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 Remarks/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/836,974 last filed on February 02nd, 2026.
Claims 4, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 were amended.
Claims 16 and 17 were previously cancelled.
1-15 and 18-22 remain pending and have been examined, directed to METHODS FOR HANDLING PACKET FILTERS FOR INTERWORKING BETWEEN A SERVICE BASED ARCHITECTURE, SBA, NETWORK AND AN EVOLVED PACKET SYSTEM, EPS, NETWORK AS WELL AS CORRESPONDING DEVICES.
Upon further review of the latest claim amendments along with the applicant’s representative’s response, the examiner reviewed the applied references and respectfully disagrees.
The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, using Li in view of Du, and using independent claim 1 for discussion purposes, the applicant’s representative appears to have primarily argued that Li did not clearly teach about the last step directed to the concept of “precedence” as it relates to determining the order in which packet filters of a PCC rule are applied.
In response, the Examiner would contend that in following the steps in claim 1, the earlier steps before the last step already gets into the details about the preservation and the priority of which applicable packet filters need to be preserved. It would be unreasonable to argue that Li doesn’t teach or suggest of “precedence” when Li describes of the same concept in other terms, when the policy control response comes back with applicable PCC rules that pertains to which packet filters need to be persevered or prioritized. Li’s ¶ 61 was relevant and cited because it explained and connected how QoS rules are related to packet filters and their ordering, for which get preserved, “…Example information that may be included in a QoS Rule may include: QoS Rule Identifier (QFI), one or more packet filters and precedence values, and QoS parameters…” In other words, the QoS encompasses the packet filters that need to be preserved or prioritized. This concept is described sufficiently and mentioning it more than once is unnecessary and doesn’t change the fact that it’s still taught by Li here.
Additionally, the representative commented about the 103 obviousness nature of what is or what is not taught by Li and then repeated for Du. The representative should not have been viewing and interpreting Li and Du separately, to teach the entirety of the independent claim. In preserving the order of steps here, Li’s disclosure focused on SBA (or 5G) networks, but the concept of getting responses back in the policy control response back from the PCF, with any PCC rules regarding priority of the any packet filters, while satisfying QoS and PCC rules does not change. Du’s teachings can be inserted and applied, for the scenarios of working with or transitioning to an EPS (or 4G) network. Even in those situations, any responses back with any QoS and/or PCC rules and applicable packet filters that need to be preserved or prioritized are still occurring and applied, given Li’s teachings, in the policy control response back from the PCF. It is understood that some and possibly not all packet filters will be preserved, because of the change from 5G to 4G networks, but that doesn’t mean the concept of precedence or what’s prioritized is not taught or suggested. Du covered specifically scenarios with connections across both 5G and 4g networks (¶¶ 3 and 39) and then more specifically, ¶ 47 which covers the scenario when there’s a limit and certain filter rules need to be prioritized.
The other independent claims 8, 14, and 15 were similarly argued following claim 1 and thus were all similarly rejected under the same rationale.
The remaining dependent claims were not specifically argued at this time and the mentioning of packet filters for the PDU session of the UE for the SBA network, is covered in the respective independent claims 1 and 8, because again those are encompassed within the QoS rules, along with any packet filters that need to be prioritized or preserved for the PDU session.
Applicant's arguments were considered but they were not found persuasive. See the following claim rejections for further clarifications with added emphasis on the points previously disclosed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0357301 A1 to Li et al. (referred to hereafter as “Li”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0073796 A1 to Du et al. (referred to hereafter as “Du”).
As to claim 1, Li further discloses a method performed by a session management function, SMF, in a service based architecture, SBA, network for handling packet filters when the SBA network is interworking with an Evolved Packet System, EPS, network, the number of supported packet filters in the SBA network exceeding the number of supported packet filters in the EPS network, the method comprising the steps of:
transmitting, by the SMF to a Policy Control Function, PCF, in the SBA network, a policy control request in relation to a PDU session establishment of a User Equipment, UE, with the SBA network interworking with the EPS network (Li discloses of an overall similar system that deals with managing sessions of user equipment (UEs) or electronic devices (EDs) with similar SMF and PCF components. Li discloses within at least one (alternative) embodiment, that the SMF (In lieu (or instead) of the application function (AF)) can send request(s) to the PCF, where the request(s) are related to targeting specific PDU sessions of one or more UEs (e.g., ¶¶ 224, 71-74, and 185).
Additionally, while Li does not explicitly use the term “service based architecture (or SBA) network”, it is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that this is in reference to 5G networks. And Li is focused on managing the UE sessions in 5G networks as the UEs move around. In other words, the SMF’s/AF’s request to the PCF is effectively performed within a “SBA” or 5G network); and
receiving, by the SMF from the PCF, a policy control response, the policy control response comprising applicable Policy and Charging Control, PCC, rules comprising packet filters for the PDU session of the UE with the SBA network (Following the above previous step and interpretation(s), the SMF would get a PCF policy response back with applicable PCC rules regarding the PDU session, such as the UE IP address preservation, amongst other information. (e.g., Li: ¶¶ 224, and 86-89), and comprising at least one of:
preservation information indicating which applicable packet filters to preserve when the SBA network is interworking with the EPS network (Following the above previous step(s) and interpretation(s), once again, preservation of various QoS rules, which encompass packet filters are disclosed, (e.g., Li: ¶¶ 224, 86-89, and 61);
priority information indicating priority information of the applicable packet filters that is to be taken into account when determining which applicable packet filters to preserve when the SBA network is interworking with the EPS network (Only one of these factors needed to be addressed under the condition, but Li also disclosed about priority of the packets in terms of routing and traffic filtering, as the system manages the data packets, e.g., Li: ¶¶ 224, 44, 59, 74, and 91).
However, for either or both of these two steps, Li does not expressly disclose about scenarios that deal with connections to other networks outside of 5G related networks, meaning Li does not expressly disclose about scenarios related to communicating with EPS network(s) (which are 4G LTE).
Du more expressly discloses of an overall related system that deals with connections between both 5G networks and 4G LTE networks (e.g., Du: ¶¶ 3 and 39). More specifically, Du more expressly discloses of an embodiment that can re-order or prioritize certain filter rules within a multi-reorder queue (MRQ) table, when over a certain limit (e.g., Du: ¶ 47).
Based upon Du’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Du’s teachings within Li’s overall system and teachings because the resulting combined system would be able to determine/identify that packet filtering rules need to be prioritized more efficiently given the limited availability, and therefore increase the overall efficiency and benefits); and
precedence information determining the order in which packet filters of a PCC rule are applied (The request(s) regarding the PDU session(s) would contain various QoS rules, one or more packet filters and precedence values, traffic filters (regarding packets), etc., e.g., Li: ¶¶ 61, 74, and 91).
As to claim 2, Li further discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the preservation information is any of:
preservation information per applicable packet filter; and
preservation information per Policy and Charging Control, PCC, rule that is comprised by the policy control response, wherein each PCC rule comprises at least one of the applicable filters (Following claim 1, Li discloses about preservation of various elements, including PCC rules, which are related to various aspects of the UE’s PDU sessions, including any applicable filters, e.g., Li: ¶¶ 224, 86-89, and 61).
As to claim 3, Li further discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the priority information is any of:
priority information per applicable packet filter; and
reusing Policy and Charging Control, PCC, rule precedence, that is comprised by the policy control response, wherein each PCC rule comprises at least one of the applicable filters (Following claim 1, Li discloses the response back from the PCF would have PCC rules that relate to the PDU session(s), including various QoS rules and applicable filters, e.g., Li: ¶¶ 224, 86-99, and 61).
As to claim 4, Li further discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the method further comprises at least one of the steps of:
determining, by the SMF, that at least one of the applicable packet filters cannot be preserved due to the number of preserved packet filters exceeding the number of supported packet filters in the EPS network;
determining, by the SMF, that at least one of the applicable packet filters cannot be preserved due to the number of preserved packet filters exceeding a number of supported packet filters by the UE; and
determining, by the SMF, that at least one of the applicable packet filters cannot be preserved due to the number of preserved packet filters exceeding a number of supported packet filters in one or both the EPS network and by the UE, based on operator policy or implementation (Following claim 1, Li does not expressly disclose about scenarios that deal with connections to other networks outside of 5G related networks, meaning Li does not expressly disclose about scenarios related to communicating with EPS network(s) (which are 4G LTE) and does not focus on determining the number of packet filters to preserve when exceeding a supported number from either the UE or the EPS/4G LTE network.
Du more expressly discloses of an overall related system that deals with connections between both 5G networks and 4G LTE networks. More specifically, Du more expressly discloses within an embodiment that within a multi-reorder queue (MRQ) table, if the number of (updated) filter rules are over a threshold limit, then the filter rules with a lower priority are moved to a different/normal queue (e.g., Du: ¶ 47), meaning different filter rules are prioritized over others.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Du’s teachings within Li’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 8, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1, which covers the same process, from the other perspective of the PCF component.
As to claim 9, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 2.
As to claim 10, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 3.
As to claim 13, Li further discloses the method in accordance with claim 8, wherein the method comprises the step of:
determining, by the PCF, that the SBA network is interworking with the Evolved Packet System, EPS, network based on one or both of a Data Network Name, DNN, and a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information, S-NSSAI (The request itself would have the identifying information on the DNN, S-NSSAI and/or DNAI(s) (e.g., Li: ¶¶ 74, 79, 123, and 224).
Li however does not expressly disclose of about interworking with other different EPS/4G LTE networks.
Du more expressly discloses and covered the concept with respect to communicating across different 5G and 4G LTE networks, already established in claim 1 (e.g., Du: ¶¶ 3 and 39).
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Du’s teachings within Li’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 1.
As to claim 15, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 8, which is also covered in claim 1.
As to claim 18, Li further discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, further comprising, in the event of restrictions in the number of Traffic Flow Template, TFT, packet filters, determining an order to apply the PCC rules in allocating the TFT packet filters based on the order indicated in the preservation, priority and/or precedence information (The flow of packets are dictated by various QoS requirements and can be referred to as QoS Flow, identifiable with a given identifier QFI. And the QoS Flow deals with the queuing and prioritization of the packets (e.g., Li: ¶¶ 59 and 61). Depending on what rules or QoS or filters are needed, there are can changes to the QoS Flows as well, treated similarly like the packet filters).
As to claim 19, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 18.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 3.
As to claim 21, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0357301 A1 to Li in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0073796 A1 to Du and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0338105 A1 to Kopperla et al. (referred to hereafter as “Kopperla”).
As to claim 5, Li does not fully further disclose of the method in accordance with claim 4, wherein the method further comprises at least one of the steps of:
transmitting, by the SMF to the PCF, a policy update request comprising a failure code information indicating that the at least one of the applicable packet filters cannot be preserved due to the number of preserved packet filters exceeding the number of supported packet filters in the EPS network; and
transmitting, by the SMF to the PCF, a policy update request comprising a failure code information indicating that the at least one of the applicable packet filters cannot be applied due to the number of preserved packets filters exceeding a number of supported packet filters by the UE (Following claims 1 and 4, Li and Du both do not expressly further disclose of this concept related to sending back any failure notification back to the PCF.
Kopperla more expressly discloses of an overall related system that deals with connections between both 5G and 4G LTE networks as well. More specifically, Kopperla more expressly discloses within an embodiment that the PCF would get notifications related to a successful or failed execution of a UE related policy. The UE policies further encompass all the PCC rules, like the QoS details related to the establishment of the UE/PDU connection(s), and in some scenarios, the connection can fail and the PCF would be notified. Kopperla discloses about preservations as well (e.g., Kopperla: ¶¶ 3, 49-55 and 59-61, 66, 86 and Figs. 3 and 4A-B)
Based upon Kopperla’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Kopperla’s particular teachings, along with Du’s teachings, altogether within Li’s overall system and teachings, because the resulting combined system would be able to more efficiently identify the causes of any failed attempts at UE connections, across various networks).
As to claim 11, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 5 related to failure notification, with respect to at least the UE.
Claims 6, 7, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0357301 A1 to Li in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0073796 A1 to Du and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,388,141 B1 to Rupavatharam et al. (referred to hereafter as “Rupavatharam”).
As to claim 6, Li does not fully further disclose of the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the UE is further being handed over from the SBA network to the EPS network, wherein the method further comprises the step of:
marking, by the SMF, Policy and Charging Control, PCC, rules for which none or a plurality of its corresponding packets filters are to be preserved, as to be deactivated (Following claim 1, Li does not expressly further disclose about transitioning to a different EPS/4G LTE network, nor does Li disclose about this concept related to marking packet filtering rules that are to be deactivated.
Du more expressly discloses and covered the concept with respect to communicating across different 5G and 4G LTE networks, already established in claim 1, but Du also does not further expressly further disclose of this concept related to marking rules that are to be deactivated.
Rupavatharam more expressly discloses within an embodiment of the concept that an identification module can deactivate or remove any particular packet filter rule (e.g., Rupavatharam: col. 10, ll. 2-15), which would all be sent to the PCF in the resulting combined system.
Based upon Rupavatharam’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Rupavatharam’s particular teachings, along with Du’s teachings, altogether within Li’s overall system and teachings, because the resulting combined system would easily incorporate the same functionality that the identification module was carrying out, and have it performed by another component like the SMF, which is also carrying out functions, and this added functionality would allow the resulting system to more accurately detect the related session connections more efficiently.
As to claim 7, Li does not fully further disclose of the method in accordance with claim 6, wherein the method further comprises the step of:
transmitting, by the SMF to the PCF, a policy update request comprising identifications of packet filters not preserved after the handover from the SBA network to the EPS network (Following claim 1, and similar to claim 6, Li does not expressly further disclose about transitioning to a different EPS/4G LTE network, nor does Li disclose about this concept related to sending a request that identifies the packet filters that are not preserved.
Du more expressly discloses and covered the concept with respect to communicating across different 5G and 4G LTE networks, already established in claim 1, but Du also does not further expressly further disclose of this concept related to sending a request that identifies the packet filters that are not preserved.
Once again, Rupavatharam more expressly discloses that particular packet filters can be activated or deactivated, and those are identified (e.g., Rupavatharam: col. 10, ll. 2-15), which would all be sent to the PCF in the resulting combined system.
See the previously stated reasons for combining and incorporating Rupavatharam’s teachings, along with Du’s teachings, altogether within Li’s overall system and teachings).
As to claim 12, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 7.
As to claim 22, see the similar corresponding rejection of the same concepts in claim 6.
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 Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights