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 and 20-25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, 15, 18, 29, and 31 of copending Application No. 19/102,355 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘355 serves to send charging offset information, while claim 1 of the instant application performs the charging offset or reports the usage to perform the charging offset of the downlink data (where such report would be equivalent to the sending of the charging offset information.). Meanwhile, claim 6 of ‘355 determines that the PDU set or packet was dropped, where Matthews (as addressed below) teaches the forwarding of a dropped packet (Matthews: Figure 12 and Column 11, lines 22-31), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to forward the dropped packet to enable the determining that the packet was dropped to improve the communication of such information, thus enabling corrective actions to be performed in addition to the charging offset.
With regard to claims 2-14 and 20-25, the instant claims either implement known functions of 5G networks (where ‘355 also provides for some of these components (e.g. ’355 claim 15), thus providing such 5G networks, or are similar to claim 1, and thus would be obvious variations for similar reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-14 and 20=25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 18, 19, 24, 32, and 34 of copending Application No. 19/101,999 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘355 serves to send charging offset information, while claim 1 of the instant application performs the charging offset or reports the usage to perform the charging offset of the downlink data (where such report would be equivalent to the sending of the charging offset information.). Meanwhile, claim ` of ‘355 sends usage data (e.g. information of packets) for a charging correction (offset), where Matthews (as addressed below) teaches the forwarding of a dropped packet (Matthews: Figure 12 and Column 11, lines 22-31), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to forward the dropped packet to enable the determining that the packet was dropped to improve the communication of such information, thus enabling corrective actions to be performed in addition to the charging offset.
With regard to claims 2-14 and 20-25, the instant claims either implement known functions of 5G networks (where ‘355 also provides for some of these components (e.g. ’199 claim 2), thus providing such 5G networks, or are similar to claim 1, and thus would be obvious variations for similar reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0073285 (Lehane) in view of US 12,712,820 (Matthews).
With regard to claim 1, Lehane discloses a method for processing information, performed by a first network function, comprising:
performing a charging offset of downlink data based on the downlink data packet, or reporting a usage of the downlink data packet to a second network function, wherein the usage is configured to perform the charging offset of the downlink data (Lehane: Paragraph [0066]. The instant claim fails to differentiate between the treatment of uplink or downlink. In the case of Lehane, both directions would be handled (Lehane: Figure 1).).
Lehane fails to disclose, but Matthews teaches receiving a downlink data packet actively dropped and labeled by an access network device in a procedure of packet data unit (PDU) set based quality of service (QoS) handling (Matthews: Figure 12 and Column 11, lines 22-31).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to receive a download packet actively dropped and tagged from some access network device to allow the packet to be further analyzed to determine if an action needs to be taken, such as network reconfiguration, thus enabling the system to ensure optimal network performance.
With regard to claim 2, Lehane in view of Matthews teaches sending downlink data corresponding to the PDU set to the access network device; wherein the PDU set based QoS handling comprises: a QoS handling performed based on the downlink data corresponding to the PDU set (Lehane: Paragraph [0050]. The QoS handling would be based on the connection, where the packet would be associated with the connection based on some data of the PDU set.).
With regard to claim 3, Lehane fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches obtaining N4 session rule information sent by the second network function; and determining the downlink data corresponding to the PDU set based on at least one of the N4 session rule information and/or configuration information of the first network function (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that 5G networks were known in the art at the time of filing, where N4 session rules were a part of the definition of 5G networks, and would be sent by an SMF to manage the traffic.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement a 5G network, including standard techniques, such as the sending of N4 session rules from a SMF, to benefit from mobile networks with advances to improve data speeds, response times, and capacities versus previous mobile networks (Lehane: Paragraph [0116]. Lehane provides for the use of and other mobile networks, where 5G would be a successor of at least some of the listed examples in Lehane.).
With regard to claim 4, Lehane fails to disclose, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that the first network function comprises: a user plane function (UPF), and the second network function comprises: a session management function (SMF) (More specifically, as with claim 3, above, Official Notice is taken that 5G networks were known in the art at the time of filing, where N4 session rules were a part of the definition of 5G networks, and would be sent by an SMF to manage the traffic to a UPF.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement a 5G network, including standard techniques, such as the use of a N4 interface between a SMF and UPF, to benefit from mobile networks with advances to improve data speeds, response times, and capacities versus previous mobile networks (Lehane: Paragraph [0116]. Lehane provides for the use of and other mobile networks, where 5G would be a successor of at least some of the listed examples in Lehane.).
With regard to claim 5, Lehane fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches obtaining at least one of a charging offset indication or charging offset information of a third network function in an establishment or modification procedure of a PDU session, wherein the charging offset indication indicates whether to perform the charging offset in the procedure of the PDU set based QoS handling, and the charging offset information indicates a performing mode of the charging offset; wherein performing the charging offset of the downlink data based on the downlink data packet comprises: performing the charging offset of the downlink data based on the at least one of the charging offset indication or the charging offset information and the downlink data packet (More specifically, as with claim 3, above, Official Notice is taken that 5G networks were known in the art at the time of filing, where a PCF was a known component of such networks, which would serve to handle charging adjustments and send updated PCC rules to the SMF.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement a 5G network, including standard techniques, such as the use of a PCF to handle such charging adjustments with communications between a SMF and the PCF, to benefit from mobile networks with advances to improve data speeds, response times, and capacities versus previous mobile networks (Lehane: Paragraph [0116]. Lehane provides for the use of and other mobile networks, where 5G would be a successor of at least some of the listed examples in Lehane.).
With regard to claim 6, Lehane in view of Matthews and 5G networks teaches wherein the third network function comprises: a policy control function (PCF) (as addressed in claim 5, above, a PCF was a known part of 5G networks.).
With regard to claim 7, Lehane in view of Matthews and 5G networks teaches wherein the at least one of the charging offset indication or the charging offset information is carried by at least one of: a charging parameter in policy and charging control (PCC) rule information; a charging parameter in policy information related to the PDU session; or a charging parameter in policy information related to the PDU set (As addressed in claim 5, above, a PCF was known to communicate with a SMF to perform functions with regard to charging, where such communications would include information for such changes (e.g. some charging parameter).).
With regard to claim 8, Lehane in view of Matthews teaches the downlink data corresponding to the PDU set comprises at least one of: a set identifier of the PDU set; at least one of a start PDU or an end PDU of the PDU set; a PDU identifier in the PDU set; a number of PDUs in the PDU set; importance of the PDU set; or dependency of the PDU set (Matthews: Figure 12 and Column 11, lines 22-31. The packet is forwarded, which would include at least some identifier of the set.).
With regard to claim 9, Lehane in view of Matthews teaches respectively associating one or more data flows comprised in the downlink data with one or more QoS flows based on the importance of the PDU set, wherein the QoS flow is configured to perform the PDU set based QoS handling (Lehane: Paragraph [0050]. The packets are associated with different connections with QoS information.).
With regard to claims 10, 12-13, and 20-25, the instant claims are similar to claim 1, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 11, Lehane fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches receiving policy and charging control (PCC) rule information sent by a third network function in an establishment or modification procedure of a PDU session; generating a QoS configuration file and N4 session rule information based on the PCC rule information; sending the QoS configuration file to an access network device via an access and mobility management (AMF); and sending the N4 session rule information to the first network function (More specifically, as with claim 3, above, Official Notice is taken that 5G networks were known in the art at the time of filing, where the use of a PCF (third function) to send PCC rules to a SMF, which then would generate a QoS configuration for forwarding to other entities (with the AMF being the component to handle such forwarding).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement a 5G network, including standard techniques, such as the use of a SMF, AMF, and PCF, with their typical roles, to benefit from mobile networks with advances to improve data speeds, response times, and capacities versus previous mobile networks (Lehane: Paragraph [0116]. Lehane provides for the use of and other mobile networks, where 5G would be a successor of at least some of the listed examples in Lehane.).
With regard to claim 14, the instant claim is similar to claim 11, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights