF), the PCC rule is for the SMF to configure a user plane function (UPF) to perform the selective traffic steering.
U.S. Pat. 12,088,501
App. No. 18/799,196
26. The method according to claim 22, wherein the method further comprises:
29. A method, comprising:
receiving, by the SMF, the PCC rule from the PCF;
receiving, by a session management function (SMF), PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF), the PCC rule is for the SMF to configure a user plane function (UPF) to perform selective traffic steering for a traffic; and
configuring, by the SMF, the UPF to perform the selective traffic steering for the traffic toward the service function chain based on the PCC rule.
configuring, by the SMF, the UPF to perform the selective traffic steering for the traffic toward the service function chain based on the PCC rule.
Instant claim 32 is parallel in scope to instant claim 22, and instant claim 39 is parallel in scope to instant claim 29. Accordingly, claims 32 and 39 are similarly anticipated by the patented claims. Furthermore, instant claims 23-28, 30-31, 33-38, and 40-41 are anticipated by the patented claims.
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 22-41 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.
Claim 22 recites the acronym "PCC", the full terminology of which is not defined in the claims. The term "PCC" therefore renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Claims 29, 32, and 39 similarly recite "PCC" and are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 23-28, 30, 31, 33-38, 40, and 41 are rejected as depending from claims 22, 29, 32, and 39, respectively, and under the same rationale.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the service function chain" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite a service function chain. Claims 27 and 28 are rejected as depending from claim 26 and under the same rationale.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the traffic for generating packet detection rule (PDR)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite “traffic for generating packet detection rule”. Claim 28 is rejected as depending from claim 27 and under the same rationale.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the service function chain" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite a service function chain. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected as depending from claim 29 and under the same rationale.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the service function chain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite a service function chain. Claims 37 and 38 are rejected as depending from claim 36 and under the same rationale.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the traffic for generating packet detection rule (PDR)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite “traffic for generating packet detection rule”. Claim 38 is rejected as depending from claim 37 and under the same rationale.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the service function chain" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite a service function chain. Claims 40 and 41 are rejected as depending from claim 39 and under the same rationale.
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)(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 22, 29-31, 32, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Puente Pestaña et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0247688), hereinafter Puente Pestaña.
Regarding claim 22, Puente Pestaña disclosed a method, comprising: receiving, by a policy control function (PCF), application function (AF) request from an AF, the AF request includes information on selective traffic steering for a traffic (AF providing wanted QoE, i.e., AF request including information, to NEF/PCF, ¶[0049], [0063]-[0064]);
generating, by the PCF, PCC rule based on the AF request (PCF generating PCC rules extended by, i.e., based on, the wanted QoE, i.e., AF request, ¶[0049]); and sending, by the PCF, the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF) (PCF installing, i.e., sending, the PCC rule in the SMF, ¶[0036], [0049], [0066]), the PCC rule is for the SMF to configure a user plane function (UPF) to perform the selective traffic steering (SMF translating traffic steering policy ID, i.e., information on selective traffic steering, to UPF routing configuration, ¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 29, Puente Pestaña disclosed a method, comprising: receiving, by a session management function (SMF), PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF) (PCF sending PCC rules to an SMF, ¶[0015]), the PCC rule is for the SMF to configure a user plane function (UPF) to perform selective traffic steering for a traffic (SMF translating traffic steering policy ID, i.e., information on selective traffic steering, to UPF routing configuration, ¶[0016]); and configuring, by the SMF, the UPF to perform the selective traffic steering for the traffic toward the service function chain based on the PCC rule (SMF configuring the UPF, ¶[0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 30, Puente Pestaña disclosed the method wherein: the PCC rule includes at least one of: information to identify the traffic for generating packet detection rule (PDR) (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]), N6 traffic routing requirements related to selected location of a data processing function (DPF) in the service function chain (claimed in the alternative), the N6 traffic routing requirements is used for generating forwarding action rule (FAR) (claimed in the alternative) or the information on selective traffic steering for generating the PDR or the FAR (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 31, Puente Pestaña disclosed the method wherein the configuring, by the SMF, the UPF to perform the selective traffic steering comprises: generating, by the SMF, based on the information in the PCC rule, one or more of: the PDR or the FAR (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]); and providing, by the SMF, the PDR or the FAR to the UPF (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 32, Puente Pestaña disclosed an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (processors, ¶[0081]) and at least one machine-readable medium storing executable instructions (memory storing instructions, ¶[0083]-[0084]) which when executed by the at least one processor configure the apparatus for: receiving application function (AF) request from an AF, the AF request includes information on selective traffic steering for a traffic (AF providing wanted QoE, i.e., AF request including information, to NEF/PCF, ¶[0049], [0063]-[0064]); generating PCC rule based on the AF request (PCF generating PCC rules extended by, i.e., based on, the wanted QoE, i.e., AF request, ¶[0049]); and sending the PCC rule to a session management function (SMF) (PCF installing, i.e., sending, the PCC rule in the SMF, ¶[0036], [0049], [0066]), the PCC rule is for the SMF to configure a user plane function (UPF) to perform the selective traffic steering (SMF translating traffic steering policy ID, i.e., information on selective traffic steering, to UPF routing configuration, ¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 39, Puente Pestaña disclosed an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (processors, ¶[0081]) and at least one machine-readable medium storing executable instructions (memory storing instructions, ¶[0083]-[0084]) which when executed by the at least one processor configure the apparatus for: receiving PCC rule from a policy control function (PCF) (PCF sending PCC rules to an SMF, ¶[0015]), the PCC rule is for the apparatus to configure a user plane function (UPF) to perform the selective traffic steering for a traffic (SMF translating traffic steering policy ID, i.e., information on selective traffic steering, to UPF routing configuration, ¶[0016]); and configuring the UPF to perform the selective traffic steering for the traffic toward the service function chain based on the PCC rule (SMF configuring the UPF, ¶[0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 40, Puente Pestaña disclosed the apparatus wherein: the PCC rule includes at least one of: information to identify the traffic for generating packet detection rule (PDR) (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]), N6 traffic routing requirements related to selected location of a data processing function (DPF) in the service function chain (claimed in the alternative), the N6 traffic routing requirements is used for generating forwarding action rule (FAR) (claimed in the alternative) or the information on selective traffic steering for generating the PDR or the FAR (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]).
Regarding claim 41, Puente Pestaña disclosed the apparatus wherein the configuring the UPF to perform the selective traffic steering comprises: generating based on the information in the PCC rule, one or more of: the PDR or the FAR (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]); and providing the PDR or the FAR to the UPF (SMF configuring PDRs and FARs in the UPF, ¶[0015]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441