DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been examined.
There are no new, nor canceled claims.
Applicant’s prior-art arguments are respectfully found to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, this Office action is made FINAL.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with arguments, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to the objection to Claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claims 1 and 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2); and the rejection of Claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2); and the rejection of Claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been maintained.
Applicant argues: “In claim 1 of the present application, the first network (e.g., an overlay network) refers to a private network, and the second network (e.g., an underlay network) refers to a public network.” However, no such definition is provided in Claim 1. Instead, Claim 1 merely recites “a method of accessing a first network through a second network”, not that “the first network (e.g., an overlay network) refers to a private network, and the second network (e.g., an underlay network) refers to a public network”, as argued. Reno et al. disclose handling of local enforcement to apply QoS service level agreements (SLAs) between networks - ¶¶ [0065, 0079-0080, 0118]. Enforcement of the SLA on both sides of the two-network communication necessarily includes parameter mapping such that both sides are able to determine they are in compliance with the terms {parameters} of the SLA.
Applicant argues: “That is, in Reno, the overlay network is a logical virtual network built on top of a physical or IP-based underlay network. Reno does not disclose or suggest a connection procedure between heterogeneous networks.” Claim 1 has no requirement for distinguishing the first and second networks as heterogeneous.
Applicant argues: “Reno does not disclose or suggest "performing QoS parameter mapping based on a service level agreement (SLA) between the first network and the second network." {emphasis added by Applicant} However, Reno et al. disclose handling of local enforcement to apply QoS service level agreements (SLAs) between networks - ¶¶ [0065, 0079-0080, 0118]. Enforcement of the SLA on both sides of the two-network communication necessarily includes parameter mapping such that both sides are able to determine they are in compliance with the terms {parameters} of the SLA.
To advance prosecution, Examiner recommends amending the claims to support arguments made but not claimed, provided that support can be found in the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0359451 A1 (Reno et al.).
As to Claim 1, Reno et al. anticipate a method (Reno et al. - ¶ [0026]) of accessing a first network through a second network, the method comprising:
performing QoS (quality of service) parameter mapping based on a service level agreement (SLA) between the first network and the second network (Reno et al. disclose handling of local enforcement to apply QoS service level agreements (SLAs) between networks - ¶¶ [0065, 0079-0080, 0118]. Enforcement of the SLA on both sides of the two-network communication necessarily includes parameter mapping such that both sides are able to determine they are in compliance with the terms {parameters} of the SLA); and
establishing a PDU (protocol data unit) session in the first network via user plane connectivity in the second network (Reno et al. disclose UPF facilitation of interaction with external data networks via PDU sessions with authorization / authentication - ¶¶ [0079-0080]).
As to Claim 2, Reno et al. anticipate the method of claim 1,
wherein the first network includes an overlay network, and the second network includes an underlay network (Reno et al. disclose the overlay/underlay embodiment - ¶ [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0359451 A1 (Reno et al.), in view of US 2021/0058784 A1 (Kedalagudde et al.).
As to Claim 3, Reno et al. anticipate the method of claim 1.
Reno et al. do not disclose wherein the SLA includes a mapping between differentiated service code point (DSCP) value of IPsec child SAs (internet protocol security child security associations) and QoS requirements of the first network. However, Kedalagudde et al. disclose.
wherein the SLA includes a mapping between between [sic] differentiated service code point (DSCP) value of IPsec child SAs (internet protocol security child security associations) and QoS requirements of the first network (Kedalagudde et al. disclose mapping between differentiated service code point (DSCP) value of IPsec child SAs and QoS requirements of the first network - ¶¶ [0038-0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine wherein the SLA includes a mapping between differentiated service code point (DSCP) value of IPsec child SAs (internet protocol security child security associations) and QoS requirements of the first network, taught by Kedalagudde et al., with the SLA, taught by Reno et al., in order to accommodate devices using differing wireless technologies.
As to Claim 4, Reno et al. anticipate the method of claim 1.
Reno et al. do not disclose wherein the SLA includes an IP address of a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) in the first network. However, Kedalagudde et al. disclose
wherein the SLA includes an IP address of a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) in the first network (Kedalagudde et al. - ¶ [0039]).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 3,
As to Claim 5, the combination of Reno et al. and Kedalagudde et al. discloses the method of claim 4,
wherein the SLA further includes differentiated service code point (DSCP) value of IPsec child SAs (internet protocol security child security associations) for first network (Kedalagudde et al. - ¶ [0039]).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 3,
As to Claim 6, the combination of Reno et al. and Kedalagudde et al. discloses the method of claim 5,
wherein traffic of the first network between a terminal and N3IWF using the specific DSCP marking is detected by an UPF (user plane function) in the second network (Kedalagudde et al. - ¶ [0038]).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 3,
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444