DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 14 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please write claim 4 and 11 as independent claims, and incorporate all limitations by explicitly writing out every claim limitation. If applicant were to have 6 independent claims, instead of 4 independent claims, please also pay the appropriate fees.
PNG
media_image1.png
211
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more than an abstract idea. Independent claim 5 recites a “Network Exposure Function (NEF)” arranged to support execution of an application rule in a telecommunications system. The claim recites “receive equipment,” “map equipment,” and “send equipment” configured to receive identifiers, map an external application identifier to an internal identifier, and send information to another network entity for storage and application of rules. Although drafted in apparatus form, the claim fails to recite any concrete hardware structure such as a processor, memory, circuitry, transceiver, or other physical computing component. Instead, the claim merely recites generic “equipment” in purely functional terms defined only by the operations performed.
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite receiving information, mapping identifiers, transmitting information, and applying rules to sessions. These limitations amount to the manipulation, organization, and communication of information, which constitute abstract mental processes and methods of organizing human activity. The claimed mapping of one identifier to another and forwarding of rule information are forms of data processing and information management that can be performed conceptually or through generic computer implementation. Courts have repeatedly held that collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and transmitting information are abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited NEF is described only at a high functional level and merely serves as a nominal environment in which the abstract information-processing steps are performed. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, telecommunications network, or other technology. Nor do the claims recite any specific technical mechanism for performing the claimed receiving, mapping, or sending operations. Instead, the claims merely state the desired results without reciting a particular technological implementation. The absence of any recited physical hardware or technical architecture further demonstrates that the claims are directed only to functional results rather than a concrete technological solution.
Under Step 2B, the claims fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount only to generic and conventional data-processing activities routinely performed in telecommunications systems, such as receiving messages, translating identifiers, and forwarding rule information between entities. The claimed “receive equipment,” “map equipment,” and “send equipment” are generic functional placeholders that do not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. The claims therefore amount to no more than implementing abstract information-processing concepts using unspecified generic components. Please amend the claim to include structural hardware, e.g. processors, circuits to overcome the current 101 rejection.
Claims 12-14 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 12 recites a “Service Capability Exposure Function (SCEF)” including “receive equipment,” “map equipment,” and “send equipment” for receiving application information, mapping identifiers, and sending information to a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF). Similar to claim 5, the claim is drafted in purely functional language and does not recite any physical hardware elements such as processors, memory, circuitry, or communication interfaces. The recited “equipment” lacks structural definition and merely describes desired functional outcomes.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 12 is directed to abstract ideas including receiving, processing, mapping, and transmitting information for rule management purposes. These activities constitute mental processes and data manipulation operations that can be performed using generic computing functionality. The claims merely organize and process information relating to application identifiers and policy rules in a telecommunications environment.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any specific improvement to telecommunications technology or computer functionality. The claims merely invoke generic telecommunications entities such as SCEF, SCS/AS, and PCRF as an environment for carrying out abstract information-processing tasks. No specialized algorithm, hardware implementation, or technical mechanism is recited for achieving the claimed functionality.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include an inventive concept because the additional elements recite only conventional and generic activities associated with message handling and policy management in telecommunications systems. The claimed “receive equipment,” “map equipment,” and “send equipment” are purely functional constructs lacking meaningful structural limitations. As such, the claims merely implement abstract ideas using generic and conventional components and fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Please amend the claim to include structural hardware, e.g. processors, circuits to overcome the current 101 rejection.
Accordingly, claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
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 of this title, 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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. 20180192390 A1) in view of Bacik et al. (US Pub. 20180069798 A1).
For claims 1, 4, and 5, Li discloses a Network Exposure Function (NEF), said NEF being arranged to support execution of an application rule for an application to be accessed by a User Equipment (UE) in a user session in a 3GPP telecommunications system, comprising an Application Function (AF) and a Policy Control Function (PCF), said NEF further being arranged to perform a method (Figs. 2, 3 and 25A, Implemented NEF, AF and PCF support application-related UE sessions; the apparatus is configured for the operations below, "hardware"; "3GPP") [0079, 0097, 0092, 0094, 0100, 0535, 0536] comprising:
receiving, from said AF, a first message (Fig. 25A, steps 2500 and 2508, AF sends the first request to the NEF for processing, "AF"; "NEF") [0536, 0556] including an identifier (AF-ID) and an external Application identifier (AppID) (Fig. 25A, step 2500, The first request carries the external application identifier, "Application External Identifier"; "identify") [0536, 0539] mapping the external AppID to an internal AppID (Fig. 25A, step 2508, NEF translates the received external identifier into the identifier used inside the operator network, "identifier"; "mapped") [0556, 0559]; and
sending, to the PCF, a second message including information received from the AF and mapped (Fig. 25A, step 2508, NEF processes the received request and sends the resulting application identifier and policy information to PCF, "request"; "received") [0556, 0559], for the PCF to store as application rule (Fig. 25A, steps 2510 and 2512, PCF generates the application-keyed policy and provisions its data to the UDR, "polices"; "provision") [0567, 0572, 0569, 0573] to be applied to all current and future UE sessions relating to the application (Figs. 5, 13 and 25A, Select application-wide scope without UE or geographic restrictions and both ongoing and future applicability in the persisted policy, "all traffic"; "ongoing traffic and/or future traffic") [0270, 0271, 0181, 0187, 0536, 0574].
But Li doesn’t explicitly teach an AF identifier (AF-ID), indicating that the AF sponsors UE traffic relating to accessing the application;
However, Bacik discloses an AF identifier (AF-ID) (Fig. 8, Provider identity forms part of the application namespace) [0162, 0163] and an external Application identifier (AppID) (Figs. 7 and 8, step 716, The exposure intermediary translates the external application identifier to the operator internal identifier, "convert"; "map") [0151, 0162, 0124, 0163];
indicating that the AF sponsors UE traffic relating to accessing the application (Fig. 11, steps 1106 and 1108, The application provider selects sponsorship and notifies the exposure intermediary; carried in the first request in this combination, "offer"; "sponsorship") [0183, 0184, 0179],
Bacik also discloses map equipment arranged for mapping the external AppID to an internal AppID [0162-163];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing rules application used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Li with Bacik to ensure applicable rules for the network can be properly applied for system configuration, thus, improving system efficiency.
Claim 1 differs from claim 5 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Li further discloses a method of supporting execution of an application rule for an application to be accessed by a User Equipment (UE) in a user session in a 3GPP telecommunications system, comprising an Application Function (AF), a Network Exposure Function (NEF), and a Policy Control Function (PCF) (Figs. 2, 3 and 25A, Implemented NEF, AF and PCF support application-related UE sessions; the apparatus is configured for the operations below, "hardware"; "3GPP") [0079, 0097, 0092, 0094, 0100, 0535, 0536], wherein the method comprises, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by said NEF, from said AF, a first message including (Fig. 25A, steps 2500 and 2508, AF sends the first request to the NEF for processing, "AF"; "NEF") [0536, 0556],
mapping, by the NEF, the external AppID to an internal AppID (Fig. 25A, step 2508, NEF translates the received external identifier into the identifier used inside the operator network, "identifier"; "mapped") [0556, 0559]; and
sending, by the NEF, to the PCF, a second message including information received from the AF and mapped (Fig. 25A, step 2508, NEF processes the received request and sends the resulting application identifier and policy information to PCF, "request"; "received") [0556, 0559],
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 4 differs from claim 5 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Bacik further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed on processing circuitry (Fig. 15, Stored executable instructions cause processing circuitry to carry out the combined parent method, "non-transitory"; "processor-executable") [0219, 0225, 0220, 0221].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 6, Li as modified by Bacik, Bacik further discloses said application rule comprises a specific Quality of Service, QoS, handling for user sessions pertaining to said application to be accessed by said UE (Fig. 7, Application-specific differentiated service includes allocated bandwidth treatment; encode this QoS in the parent application policy, "quality"; "resources") [0142, 0143, 0157, 0164]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 3 and 7, Li as modified by Bacik, Bacik further disclose said application rule comprises a specific charging profile for user sessions pertaining to said application to be accessed by said UE (Fig. 11, steps 1114 and 1116, Sponsor-linked rules and charging debits provide a specific application charging profile, "sponsorship"; "account") [0187, 0188, 0189]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Claim(s) 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacik et al. (US Pub. 20180069798 A1) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 20180192390 A1).
For claims 8, 11, and 12, Bacik discloses a Service Capability Exposure Function (SCEF), said SCEF being arranged to support execution of an application rule for an application to be accessed by a User Equipment (UE) in a user session in a 3GPP telecommunications system, comprising a Services Capability Server/Application Server (SCS/AS), and a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF), said SCEF further being arranged to perform a method (Figs. 1, 2, 7 and 15, Application server, SCEF and PCRF support application services; processors implement the claimed apparatus capabilities, "3GPP"; "SCEF"; "processors") [0089, 0090, 0146, 0124, 0220] comprising:
receiving from said SCS/AS, a first message (Figs. 7 and 11, steps 714 and 1108, The application server sends the service request or sponsorship notification to the intermediary implemented as SCEF, "receive"; "notification") [0150, 0184, 0124] including an SCS/AS identifier (SCS/AS-ID) (Fig. 8, Provider identity is a component of the composite namespace; its explicit first-message field is the stated modification, "external"; "composite") [0162, 0163] and an external Application identifier (AppID) (Figs. 7 and 11, steps 714 and 1102, The server provides application information including an external application identifier, "identifier"; "application") [0150, 0180] indicating that the SCS/AS sponsors UE traffic relating to accessing the application (Fig. 11, steps 1106 and 1108, Application-server notification associates provider sponsorship with the application; encoded with the identifier fields in the proposed request, "offer"; "sponsorship") [0183, 0184, 0179],
mapping the external AppID to an internal AppID (Figs. 7 and 8, step 716, The exposure intermediary translates the external application identifier to the operator internal identifier, "convert"; "map") [0151, 0162, 0124, 0163]; and
sending to the PCRF, a second message including information received from the SCS/AS and mapped (Figs. 2 and 7, step 716, The SCEF intermediary sends the mapped identifier to the PCRF over the policy interface, "Rx"; "message") [0091, 0151, 0090, 0153, 0184],
But Bacik doesn’t explicitly teach for the PCRF to store as application rule to be applied to all current and future UE sessions relating to the application.
However, Li discloses for the PCRF to store as application rule (Fig. 25A, steps 2510 and 2512, Transfer the application-keyed policy persistence technique to the PCRF, using its repository interface, "policy"; "provision") [0569, 0572, 0567, 0573] to be applied to all current and future UE sessions relating to the application (Figs. 5, 13 and 25A, Transfer application-wide treatment of both current and later sessions; omit optional UE and geographic restrictions, "all"; "ongoing") [0270, 0271, 0181, 0187, 0536, 0574];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing rules application used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bacik with Li to ensure applicable rules for the network can be properly applied for system configuration, thus, improving system efficiency.
Applicant’s filed specification on paragraph 0075 that address the functional equivalent of each the above cited elements:
“ - NEF 3 by Service Capability Exposure Function, SCEF,
- AF 5 by Services Capability Server/Application Server SCS/AS,
- PCF 6 by Policy and Charging Rules Function, PCRF,
- SMF 9 by PDN Gateway Control Plane Function, PGW-C, or Traffic Detection Function-Control plane Function, TDF-C,
- UPF 10 by PDN Gateway User Plane Function, PGW-U, or Traffic Detection Function-User plane Function TDF-U.”
Claim 8 differs from claim 12 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Bacik further discloses a method of supporting execution of an application rule for an application to be accessed by a User Equipment (UE) in a user session in a 3GPP telecommunications system, comprising a Services Capability Server/Application Server (SCS/AS), a Service Capability Exposure Function (SCEF), and a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) (Figs. 1, 2, 7 and 15, Application server, SCEF and PCRF support application services; processors implement the claimed apparatus capabilities, "3GPP"; "SCEF"; "processors") [0089, 0090, 0146, 0124, 0220], said method comprising the steps of
receiving, by said SCEF, from said SCS/AS, a first message including (Figs. 7 and 11, steps 714 and 1108, The application server sends the service request or sponsorship notification to the intermediary implemented as SCEF, "receive"; "notification") [0150, 0184, 0124];
mapping, by the SCEF, the external AppID to an internal AppID (Figs. 7 and 8, step 716, The exposure intermediary translates the external application identifier to the operator internal identifier, "convert"; "map") [0151, 0162, 0124, 0163]; and sending, by the SCEF, to the PCRF, a second message including information received from the SCS/AS and mapped (Figs. 2 and 7, step 716, The SCEF intermediary sends the mapped identifier to the PCRF over the policy interface, "Rx"; "message") [0091, 0151, 0090, 0153, 0184].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 11 differs from claim 12 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Bacik further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed on processing circuitry (Fig. 15, Stored executable instructions cause processing circuitry to carry out the combined parent method, "non-transitory"; "processor-executable") [0219, 0225, 0220, 0221].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 9 and 13, Bacik as modified by Li, Bacik further disclose said application rule comprises a specific Quality of Service, QoS, handling for user sessions pertaining to said application to be accessed by said UE (Fig. 7, Application-specific differentiated service includes allocated bandwidth treatment; encode this QoS in the parent application policy, "quality"; "resources") [0142, 0143, 0157, 0164]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 10 and 14, Bacik as modified by Li, Bacik further disclose said application rule comprises a specific charging profile for user sessions pertaining to said application to be accessed by said UE (Fig. 11, steps 1114 and 1116, Sponsor-linked rules and charging debits provide a specific application charging profile, "sponsorship"; "account") [0187, 0188, 0189]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights