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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 09/27/2024.
The claims 1-53 have been canceled by the applicant.
The claims 54-71 have been newly added by the applicant.
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.
Claims 54-55, 59-63, 65 and 68-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200404107).
Regarding claim 61 Cheng disclose, a method performed by a first network node for provisioning a User Equipment, UE, policy in a communications network, the method comprising:
transmitting to a UE or a second network node the UE policy via extended protocol configuration options, ePCO, wherein the UE policy is included in a UE policy container para. 42, “obtaining the UE policy from the PCF, and transmitting the UE policy to the UE”… “The contents of the message may be the UE Policy Container” para. 69.
Regarding claim 62 Cheng disclose, further comprising:
receiving from the UE or the second network node via ePCO a UE policy container including a response to the provisioning of the UE policy para. 169, “receiving the UE policy container with the UE policy from the AMF”.
Regarding claim 63 Cheng disclose, wherein the UE policy container is included in a Session Management, SM, Policy Association Modification message para. 169, “forwarding the UE policy container with the UE policy to the UE via a downlink (DL) non-access stratum (NAS) transport message”.
Regarding claim 65 Cheng disclose, wherein the UE policy container is included in a Session Management, SM, Policy Association Establishment message para. 77, “The SMF (session management function) + PGW - C may forward the UE Policy Container to the PCF over an N7 interface when interacting with the PCF”.
Regarding claim 68 Cheng disclose, wherein the UE policy is any one of a User Route Selection Policy, URSP, Vehicle-to-Everything Policy, V2XP, Proximity Services Policy, ProseP, and Access Network Discovery and Selection Policy, ANDSP para. 61, “A 5G system allows control-plane provisioning of configuration of UE Policy (i.e., via a policy control function (PCF)), as described in TS23.502 and TS23.503, for Access Network Discovery & Selection Policy (ANDSP)”.
Regarding claim 69 Cheng disclose, wherein the first network node or the second network node is a Policy Control Function, PCF, a Session Management Function, SMF, or a Session Management Function + PDN Gateway, SMF+PGW para. 87, “the UE Policies may be returned from the PCF via SMF+PGW-C to the MME using PCO, which will be forwarded to the UE”.
Regarding claim 54 the limitations of claim 54 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 61.
Regarding claims 56, 59 and 60 the limitations of claims 56, 59 and 60, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 62, 68 and 69, respectively.
Regarding claim 70 Cheng disclose, a apparatus for provisioning a User Equipment, UE read as: “UE 120”, policy in a communications network, the apparatus comprising: a processor read as: “controllers/processors 280”; and a memory read as: “memory 282”. Furthermore claim 70, recites an apparatus performing functions corresponding to the method of claim 61 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 61.
Regarding claim 71 the limitations of claim 71 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 70.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 56, 57, 64 and 66 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200404107) in view of Talebi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220046731).
Regarding claim 64 Cheng does not specifically disclose, wherein the UE policy container received at the first network node includes a UPDP UE STATE INDICATION message with the list of Policy Section Identifiers, PSIs, stored in the UE. However, Talebi teach, wherein the UE policy container received at the first network node includes a UPDP UE STATE INDICATION message with the list of Policy Section Identifiers, PSIs, stored in the UE para. 223, “the SMF 160 may send to the AMF 155 an N11 message 1060 e.g., a Nsmf_PDUSession _UpdateSMContext response (comprising: N1 SM container (PDU session ID, PDU session re-establishment indication), N2 SM information (PDU session ID”.
Cheng and Talebi are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing policy parameters and configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Talebi in the system of Cheng so the system can identify all the relevant parameters for establishing a session according to the configured policies. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the improvement of traffic efficiency.
Regarding claim 66 Cheng does not specifically disclose, wherein the UE policy is included or encoded in a UE Policy Delivery Protocol, UPDP, message. However, Talebi teach,wherein the UE policy is included or encoded in a UE Policy Delivery Protocol, UPDP, message para. 237, “The PCF 135 may provide updated policies by invoking a policy control update notification message 1115 (e.g., a Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify operation)”.
Cheng and Talebi are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing policy parameters and configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Talebi in the system of Cheng so the system can modify and update the previously configured policies. The motivation for doing so would have been to dinamically secure and perform real time control on the network.
Regarding claims 56 and 57 the limitations of claims 56 and 57, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 64 and 66, respectively.
Claim(s) 56 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200404107) in view of Dahod et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090285225).
Regarding claim 67 Cheng does not specifically disclose, wherein the UE policy is transmitted to the UE by using the procedure of PDN Gateway initiated bearer modification without Quality of Service, QoS, update para. 23, “Gateway 412 can use the policy information to update or negotiate QoS with mobile node 410 in message 428”.
Cheng and Dahod are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to managing policy parameters and configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dahod in the system of Cheng to optimize the session management by reducing the complexity of a dedicate session interchange. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the efficiency of the network processes.
Regarding claim 56 the limitations of claim 56 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 67.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Munoz de la Torre et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230370423) which disclose(s) mechanism for traffic detection in case of encrypted traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights