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 .
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 1-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20190349810 A1) in view of Gibbs (US 20100124223 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13 Cho discloses:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; (paragraph [0191], “The apparatus shown in FIG. 18 can be a user equipment (UE) and/or eNB…” and paragraph [0192], “The apparatus may further include power management module (105), battery (155), display (115), keypad (120), SIM card (125), memory device (130)”)
and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories, at least one processor of the one or more processors configured to cause the UE to: (paragraph [0191], “The apparatus shown in FIG. 18 can be a user equipment (UE) and/or eNB…” and paragraph [0193], “The UE further comprises a processor (110) connected to the transceiver (135: receiver and transmitter).”)
transmit a request to establish a network session; (Paragraph [0094], “PDU session refers to association between the UE and a data network that provides a PDU connectivity service.” And paragraph [0097], “ It is provided at PDU session establishment to UE.” It is known in the art that the PDU session establishment is a UE initiated procedure in which the UE requests the network session.)
receive an indication of per-tuple … network whitelisting information associated with the network session; (paragraph [0096], “QoS rule refers to a set of information enabling the detection of a service data flow (e.g., IP flow) and defining its associated QoS parameters. It consists of NAS-level QoS profile (e.g., QoS characteristics, QoS marking) and packet filters. Three types of QoS rule are Default QoS Rule, Pre-authorised QoS rule and Reflective QoS rule.” And paragraph [0097], “Default QoS rule refers to a mandatory QoS rule per PDU Session. It is provided at PDU session establishment to UE.” And paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.” UE receives this QoS rule that has packet filter (the indication) when establishing the session.)
and selectively receive a … message in accordance with the per-tuple network … whitelisting information. (Paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.” The UE will only receive messages based on the QoS rule and packet filter.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Specifically regarding claim 13 Cho discloses:
(NOTE: the BS/NN and UE work together for this system to flow (and it’s also in Cho that the BS/NN sends and receives from the UE))
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (paragraph [0191], “The apparatus shown in FIG. 18 can be a user equipment (UE) and/or eNB…” and paragraph [0194], “The network further comprises a processor (110) connected to the transmitter and the receiver.”)
Regarding claim 2 Cho discloses:
the per-tuple network paging whitelisting information includes one or more of a filter identifier, a packet filter, an allowed page type, or an allowed packet type; (paragraph [0096], “QoS rule refers to a set of information enabling the detection of a service data flow (e.g., IP flow) and defining its associated QoS parameters. It consists of NAS-level QoS profile (e.g., QoS characteristics, QoS marking) and packet filters. Three types of QoS rule are Default QoS Rule, Pre-authorised QoS rule and Reflective QoS rule.” And paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.” IP 5 tuple (per tuple architecture) comes with the packet filter within the QoS rules.)
Regarding claim 3 Cho discloses:
the packet filter includes one or more of a source internet protocol (IP) address, a destination IP address, a source port, a destination port, or a protocol. (Paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.”)
Regarding claims 4 and 14 Cho discloses:
the request to establish the network session includes the per-tuple network … whitelisting information. (paragraph [0096], “QoS rule refers to a set of information enabling the detection of a service data flow (e.g., IP flow) and defining its associated QoS parameters. It consists of NAS-level QoS profile (e.g., QoS characteristics, QoS marking) and packet filters. Three types of QoS rule are Default QoS Rule, Pre-authorised QoS rule and Reflective QoS rule.” And paragraph [0097], “Default QoS rule refers to a mandatory QoS rule per PDU Session. It is provided at PDU session establishment to UE.”)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Regarding claims 5 and 9 Cho discloses:
wherein the per-tuple network … whitelisting information includes a whitelisted internet protocol (IP) address. (paragraph [0096], “QoS rule refers to a set of information enabling the detection of a service data flow (e.g., IP flow) and defining its associated QoS parameters. It consists of NAS-level QoS profile (e.g., QoS characteristics, QoS marking) and packet filters. Three types of QoS rule are Default QoS Rule, Pre-authorised QoS rule and Reflective QoS rule.” And Paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.”)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16 Cho discloses:
transmit a network session modification message that includes updated per-tuple network … whitelisting information. (paragraph [0072], “Within the 5G System, a QoS flow is controlled by the SMF and may be preconfigured, or established via the PDU Session Establishment procedure, or the PDU Session Modification procedures.” And paragraph [0074], “These QoS rules may be explicitly provided to the UE (using the PDU Session Establishment/Modification procedure), pre-configured in the UE or implicitly derived by UE by applying reflective QoS.” It is known in the art that the PDU session modification procedure is a UE initiated (meaning UE transmit this request) procedure that changes the packet filter by updating it.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Regarding claim 10 Cho discloses:
transmitting UE capability information indicating support for per-tuple network … whitelisting. (Paragraph [0041], “The MME provides various functions including NAS signaling to eNodeBs 20” and paragraph [0044], “ The EPC includes a mobility management entity (MME), a serving-gateway (S-GW), and a packet data network-gateway (PDN-GW). The MME has information about connections and capabilities of UEs”)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Regarding claim 11 Cho discloses:
receiving a per-tuple network … whitelisting configuration in accordance with the UE capability information. (Paragraph [0044], “The MME has information about connections and capabilities of UEs” paragraph [0072], “Within the 5G System, a QoS flow is controlled by the SMF and may be preconfigured, or established via the PDU Session Establishment procedure, or the PDU Session Modification procedures.” And paragraph [0074], “These QoS rules may be explicitly provided to the UE (using the PDU Session Establishment/Modification procedure), pre-configured in the UE or implicitly derived by UE by applying reflective QoS.” The QoS rules and packet filters for the paging messages are known in the art to be configured during the PDU session establishment in which the MME already knows the UE capability.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Regarding claim 17 Cho discloses:
wherein at least one processor of the one or more processors is configured to cause the network node to: receive the per-tuple network … whitelisting information from a server. (Paragraph [0073], “one or more QoS rule(s) which can be provided by the SMF to the UE via the AMF over the N1 reference point” The rules include the whitelist filter info and is received by the NN from the SMF (which can be seen as a server).)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to have modified the PDU session procedure and packet filtering of Cho with the selective paging of Gibbs. One would have been motivated to do this to help users from being “stuck with expensive data charges for certain applications.” (Gibbs [0040]).
Claims 8, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cho and Gibbs in view of Tan et al (US 20240314763 A1)
Regarding claims 8 and 18 Cho discloses:
the per-tuple network … whitelisting information. (Paragraph [0074], “These QoS rules may be explicitly provided to the UE (using the PDU Session Establishment/Modification procedure), pre-configured in the UE or implicitly derived by UE by applying reflective QoS.” And paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.” This filtering is functionally similar to the whitelist information.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging. Cho has packet filtering and with Gibbs disclosing selective paging based on packets it is functionally similar to per tuple paging whitelisting information.)
Cho and Gibbs does not disclose:
Transmitting UE assistance information
Tan discloses:
transmitting UE assistance information (Claim 10, “wherein the assistance information is carried in a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message from the user equipment to a core network node…the signaling message comprising at least one of (1) a PDU session resource setup request message, (2) a PDU session resource release command message, (3) a PDU session resource modification request message, (3) an initial context setup response message, (4) a UE context release command message, (5) a UE context modification request message, or (6) a handover request message, wherein the assistance information is carried in UE assistance information…”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combine teachings of Cho’s PDU session modification procedure and packet filter alongside Gibbs’ selective paging the assistance information of Tan. One would have been motivated to do this to help modify the PDU elements according to the UE request.
Regarding claims 12 and 20 Cho discloses:
updated per-tuple network … whitelisting information. (Paragraph [0074], “These QoS rules may be explicitly provided to the UE (using the PDU Session Establishment/Modification procedure), pre-configured in the UE or implicitly derived by UE by applying reflective QoS.” It is known that the PDU session modification includes the UE sending over a request updates the tuple information.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging. Cho has packet filtering and with Gibbs disclosing selective paging based on packets it is functionally similar to per tuple paging whitelisting information.)
Cho and Gibbs does not disclose:
Transmitting UE assistance information
Tan discloses:
transmitting UE assistance information (Claim 10, “wherein the assistance information is carried in a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message from the user equipment to a core network node…the signaling message comprising at least one of (1) a PDU session resource setup request message, (2) a PDU session resource release command message, (3) a PDU session resource modification request message, (3) an initial context setup response message, (4) a UE context release command message, (5) a UE context modification request message, or (6) a handover request message, wherein the assistance information is carried in UE assistance information…” For the modification procedure the UE assistance information must carry the updated tuple policies/whitelisted information it wants. )
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combine teachings of Cho’s PDU session modification procedure and packet filter alongside Gibbs’ selective paging the assistance information of Tan. One would have been motivated to do this to help modify the PDU elements according to the UE request.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teaching of Cho and Gibbs in view of Fard (US 20240022952 A1)
Regarding claim 15 Cho discloses:
the per-tuple network … whitelisting information. (Paragraph [0074], “These QoS rules may be explicitly provided to the UE (using the PDU Session Establishment/Modification procedure), pre-configured in the UE or implicitly derived by UE by applying reflective QoS.” And paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.” This filtering is functionally similar to the whitelist information.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging. Cho has packet filtering and with Gibbs disclosing selective paging based on packets it is functionally similar to per tuple paging whitelisting information.)
Cho and Gibbs does not disclose:
Network node transmit a network session establishment or modification request.
Fard discloses:
wherein at least one processor of the one or more processors is configured to cause the network node to: transmit a network session establishment or modification request (paragraph [0175], “At 1210, the UE initiates PDU session establishment. The UE may transmit a PDU session establishment request to an AMF via an AN.” And Fig. 12. In figure 12 the UE transmit the request to the AN (access node which in Fard is also a base station/network node) and the AN transmit the PDU session establishment request to the AMF.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teaching of Cho’s network and packet filtering alongside Gibb’s selective paging with the AN and AMF of Fard. One would have been motivated to do this to centralize the session management.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Cho and Gibbs and Tan in view of Fard.
Regarding claim 19 Cho discloses:
the per-tuple network… whitelisting information (Paragraph [0074], “These QoS rules may be explicitly provided to the UE (using the PDU Session Establishment/Modification procedure), pre-configured in the UE or implicitly derived by UE by applying reflective QoS.” And paragraph [0101], “Packet filter refers to information for matching service data flows. The format of the packet filters is a pattern for matching the IP 5 tuple (source IP address or IPv6 network prefix, destination IP address or IPv6 network prefix, source port number, destination port number, protocol ID of the protocol above IP). Service data flows are mapped to a QoS flow according to DL/UL packet filter.” This filtering is functionally similar to the whitelist information.)
Cho does not disclose:
Paging
Gibbs discloses:
Paging (Paragraph [0040], “when a packet data network (PDN) connection is open on the gateway for a UE, packets arriving on the PDN connection when the UE is in an idle state can trigger a paging request to the UE. By providing selective paging, the user or the network operator can control the types of messages that are allowed to page the UE” Only certain packets can trigger paging. Cho has packet filtering and with Gibbs disclosing selective paging based on packets it is functionally similar to per tuple paging whitelisting information.)
Tan discloses:
the UE assistance information. (Claim 10, “wherein the assistance information is carried in a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message from the user equipment to a core network node…the signaling message comprising at least one of (1) a PDU session resource setup request message, (2) a PDU session resource release command message, (3) a PDU session resource modification request message, (3) an initial context setup response message, (4) a UE context release command message, (5) a UE context modification request message, or (6) a handover request message, wherein the assistance information is carried in UE assistance information…”)
Cho and Gibbs and Tan does not disclose:
the network node to: transmit a request
Fard discloses:
The network node to: transmit a request. (paragraph [0175], “At 1210, the UE initiates PDU session establishment. The UE may transmit a PDU session establishment request to an AMF via an AN.” And Fig. 12. In figure 12 the UE transmit the request to the AN (access node which in Fard is also a base station/network node) and the AN transmit the PDU session establishment request to the AMF.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teaching of Cho and Gibbs and Tan’s UE assistance information paging whitelisting with Fard’s AN and AMF. One would have been motivated to do this to centralize the session management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights