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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 1/6/2025.
Claim Status
2. Claims 9-16 and 19-20 have currently been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission 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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or being significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims recite the limitations “identify a first user plane security indication …;” “identify a second user plane security indication …;” “generate… a first security configuration…;” “generate… a second security configuration…;” “decode a first packet received from the UE…;” and “decode a second packet received from the UE…”. Broadly interpreted, the aforementioned steps are directed to mental processes as said steps could be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Said abstract ideas and/or judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as the claim does not recite any other active steps that could be considered that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application. The claimed limitations are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being interpreted into a practical application. Said operations are recited at a high level of generality in identifying/generating/decoding information, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations of identifying/generating/decoding information may be performed by a combination of mental processes (as said steps could be performed in the human mind) and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04; See also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd, wherein the Federal Circuit held that the patent's claims were directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data
It’s also noted that the claims recite additional limitation/elements (i.e., apparatus processing circuitry, storage, storage medium, etc.,). However, said additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception or abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements/limitations/embodiments that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional elements, said elements taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. As discussed above, the additional elements recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-7, 10-15, and claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims recite an abstract idea and the claims do not positively recite any other operations that could be considered as the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. It’s noted that claims 2-7, 10-15, and claims 18-20 also recite the limitations: “generate…a first rule …;” “generate…a first rule …;” “wherein the first security configuration is generated by a session management function…;” “wherein the second security configuration is generated by the SMF…;” “wherein the first user plane security indication and the second user plane security indication are received from the application function…” “’determine… that the first QoS flow is to be generated;” “determine… the second QoS flow is to be generated;” “identify…” “identify…a first QoS flow setup request received from the SMF’;” and “identify… the second QoS flow setup request”. Said steps are either directed to mental processes and/or in a form of insignificant extra-solution activities; The aforementioned steps are not sufficient to consider that the abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-7, 10-15, and claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 2021/0168151) in view of Cheng et al (CN 112970217 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sun et al teaches an apparatus of a network device for quality of service (QOS)-level security configuration in a packet data unit (PDU) session (par [0049], lines 1-10, “QoS flow in one PDU session”), the apparatus comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage for storing information associated with the QoS-level security configuration (par [0026], “QoS flow binding based on the user plane security attribute requirement”), the processing circuitry configured to:
identify a first user plane security indication received from an application function of a wireless network (par [0010], lines 1-5, “user plane security indication information of the application”);
identify a second user plane security indication received from the application function (par [0086], lines 1-5, “user plane security indication is added in this embodiment of this application”);
generate, based on the first user plane security indication, a first security configuration for a first QoS flow of a PDU session between a user equipment device (UE) and the wireless network (fig. 1-2, par [0012], par [0028-0029], and par [0068], which disclose a user plane security parameter being determined based on the user plane security indication and performing QoS binding, during a wireless PDU session establishment request issued by a terminal); and
generate, based on the second user plane security indication, a second security configuration for a second QoS flow of the PDU session (par [0028], lines 7-8 & par [0125], which disclose establishing a second QoS flow I the same PDU session corresponding to separate user plane security parameters), the first security configuration different than the second security configuration (par [0125], “different user plane security parameters”).
Sun et al does not explicitly teach decoding a first packet received, from the UE, in the first QoS flow using the first security configuration; and decoding a second packet received, from the UE, in the second QoS flow using the second security configuration.
However, Cheng et al teaches decoding a first packet received, from the UE, in the first QoS flow using the first security configuration (pg. 40, lines 23-36 & pg. 42, lines 24-42, which disclose decoding a received first message based on a first QoS requirement and a first configuration indicator); and
decoding a second packet received, from the UE, in the second QoS flow using the second security configuration (pg. 40, lines 23-36 & pg. 43, lines 1-20, which disclose decoding a received second message based on a second QoS requirement and a second configuration indicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Cheng et al within the disclosure of Sun et al in order to provide the predictive result of improve quality of service in a message transmission environment by appending QoS and reliability requirements for each message using a preset transmission scheme (as disclosed in pg. 17, lines 10-25 of Cheng et al) because this feature would provide Sun et al with improved individual session management when ensuring that each transmitted message satisfies each QoS requirement appended to each message.
Regarding claim 2, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate, by a policy control function (PCF) of the wireless network (Abstract, “a PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute”), a first rule comprising an indication of the first user plane security indication (Abstract, “PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute requirement of the application to a PCC rule”); and
generate, by the PCF, a second rule comprising an indication of the second user plane security indication (par [0085], “URSP rules”),
wherein the first security configuration is generated by a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network based on the first rule (Abstract & par [0024], lines 1-6, “PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute requirement of the application to a PCC rule and sends the PCC rule to an SMF, so that the SMF performs QoS flow binding” & “session registration information sent by the SMF includes the user plane security parameter”), and
wherein the second security configuration is generated by the SMF based on the second rule (par [0125] & par [0173], “different user plane security parameters”).
Regarding claim 4, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the first user plane security indication comprises a first description of the first QoS flow (par [0028], lines 1-3, “SMF binds the SDF of the application to the first QoS flow”), and wherein the second user plane security indication comprises a second description of the second QoS flow (par [0028], lines 4-8, “the second QoS flow conforms to the user plane security parameter”).
Regarding claim 5, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the first user plane security indication and the second user plane security indication are received, from the application function, by a network exposure function (NEF) of the wireless network (par [0075], which disclose an application function interacting with a NEF), and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
identify, by a PCF of the wireless network, the first user plane security indication and the second user plane security indication received from the NEF (par [0075-0076], which disclose NEF being used for disclose services and capabilities).
Regarding claim 6, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, by a SMF of the wireless network, based on the first user plane security indication, that the first QoS flow is to be generated (par [0028], lines 1-3, “first QoS flow that conforms to the user plane security parameter”); and
determine, by the SMF, based on the second user plane security indication, the second QoS flow is to be generated (par [0028], “establish a second QoS flow”).
Regarding claim 7, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by a radio access network (RAN) of the wireless network (par [0049], lines 6-8), a first QoS flow setup request received from the SMF via an application management function (AMF) of the wireless network (par [0049-0053]), the first QoS flow setup request comprising the first user plane security indication (par [0049-0054], “information includes a user plane security policy”); and
identify, by the RAN, a second QoS flow setup request received from the SMF via the AMF (par [0049-0055], “one or more QoS flows”), the second QoS flow setup request comprising the second user plane security indication (par [0194], lines 8-9, “establish a second QoS flow”).
Regarding claim 8, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
establish, by the RAN, a first radio bearer for the first QoS flow based on the first QoS flow setup request (par [0049], lines 6-8, “one or more data radio bearers”); and
establish, by the RAN, a second radio bearer for the second QoS flow based on the second QoS flow setup request (par [0049], lines 6-8, “one DRB includes one ore more QoS flows”).
Regarding claim 9, Sun et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (par [0037]) comprising instructions to cause processing circuitry of a network device for quality of service (QOS)-level security configuration in a packet data unit (PDU) session (Abstract, “establish a PDU session…QoS flow”), upon execution of the instructions by the processing circuitry, to:
identify a first user plane security indication received from an application function of a wireless network (par [0010], lines 1-5, “user plane security indication information of the application”);
identify a second user plane security indication received from the application function (par [0086], lines 1-5, “user plane security indication is added in this embodiment of this application”);
generate, based on the first user plane security indication, a first security configuration for a first QoS flow of a PDU session between a user equipment device (UE) and the wireless network (fig. 1-2, par [0012], par [0028-0029], and par [0068], which disclose a user plane security parameter being determined based on the user plane security indication and performing QoS binding, during a wireless PDU session establishment request issued by a terminal); and
generate, based on the second user plane security indication, a second security configuration for a second QoS flow of the PDU session (par [0028], lines 7-8 & par [0125], which disclose establishing a second QoS flow I the same PDU session corresponding to separate user plane security parameters), the first security configuration different than the second security configuration (par [0125], “different user plane security parameters”).
Sun et al does not explicitly teach decoding a first packet received, from the UE, in the first QoS flow using the first security configuration; and decoding a second packet received, from the UE, in the second QoS flow using the second security configuration.
However, Cheng et al teaches decoding a first packet received, from the UE, in the first QoS flow using the first security configuration (pg. 40, lines 23-36 & pg. 42, lines 24-42, which disclose decoding a received first message based on a first QoS requirement and a first configuration indicator); and
decoding a second packet received, from the UE, in the second QoS flow using the second security configuration (pg. 40, lines 23-36 & pg. 43, lines 1-20, which disclose decoding a received second message based on a second QoS requirement and a second configuration indicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Cheng et al within the disclosure of Sun et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving quality of service in a message transmission environment by appending QoS and reliability requirements for each message using a preset transmission scheme (as disclosed in pg. 17, lines 10-25 of Cheng et al) because this feature would provide Sun et al with improved individual session management when ensuring that each transmitted message satisfies each QoS requirement appended to each message.
Regarding claim 10, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sun et al further teaches wherein execution of the instructions further causes the processing circuitry to:
generate, by a policy control function (PCF) of the wireless network (Abstract, “a PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute”), a first rule comprising an indication of the first user plane security indication (Abstract, “PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute requirement of the application to a PCC rule”); and
generate, by the PCF, a second rule comprising an indication of the second user plane security indication (par [0085], “URSP rules”),
wherein the first security configuration is generated by a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network based on the first rule (Abstract & par [0024], lines 1-6, “PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute requirement of the application to a PCC rule and sends the PCC rule to an SMF, so that the SMF performs QoS flow binding” & “session registration information sent by the SMF includes the user plane security parameter”), and
wherein the second security configuration is generated by the SMF based on the second rule (par [0125] & par [0173], “different user plane security parameters”).
Regarding claim 12, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the first user plane security indication comprises a first description of the first QoS flow (par [0028], lines 1-3, “SMF binds the SDF of the application to the first QoS flow”), and wherein the second user plane security indication comprises a second description of the second QoS flow (par [0028], lines 4-8, “the second QoS flow conforms to the user plane security parameter”).
Regarding claim 13, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the first user plane security indication and the second user plane security indication are received, from the application function, by a network exposure function (NEF) of the wireless network (par [0075], which disclose an application function interacting with a NEF), and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
identify, by a PCF of the wireless network, the first user plane security indication and the second user plane security indication received from the NEF (par [0075-0076], which disclose NEF being used for disclose services and capabilities).
Regarding claim 14, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, by a SMF of the wireless network, based on the first user plane security indication, that the first QoS flow is to be generated (par [0028], lines 1-3, “first QoS flow that conforms to the user plane security parameter”); and
determine, by the SMF, based on the second user plane security indication, the second QoS flow is to be generated (par [0028], “establish a second QoS flow”).
Regarding claim 15, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify, by a radio access network (RAN) of the wireless network (par [0049], lines 6-8), a first
QoS flow setup request received from the SMF via an application management function (AMF) of the wireless network (par [0049-0053]), the first QoS flow setup request comprising the first user plane security indication (par [0049-0054], “information includes a user plane security policy”); and
identify, by the RAN, a second QoS flow setup request received from the SMF via the AMF (par [0049-0055], “one or more QoS flows”), the second QoS flow setup request comprising the second user plane security indication (par [0194], lines 8-9, “establish a second QoS flow”).
Regarding claim 16, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sun et al further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
establish, by the RAN, a first radio bearer for the first QoS flow based on the first QoS flow setup request (par [0049], lines 6-8, “one or more data radio bearers”); and
establish, by the RAN, a second radio bearer for the second QoS flow based on the second QoS flow setup request (par [0049], lines 6-8, “one DRB includes one ore more QoS flows”).
Regarding claim 17, Sun et al teaches a method for quality of service (QOS)-level security configuration in a packet data unit (PDU) session (Abstract, “establish a PDU session…QoS flow”), the method comprising:
identify a first user plane security indication received from an application function of a wireless network (par [0010], lines 1-5, “user plane security indication information of the application”);
identify a second user plane security indication received from the application function (par [0086], lines 1-5, “user plane security indication is added in this embodiment of this application”);
generate, based on the first user plane security indication, a first security configuration for a first QoS flow of a PDU session between a user equipment device (UE) and the wireless network (fig. 1-2, par [0012], par [0028-0029], and par [0068], which disclose a user plane security parameter being determined based on the user plane security indication and performing QoS binding, during a wireless PDU session establishment request issued by a terminal); and
generate, based on the second user plane security indication, a second security configuration for a second QoS flow of the PDU session (par [0028], lines 7-8 & par [0125], which disclose establishing a second QoS flow I the same PDU session corresponding to separate user plane security parameters), the first security configuration different than the second security configuration (par [0125], “different user plane security parameters”).
Sun et al does not explicitly teach decoding a first packet received, from the UE, in the first QoS flow using the first security configuration; and decoding a second packet received, from the UE, in the second QoS flow using the second security configuration.
However, Cheng et al teaches decoding a first packet received, from the UE, in the first QoS flow using the first security configuration (pg. 40, lines 23-36 & pg. 42, lines 24-42, which disclose decoding a received first message based on a first QoS requirement and a first configuration indicator); and
decoding a second packet received, from the UE, in the second QoS flow using the second security configuration (pg. 40, lines 23-36 & pg. 43, lines 1-20, which disclose decoding a received second message based on a second QoS requirement and a second configuration indicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Cheng et al within the disclosure of Sun et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving quality of service in a message transmission environment by appending QoS and reliability requirements for each message using a preset transmission scheme (as disclosed in pg. 17, lines 10-25 of Cheng et al) because this feature would provide Sun et al with improved individual session management when ensuring that each transmitted message satisfies each QoS requirement appended to each message.
Regarding claim 18, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 17.
Sun et al further teaches wherein execution of the instructions further causes the processing circuitry to:
generate, by a policy control function (PCF) of the wireless network (Abstract, “a PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute”), a first rule comprising an indication of the first user plane security indication (Abstract, “PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute requirement of the application to a PCC rule”); and
generate, by the PCF, a second rule comprising an indication of the second user plane security indication (par [0085], “URSP rules”),
wherein the first security configuration is generated by a session management function (SMF) of the wireless network based on the first rule (Abstract & par [0024], lines 1-6, “PCF adds an obtained user plane security attribute requirement of the application to a PCC rule and sends the PCC rule to an SMF, so that the SMF performs QoS flow binding” & “session registration information sent by the SMF includes the user plane security parameter”), and
wherein the second security configuration is generated by the SMF based on the second rule (par [0125] & par [0173], “different user plane security parameters”).
Regarding claim 19, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 17.
Sun et al further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions to perform the method of claim 17 (par [0037], “computer-readable storage medium”).
Regarding claim 20, Sun et al and Cheng et al teach the limitations of claim 17.
Sun et al further teaches apparatus comprising means for performing the method of claim 17 (Abstract).
8. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 2021/0168151) in view of Cheng et al (CN 112970217 A), further in view of Wu et al (US 2021/0400490).
Regarding claim 3, Sun et al and Chang et al do not explicitly teach wherein the first security configuration comprises at least one of a cipher or an integrity protocol being active, and wherein the second security configuration comprises the at least one of the cipher or the integrity protocol being inactive.
However, Wu et al teaches wherein the first security configuration comprises at least one of a cipher or an integrity protocol being active (Abstract, “activate a user plane data integrity protection function”), and wherein the second security configuration comprises the at least one of the cipher or the integrity protocol being inactive (par [0433], lines 5-6, which discloses the user plane integrity protection function being in an inactive state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Wu et al within the disclosure of Sun et al and Chang et al in order to provide the predictive result of improve data transmission reliability by allowing negotiation between devices to determining whether or not to activate or deactivate user plane data integrity protection (as disclosed in par [0485] of Wu et al) because this feature would cause Sun et al and Chang et al to keep integrity protection consistent between network devices and reduce issues caused by device inconsistency.
Regarding claim 11, Sun et al and Chang et al do not explicitly teach wherein the first security configuration comprises at least one of a cipher or an integrity protocol being active, and wherein the second security configuration comprises the at least one of the cipher or the integrity protocol being inactive.
However, Wu et al teaches wherein the first security configuration comprises at least one of a cipher or an integrity protocol being active (Abstract, “activate a user plane data integrity protection function”), and wherein the second security configuration comprises the at least one of the cipher or the integrity protocol being inactive (par [0433], lines 5-6, which discloses the user plane integrity protection function being in an inactive state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Wu et al within the disclosure of Sun et al and Chang et al in order to provide the predictive result of improve data transmission reliability by allowing negotiation between devices to determining whether or not to activate or deactivate user plane data integrity protection (as disclosed in par [0485] of Wu et al) because this feature would cause Sun et al and Chang et al to keep integrity protection consistent between network devices and reduce issues caused by device inconsistency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260410
Prosecution Insights