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 .
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 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 12-14 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,875. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 2 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 3 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 4 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 5 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 2 of the Patent.
Claim 6 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 3 of the Patent.
Claim 7 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 4 of the Patent.
Claim 8 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 19 of the Patent.
Claim 9 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 12 of the Patent.
Claim 10 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 12 of the Patent.
Claim 11 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 12 of the Patent.
Claim 12 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 13 of the Patent.
Claim 13 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 14 of the Patent.
Claim 14 of the pending Application is anticipated by claim 18 of the Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO 2018/167307 (submitted by applicant and herein referred to as Torvinen et al.).
As to claims 1 and 8, Torvinen teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium including program code to be executed by processor circuit of a core network (CN) node configured to operate in a communication network, whereby execution of the program code causes the CN node to perform operations of:
receiving a first request to establish a first protocol data unit, PDU, session between a user equipment, UE and a user plane function in the core network (figures 5 item1., 9a step 902A and 904A; paragraphs [0112] - [0113}, [0115] - [0120]; figure 10a step 1002A);
generating user plane, UP, security enforcement information, to be applied to the first PDU session (paragraphs [0122], [0123], [0128], [0130], [0138], [0140], [0142], [0148], [0149]);
transmitting the UP security enforcement information to a radio access network, RAN, node for establishing the first PDU session (paragraphs [0151] - [0154]);
storing the UP security enforcement information for use in establishing a subsequent PDU session for the UE (paragraphs [0107], [0155] - [0156]); and
As to claims 9 and 14, Torvinen teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium including program code to be executed by a processor circuit of a radio access network (RAN) node configured to operate in a communication network, whereby execution of the program code causes the RAN node to perform operations of:
receiving a first request to establish a first protocol data unit, PDU, session between a user equipment, UE, connected to the RAN node and a user plane function in the core network (figures 5; paragraphs [0112] - [0113], [0115] - [0120]; figure 10a step 1002A);
receiving user plane, UP, security enforcement information from a core network node, to be applied to the first PDU session (paragraphs [0151] - [0154]);
modifying the UP security enforcement information to provide modified UP security enforcement information (paragraphs [0200], [0203]; claims 19-24, 29, 33-35, selection~modification);
storing the modified UP security enforcement information for use in setting up a subsequent PDU session for the UE (paragraphs [0155] - [0156], [0200]);
establishing the first PDU session using the modified UP security enforcement information (paragraphs [0006], [0107]);
As to claim 5, Torvinen further teaches wherein storing the UP security enforcement information is performed by a Session Management Function, SMF, in the core network (paragraph [107]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/167307 (submitted by applicant and herein referred to as Torvinen et al.) in view of US 2022/0053390 (Kim et al.).
As to claim 2, what is lacking from Torvinen is receiving a second request to establish a second PDU session between the UE and the user plane function in the core network.
In analogous art, Kim teaches the use of redundant PDU sessions for URLLC (see Kim, paragraphs 7, 151 and 190). In combination with Torvinen, this would render the use of a second request to establish a second PDU session between the UE and the user plane function, wherein the second PDU session is established as a redundant PDU session for ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Torvinen so as to improve the reliability of the service provided to the user.
As to claim 3, what is further lacking from Torvinen is wherein the second PDU session is established as a redundant PDU session for ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC.
In analogous art, Kim teaches the use of redundant PDU sessions for URLLC (see Kim, paragraphs 7, 151 and 190). In combination with Torvinen, this would render the use of a second request to establish a second PDU session between the UE and the user plane function, wherein the second PDU session is established as a redundant PDU session for ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Torvinen so as to improve the reliability of the service provided to the user.
As to claim 4, Torvinen in view of Kim’s cited teachings further teach transmitting the UP security enforcement information to the RAN node for establishing the second PDU session (paragraphs [0151] - [0154], in view of Kim’s cited teachings this would also be done for the redundant PDU session).
As to claim 6, Torvinen in view of Kim’s cited teachings further teach selecting a user plane function for terminating the second PDU session (figure 1, in view of Kim’s cited teachings this would render the selection of a UPF for the second redundant PDU session).
As to claim 7, Torvinen in view of Kim’s cited teachings further teach wherein the second PDU session is established for redundant data transmission with the first PDU session (paragraphs [0006], [0107], in view of Kim’s cited teachings this would render the establishment of the second redundant PDU session).
As to claim 10, Torvinen further teaches receiving the UP security enforcement information from the core network node (paragraphs [0151] - [0154]).
What is lacking from Torvinen is receiving a second request to establish a second protocol data unit, PDU, session between the UE and the user plane function in the core network; establishing the second PDU session using the modified UP security enforcement information.
In analogous art, Kim teaches the use of redundant PDU sessions for URLLC (see Kim, paragraphs 7, 151 and 190). In combination with Torvinen, this would render the use of a second request to establish a second protocol data unit, PDU, session between the UE and the user plane function in the core network; establishing the second PDU session using the modified UP security enforcement information, wherein the second PDU session is established as a redundant PDU session for ultra- reliable low latency communication, URLLC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Torvinen so as to improve the reliability of the service provided to the user.
As to claim 11, what is further lacking from Torvinen is wherein the second PDU session is established as a redundant PDU session for ultra- reliable low latency communication, URLLC.
In analogous art, Kim teaches the use of redundant PDU sessions for URLLC (see Kim, paragraphs 7, 151 and 190). In combination with Torvinen, this would render the use of a second request to establish a second protocol data unit, PDU, session between the UE and the user plane function in the core network; establishing the second PDU session using the modified UP security enforcement information, wherein the second PDU session is established as a redundant PDU session for ultra- reliable low latency communication, URLLC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Torvinen so as to improve the reliability of the service provided to the user.
As to claim 12, Torvinen further teaches further comprising: establishing a dual connectivity, DC, connection between the UE and a secondary node; and assigning the second PDU session to the DC connection (paragraph [092]).
As to claim 13, Torvinen further teaches transmitting the modified UP security enforcement information to the secondary node for application to the second PDU session (paragraphs [0092], [0200] and [0203], master base station would send selected encryption and integrity algorithms to secondary).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights