Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 11/06/2024. Claims 3, 7, 9, 15 and 22 have been amended. Claims 4, 8, 10, 16-17 and 23-35 have been cancelled. Claims 36-38 have been added as new claims. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-15, 18-22 and 36-38 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-15 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “receiving an Application Function (AF) session creation request message, wherein …” and “associating the AF session with the PDU session according to the first indication information”; claim 12 recites “sending an Application Function (AF) session creation request message to a Policy Control Function (PCF) through a Network Exposure Function (NEF), wherein …”, are directed to generic computer module interfacing. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “transmitting/receiving an Application Function (AF) session creation request message, wherein …” and “associating the AF session with the PDU session according to the first indication information” of claims 1 and 12, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (input and output between associated devices/services). That is, other than reciting “a PCF and a NEF”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1 and 12 only recite using “a PCF” to perform both the transmitting/receiving and associating steps. The PCF is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a PCF to perform the transmitting/receiving and associating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-15 and 36-37 do not recite limitations which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claims 1 and 12, respectively. Likewise, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-15, while reciting method claims, and claims 36-37, while reciting communication device claims, nevertheless are technically similar claims, therefore, also describe an abstract idea of transmitting, receiving and associating data. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 7, 11-12, 14-15, 18, 21 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiao et al. (US 2020/0213897 A1), hereinafter “Qiao”.
8. As to claim 1, Qiao teaches a method for implementing an extended reality service policy, applied to a Policy Control Function (PCF), and comprising:
receiving an Application Function (AF) session creation request message, wherein first indication information in the AF session creation request message is configured to indicate a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session associated with an AF session requested by the AF session creation request message (Abstract and [0401]: a PCF receives a first message from an application function AF. The first message comprises an always-on PDU session requested indication; an identity of a wireless device; and application service information); and
associating the AF session with the PDU session according to the first indication information (Abstract and [0401]: The PCF maps, based on the first message, the application/ service information to an always-on PDU session for the wireless device).
9. As to claim 2, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein associating the AF session with the PDU session according to the first indication information comprises: updating policy information of the PDU session according to the first indication information to associate the AF session with the PDU session ([0407]: The PCF may update one or more PCC rules applied to the always-on PDU session based on the application/service information received from the AF).
10. As to claim 3, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: sending a User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule table to a User Equipment (UE), wherein the URSP rule table comprises second indication information, and the second indication information is configured to indicate a corresponding Extended Reality and Media (XRM) service; and wherein the second indication information comprises at least one of: XRM service indication information; or application description information ([0332] and [0463]: based on the list of restricted services, the PCF may determine at least one restricted service for the always-on PDU session for the wireless device. The PCF may send a message comprising a URSP and/or the at least one restricted service to the wireless device via the AMF).
11. As to claim 7, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first indication information comprises at least one of:
Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) and a Data Network Name (DNN); or an Application ID, wherein the Application ID corresponds to the S-NSSAI and the DNN ([0280]: The SM Policy Association Establishment request message sent to the PCF may comprise at least one of the following information elements for the PDU session and/or the UE: …; an application identifier; and allocated application instance identifier; DNN, S-NSSAI(s) and/or network slice instance identifier(s), PDU session ID, user location information, or information of the SMF for the PDU session); and wherein the AF session creation request message comprises at least one of: an XRM service identifier; an XRM group identifier; a UE address or a UE identifier; an AF identifier; data flow description information; or a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter ([0280]: The SM Policy Association Establishment request message sent to the PCF may comprise at least one UE identity and/or at least one UE IP address for the UE).
12. As to claim 11, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the policy information comprises a Policy and Charging Control (PCC) rule and/or a QoS policy ([0346]: the policy control rule may be used for policy control, where the at least one QoS control rule may be used for QoS control and the at least one gating control rule may be used for gating control. The gating control rule may be used to discard packets that don’t match service data flow of the gating control rule and/or associated PCC rules).
13. As to claims 12, 14-15, 18 and 21 claims 12, 14-15, 18 and 21 are method claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1, 2 and 7 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
14. As to claims 36-38, claims 26-28 are corresponding communication device claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1, 12 and 18 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao, in view of Jagannatha et al. (US 10,986,568 B1), hereinafter “Jagannatha”.
17. As to claim 5, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 3, but does not explicitly teach “sending the URSP rule table to the UE through a UE configuration update process”.
In an analogous art, Jagannatha teaches “sending the URSP rule table to the UE through a UE configuration update process” (col. 6, line 4 – col. 7, line 9:: user device 105 may receive, updates to the second URSP table (e.g., updated information for the NSSAI included in the second URSP table … when the second network provides NSSAI and/or URSP information to the user device 105, the second network may utilize a policy control function (PCF) to send subscribed NSSAI and/or configured NSSAI in a non-access stratum (NAS) configuration update command to the user device 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qiao and Jagannatha to achieve the claimed invention to enable a user device to update the URSP table that includes network slice selection assistance information to determine how to route data from the user device to correct slices of a network depending on a service utilized by the user device (Jagannatha, col. 1, lines 46-50).
18. As to claim 6, Qiao-Jagannatha teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the method further comprises: updating the URSP rule table according to operator policy information, subscription information or capability information of the UE, and sending the updated URSP rule table to the UE (Jagannatha, col. 5, lines 28-55: the second URSP may include a file that includes NSSAI associated with the second network, a file that includes user equipment route selection policies associated with the second network, …; and col. 6, lines 43-51: when the second network provides NSSAI and/or URSP information to the user device 105, the second network may utilize a policy control function (PCF) to send subscribed NSSAI and/or configured NSSAI in a non-access stratum (NAS) configuration update command to the user device 105).
19. Claims 9, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao, in view of LIAO et al. (US 2022/0124469 A1).
20. As to claim 9, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the AF session creation request message is authorized by a Network Exposure Function (NEF); and wherein the method further comprises: generating a policy decision feedback message according to the AF session creation request message authorized by the NEF and sending the policy decision feedback message to the NEF”.
In an analogous art, LIAO teaches “wherein the AF session creation request message is authorized by a Network Exposure Function (NEF) ([0051]: the AF/LMPF 208 may request for UE policy update service authorization by sending a Nnef_UE_Policy_Update Request message to NEF 204); and wherein the method further comprises: generating a policy decision feedback message according to the AF session creation request message authorized by the NEF and sending the policy decision feedback message to the NEF” ([0054]: the PCF 210 may determine whether the request is allowed. If so, the PCF 210 may continue to create a list of UE policies based on the operator’s configured policies for each requested application ID and respond to NEF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qiao and LIAO to achieve the claimed invention to enable the AF to request for policy changes directly from a PCF, or indirectly via the NEF if the AF is not authorized to directly access the PCF ([0047]).
21. As to claims 13, 19-20, claims 13, 19-20 are method claims that recite similar limitations as of method claim 9 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; they are rejected under the same rationale.
22. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao, in view of Li et al. (US 2025/0030495 A1), hereinafter “Li”.
13. As to claim 22, Qiao teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein the AF session creation request message comprises at least one of: an Extended Reality and Media (XRM) service identifier; an XRM group identifier; a User Equipment (UE) address or a UE identifier; an AF identifier; data flow description information; or a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter ([0280]: The SM Policy Association Establishment request message sent to the PCF may comprise at least one UE identity and/or at least one UE IP address for the UE), but does not explicitly teach “creating a Time Sensitive Communication and Time Synchronization Function (TSCTSF) according to the AF identifier or the QoS parameter to communicate with the PCF”.
In an analogous art, Li teaches “creating a Time Sensitive Communication and Time Synchronization Function (TSCTSF) according to the AF identifier or the QoS parameter to communicate with the PCF” ([0176]: The SMF notifies the TSCTSF/TSN AF via the PCF of the received time synchronization status. For example, the SMF sends the time synchronization status by invoking an Npcf_SMPolicyControl_Update service operation towards the PCF and the PCF sends the time synchronization status by invoking an Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Notify service operation towards the TSCTSF/TSN AF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qiao and Li to achieve the claimed invention to allow the TSCTSF control the time synchronization services by controlling the NG-RAN to enable the 5G Access stratum time distribution and configuring the DS-TT and NW-TT when the 5GS is not integrated with a TSN network (Li, [0090]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
24. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
25. Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
26. As to claims 36-38, dependent claims 36-38 recite a different statutory category “a communication device” than independent base method claims 1, 12, and 18. A communication device of dependent claims 36-38 is NOT a product made by the base method claims 1, 12 and 18 and it can be made by a method other than that recited in the independent base method claims 1, 12 and 18. Also, claims 36-38 currently claim a communication device being used to execute the independent base method claims 1, 12 and 18, that does not further limit the independent base method claims 1, 12 and 18. Therefore, they would NOT be proper dependent claims of the independent base method claims 1, 12, and 18.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner respectfully suggests to amend (or rewrite) claim 36 to an independent claim (claims 37-38 can be amended similarly) as below:
36. (Currently amended) A communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory to cause the communication device to execute [[the method according to claim 1]]a method comprising:
receiving an Application Function (AF) session creation request message, wherein first indication information in the AF session creation request message is configured to indicate a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session associated with an AF session requested by the AF session creation request message; and
associating the AF session with the PDU session according to the first indication information.
27. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
28. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
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 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441