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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/07/2025 and 08/29/2025. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are: “A session management node, comprising: a communication unit, configured to: transmit … , and receive … “ in claims 11-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/725,050 [PGPUB 2025/0071176] (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application: 18/930,592
Application: 18/725,050 [PGPUB 2025/0071176]
Claim 1: A wireless communication method for use in a session management function, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A wireless communication method comprising: receiving, by a session management node from a user plane node, a quick UDP Internet connection: (QUIC): traffic handling support indication; and
transmitting, to a user plane function, a Quick User Datagram Protocol Internet Connections
(QUIC) traffic instruction, and
transmitting, by the session management node to the user plane node, a QUIC handling instruction in response to the QUIC traffic handling support indication to request the user plane node to detect a QUIC traffic.
receiving, from the user plane function, at least one QUIC report associated with QUIC traffic,
Claim 5: The wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the session management node from the user
plane node, a QUIC detection report comprising QUIC traffic parameters comprising at least one of: a transport protocol type setting to QUIC, an Internet Protocol(IP): address and a port number of a user equipment for a QUIC connection, a QUIC connection identification used by the user equipment, an IP address and a port number of a remote server for the QUIC connection, or
a QUIC connection identification used by the remote server; and transmitting by the session management node to the next plane node, a request to update Packet Forward Control Protocol (PFCP) rules according to the QUIC traffic
parameters.
wherein the QUIC traffic instruction comprises at least one of a QUIC event report instruction indicating at least one event associated with the at least one QUIC report or a QUIC statistic report instruction indicating at least one statistic included in each QUIC report.
Instant Application: 18/930,592
Application: 18/725,050 [PGPUB 2025/0071176]
Claim 6: A wireless communication method for use in a user plane function, the method comprising:
Claim 7: A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, from a session management function, a Quick User Datagram Protocol Internet Connections (QUIC) traffic instruction, and
receiving, by a user plane node from a session management node, a quick UDP Internet connection QUIC; handling instruction; and
transmitting, to the session management function, at least one QUIC report associated with QUIC traffic,
transmitting, by the user plane node to the session management node, a QUIC traffic report in response to the QUIC handling instruction.
wherein the QUIC traffic instruction comprises at least one of a QUIC event report instruction indicating at least one event associated with the at least one QUIC report or a QUIC statistic report instruction indicating at least one statistic included in each QUIC report.
Claim 8: The wireless communication method of claim 7, wherein the QUIC handling instruction comprises at least one of a QUIC traffic detection indication, or a QUIC traffic reporting indication, wherein the QUIC traffic detection indication indicates to the user plane node that a QUIC traffic detection is required, and wherein the QUIC traffic reporting indication instructs the user plane node to report a detection of a QUIC traffic.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Villasante et al. (“Villasante”) [PGPUB 20220385550].
Regarding claim 1, the Villasante reference discloses a wireless communication method for use in a session management function [SMF], the method comprising: transmitting, to a user plane function [UPF], a Quick User Datagram Protocol Internet Connections (QUIC) traffic instruction [ie. PCF, through SMF, sends rules, PDR and URR (“QUIC traffic instructions”) to UPF; Villasante; figures 1 and 6A-C; paragraphs 0016, 0087, 0091, 0104-0105, and 0112-0114], and
receiving, from the user plane function, at least one QUIC report associated with QUIC traffic [ie. traffic reporting details from UPF; Villasante; fig 6A-C; para 0017, 0095-0098, 0106-0109, 0114, and UPF reporting QUIC traffic volume 0146-0150],
wherein the QUIC traffic instruction comprises at least one of a QUIC event report instruction indicating at least one event associated with the at least one QUIC report or a QUIC statistic report instruction indicating at least one statistic included in each QUIC report [ie. instructions within PDR and URR to report volume (QUIC event); Villasante; para 0146-0155].
Regarding claim 2, the Villasante reference discloses the at least one event associated with the at least one QUIC report comprises at least one of: an event associated with a QUIC traffic detection, an event associated with a QUIC connection establishment, an event associated with a QUIC connection release, an event associated with a start of a QUIC data block transmission, or an event associated with an end of a QUIC data block transmission [ie. detecting QUIC traffic volume; Villasante; para 0146-0154 and 0161].
Regarding claim 4, the Villasante reference discloses each QUIC report comprises at least one of: at least one QUIC traffic parameter of the QUIC traffic, the at least one QUIC report event associated with the QUIC report, or the at least one statistic of the QUIC traffic associated with the QUIC report [ie. QUIC traffic volume; Villasante; para 0114, 0135-0137, and 0146-0154].
Regarding claim 5, the Villasante reference discloses at least one QUIC traffic parameter comprises at least one of: a QUIC protocol indication associated with the QUIC traffic, an internet protocol (IP) address of a wireless terminal associated with the QUIC traffic and a User Datagram Protocol (UDP) port associated with the wireless terminal, an IP address of a remote server associated with the QUIC traffic and a UDP port associated with the remote server, at least one QUIC connection identifier of the QUIC traffic, a QUIC version of the QUIC traffic, or a packet number of the QUIC traffic [ie. after QUIC handshake (“QUIC protocol indication”), UPF stores the volume of the QUIC packets; Villasante; para 0129-0138].
Regarding claim 6, the Villasante reference discloses a wireless communication method for use in a user plane function (UPF), the method comprising: receiving, from a session management function (SMF), a Quick User Datagram Protocol Internet Connections (QUIC) traffic instruction [ie. UPF received rules, PDR and URR (“QUIC traffic instructions”) from SMF; Villasante; figures 1 and 6A-C; paragraphs 0016, 0087, 0091, 0104-0105, and 0112-0114], and
transmitting, to the session management function, at least one QUIC report associated with QUIC traffic [ie. traffic reporting details from UPF; Villasante; fig 6A-C; para 0017, 0095-0098, 0106-0109, 0114, and UPF reporting QUIC traffic volume 0146-0150],
wherein the QUIC traffic instruction comprises at least one of a QUIC event report instruction indicating at least one event associated with the at least one QUIC report or a QUIC statistic report instruction indicating at least one statistic included in each QUIC report [ie. instructions within PDR and URR to report volume (QUIC event); Villasante; para 0146-0155].
Regarding claim 7, the Villasante reference discloses the at least one event associated with the at least one QUIC report comprises at least one of: an event associated with a QUIC traffic detection, an event associated with a QUIC connection establishment, an event associated with a QUIC connection release, an event associated with a start of a QUIC data block transmission, or an event associated with an end of a QUIC data block transmission [ie. detecting QUIC traffic volume; Villasante; para 0146-0154 and 0161].
Regarding claim 9, the Villasante reference discloses each QUIC report comprises at least one of: at least one QUIC traffic parameter of the QUIC traffic, the at least one QUIC report event associated with the QUIC report, or the at least one statistic of the QUIC traffic associated with the QUIC report [ie. QUIC traffic volume; Villasante; para 0114, 0135-0137, and 0146-0154].
Regarding claim 10, the Villasante reference discloses at least one QUIC traffic parameter comprises at least one of: a QUIC protocol indication associated with the QUIC traffic, an internet protocol, IP, address of a wireless terminal associated with the QUIC traffic and a User Datagram Protocol (UDP) port associated with the wireless terminal, an IP address of a remote server associated with the QUIC traffic and a UDP port associated with the remote server, at least one QUIC connection identifier of the QUIC traffic, a QUIC version of the QUIC traffic, or a packet number of the QUIC traffic [ie. after QUIC handshake (“QUIC protocol indication”), UPF stores the volume of the QUIC packets; Villasante; para 0129-0138].
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, the apparatus of claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. The Villasante reference teaches the method of claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “session management node” and a “communication unit” are rejected with the citation of figure 5 and paragraphs 0055 and 0087 of Villasante. Therefore, claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, by the teachings of Villasante.
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, 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 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villasante in view of Yu et al. (“Yu”) [USPAT 12,477,401].
Regarding claim 3, the Villasante reference discloses a statistic in a QUIC report [Villasante; para 0150] but does not specifically disclose at least one statistic included in each QUIC report comprises at least one of: an average delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a maximum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a minimum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, an average size of QUIC data blocks, a maximum size of QUIC data blocks, a minimum size of QUIC data blocks, an average interval between every two consecutive QUIC traffic transmissions, or an analytic duration indicating a period in which QUIC traffic characteristics used for determining each QUIC report are collected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Yu reference discloses at least one statistic included in each QUIC report comprises at least one of: an average delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a maximum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a minimum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, an average size of QUIC data blocks, a maximum size of QUIC data blocks, a minimum size of QUIC data blocks, an average interval between every two consecutive QUIC traffic transmissions, or an analytic duration indicating a period in which QUIC traffic characteristics used for determining each QUIC report are collected [ie. average delay for the smallest delay and link status; Yu; col 17, lines 33-65 and col 20, line 32 – col 21, line 24]. The Villasante and Yu references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage PDU sessions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of statistics, taught by Yu, into the report of the system, taught by Villasante. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve link selection.
Regarding claim 8, the Villasante reference discloses a statistic in a QUIC report [Villasante; para 0150] but does not specifically disclose at least one statistic included in each QUIC report comprises at least one of: an average delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a maximum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a minimum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, an average size of QUIC data blocks, a maximum size of QUIC data blocks, a minimum size of QUIC data blocks, an average interval between every two consecutive QUIC traffic transmissions, or an analytic duration indicating a period in which QUIC traffic characteristics used for determining each QUIC report are collected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Yu reference discloses at least one statistic included in each QUIC report comprises at least one of: an average delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a maximum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, a minimum delay of QUIC traffic transmissions, an average size of QUIC data blocks, a maximum size of QUIC data blocks, a minimum size of QUIC data blocks, an average interval between every two consecutive QUIC traffic transmissions, or an analytic duration indicating a period in which QUIC traffic characteristics used for determining each QUIC report are collected [ie. average delay for the smallest delay and link status; Yu; col 17, lines 33-65 and col 20, line 32 – col 21, line 24]. The Villasante and Yu references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage PDU sessions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of statistics, taught by Yu, into the report of the system, taught by Villasante. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve link selection.
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of claim 13 performs the similar steps as the method of claim 3. The Villasante reference teaches the method of claim 3, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “session management node” and a “communication unit” are rejected with the citation of figure 5 and paragraphs 0055 and 0087 of Villasante. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 3, by the teachings of Villasante.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ihlar et al. [PGPUB 2024/0430347] describes monitor QUIC traffic flow.
Munoz et al. [PGPUB 2025/0168077] describes monitoring congestion level with UPF.
Tinnakornsrisuphap et al. [PGPUB 2021/0218687] describes bandwidth delay with QUIC flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458