DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 8, 13, and 19 have been amended; Claim(s) 4, 9, 16-17, 20, and 23-25 have been canceled; No Claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19, and 21-22 are subject to examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19, and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 13-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHOLLER et al. (US 20210160677 A1) (892 02/14/2025), hereby referred to as SCHOLLER, in view of YU et al. (US 20210377783 A1), hereby referred to as YU, and LIAO et al. (US 20210360742 A1), hereby referred to as LIAO.
Claim 1:
SCHOLLER teaches a method for operating a connectivity orchestration entity configured to orchestrate a connectivity of a plurality of devices to a cellular network, the method comprising, for each of the plurality of devices: determining Quality of Service (QoS) requirements associated with a data exchange between a corresponding device of the plurality of devices and a corresponding application (SCHOLLER: para 141 (“…step S903…ORCH 140 analyzes…the desired quality of service QoS parameters for said session…”) wherein connectivity orchestration entity (COE) determines desired/required QoS requirements for the data exchange/session), each of the plurality of devices being configured to exchange data with the corresponding application via the cellular network and each of the plurality of devices being separate from the connectivity orchestration entity (SCHOLLER: FIG. 1 and para 35 (“…at least one user equipment UE 100…accesses the services of the EPS cellular telecommunications systems…”) the devices including the UEs); determining, by the connectivity orchestration entity, a network address with which the corresponding device will be addressed in the cellular network (SCHOLLER: para 41 (“The PGW gateway 125 uses an orchestrator (ORCH 140) to allocate IP addresses to the user equipment authorized to access the PDN network…ORCH 140 provides an IP address for each user equipment…”) wherein COE determines network/IP address for each device); transmitting a connectivity request to the cellular network to set up a data packet connection through the cellular network to the corresponding application meeting the QoS requirements (SCHOLLER: FIG. 9 item S904 and para 143-144 (“…possibly modifies the…desired quality of service QoS parameters for said session…returns the possibly modified message to the PCRF…receives the session setup procedure initiation message…”) wherein COE sends a connectivity request/session setup procedure initiation message that may be modified); requesting a network gateway, the network gateway providing a data-plane termination of the data connection on behalf of the corresponding application (SCHOLLER: para 6 (“…the E-UTRAN radio access portion and the EPC core network portion set up and release radio bearers on the basis of the application needs…”), para 41 (“…PGW gateway…end of a communication…”), and para 60 (“…the PGW gateway 125 is configured…when creating a session and ending sessions…”) wherein the network gateway is a PGW), to set up a second endpoint of the data connection between the corresponding device and the corresponding application, wherein the corresponding application is connected to the cellular network via the network gateway (SCHOLLER: para 145-146 (“ORCH 140 then returns said acknowledgement message to the PGW gateway…indicates which quality of service QoS parameters have ultimately been granted…the PGW gateway 125 implements the resources necessary to set up the session for the user equipment UE 100…”) wherein the network gateway is the PGW to set up session with the application); and determining, by the connectivity orchestration entity, a number of devices connected and the QoS requirements for each of the number of devices connected (SCHOLLER: FIG. 9 item S903 (“Check QoS”), para 59 (“The orchestrator equipment ORCH 140 is thus informed of every session set up via the PGW gateway 125 and of the user equipment UE involved in said session…”), and para 141 (“…the orchestrator…analyzes…desired quality of service QoS parameters for said session…”) wherein COE determines QoS for every session between a connected device and application).
While SCHOLLER teaches the connectivity orchestration entity requesting device gateways on behalf of a policy control function/the PCRF (SCHOLLER: FIG. 9 S904 and S909), SCHOLLER does not explicitly disclose requesting a device gateway, the device gateway being registered as a user equipment (UE) with the cellular network and connected to a plurality of devices, to set up a first endpoint of a data connection between the corresponding device and the corresponding application used for the data exchange, wherein the corresponding device is connected to the cellular network via the device gateway; and determining, by the connectivity orchestration entity, a number of devices connected to a device gateway and the QoS requirements for each of the number of devices connected to the device gateway.
YU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches requesting a device gateway, the device gateway being registered as a user equipment (UE) with the cellular network (YU: para 130 (“…the relay user equipment may be a 5G residential gateway (RG).”) wherein the device gateway is a relay UE) and connected to a plurality of devices (YU: para 319 (“…to distinguish different 5GC capable UE accessing a same RG, the RG may allocate different port numbers to the different 5GC capable UE…”)), to set up a first endpoint of a data connection between the corresponding device and the corresponding application used for the data exchange, wherein the corresponding device is connected to the cellular network via the device gateway (YU: FIG. 11C and item 219-221, para 355 (“The PCF network element 1 sends the PCC rule to the SMF network element 1…in addition to the first charging policy and/or the first QoS parameter…”), and para 362 (“The RG and the UPF network element 1 match the service flow of the 5GC capable UE based on the description information) wherein PCF requests SM which requests Residential Gateway to setup a service flow with the 5GC capable UE based on the received rules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the requesting of device gateways of SCHOLLER with the device gateway of YU, the combination hereby referred to as SCHOLLER-YU, for the benefit of quality of service control on terminals (YU: para 4).
While SCHOLLER-YU teaches determining, by the connectivity orchestration entity, a number of devices connected and the QoS requirements for each of the number of devices connected (SCHOLLER: FIG. 9 item S903 (“Check QoS”) and para 141 (“…the orchestrator…analyzes…desired quality of service QoS parameters for said session…”) wherein COE determines QoS for every session between a connected device and application), SCHOLLER-YU does not explicitly disclose determining a number of devices connected to a device gateway.
LIAO , in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a number of devices connected to a device gateway (LIAO: para 53 (“The relay UE 502 may also report status of remote UEs to the 5GC 106…As such, the 5GC 106 can identify the 5GC capable UE 102 behind the 5G-RG 104 and its traffic…”) and para 154 (“…an NFV Orchestrator…”) wherein 5GC components can identify number of devices and QoS based on reports; wherein 5GC components include and orchestrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SCHOLLER-YU with LIAO, the combination hereby referred to as Modified-SCHOLLER, for the benefit of supporting secure element and signal exchanging (LIAO: para 26) and accommodating various device (LIAO: para 29).
Claim 2:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the QoS requirements comprises determining at least one of: a maximum latency of the data exchange (optional limitation); and a bandwidth needed for the data exchange (SCHOLLER: para 119 (“…ORCH 140 may intercept and modify quality of service QoS features (guaranteed bandwidth)…”) wherein the QoS requirements includes bandwidth needed/guaranteed bandwidth).
Claim 3:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the method of Claim 1, further determining at least one of the following pieces of information: a device identifier allowing a unique identification of the corresponding device (SCHOLLER: para 137 (“The orchestrator…intercepts any message…”) wherein message to and from a PCF/PCRF is intercepted first by the orchestrator) (YU: FIG. 11B item 210-214 and para 327 (“…the TNGF obtains…source port number…from an IP packet header…”) wherein RG informs the PCF through the IP packet header of a port number identifying a device for each number of devices requesting service flow); a device gateway identifier allowing a unique identification of a device gateway, via which the corresponding device is connected to the cellular network, in the cellular network, a device gateway address with which the device gateway, via which the corresponding device is connected to the cellular network, is addressed in the cellular network (SCHOLLER: para 137 (“The orchestrator…intercepts any message…”) wherein message to and from a PCF/PCRF is intercepted first by the orchestrator) (YU: FIG. 11A step 207, para 318 (“…after the service flow of the 5GC capable UE passes through the RG, the source IP address of the service flow is replaced with the UE-RG local IP address by the RG…”) and para 342 (“…The SMF network element 2 sends the UE-RG local IP address and the UE-RG port number to the PCF network element 2.”) wherein device gateway IP address is sent to the PCF); an application identifier allowing a unique identification of the corresponding application; and an application address with which the corresponding application can be addressed (SCHOLLER: para 71 (“…ORCH 140 also comprises a session description table…a session identifier SESSION-ID…an IMSI…subscription identifier…”) wherein an application identifier can include a session ID or subscription identifier), wherein at least one of the determined pieces of information is transmitted to the cellular network together with the connectivity request (YU: para 349 (“The first request message includes at least one of the UE-RG local IP, the UE-RG port number, and identifier of the 5GC capable UE, the indirect access indication…QoS parameter…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the SCHOLLER and LIAO with YU for the benefit of quality-of-service control on terminals (YU: para 4).
Claim 5:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the method of claim 1, wherein requesting to set up the data connection comprises requesting to set up the data connection meeting the QoS requirements (SCHOLLER: FIG. 9 item S903 (“Check QoS”) and para 141 (“…the orchestrator…analyzes…desired quality of service QoS parameter for said session…and decides whether or not said session may be set up…”)wherein Connectivity Orchestration Entity (COE) determines QoS for data exchange between each of a device/UE and application/session).
Claim 6:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the QoS requirements comprises receiving the QoS requirement from at least one of: an operator of the device; and a device gateway, wherein the corresponding device is connected to the cellular network via the device gateway (SCHOLLER: FIG. 8; para 119 (“…ORCH 140 may intercept and modify quality of service QoS features…”) and para 137 (“…ORCH 140 thus intercepts any message transiting on the links 158 and 812, thus enabling it to modify desired quality of service…”) wherein ORCH receives/intercepts QoS requirements from gateways and/or operators such as PGW, PCRF, and AF).
Claim 7:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: requesting that the device gateway set up the data packet connection as a single data connection such that the QoS requirements of the number of devices connected to the device gateway are met (SCHOLLER: para 59 (“The orchestrator equipment ORCH 140 is thus informed of each session set up via the PGW gateway 125 and of the user equipment UE involved in said session…”) and para 141 (“…the orchestrator…analyzes…desired quality of service QoS parameter for said session…”) wherein COE/ORCH determines a number of device(s)/UE connected to the gateway (such as a PGW gateway) and its QoS requirement; FIG. 9 item S909 and para 145-147 (“In step S909, the…ORCH 140 then returns said ack…to the PGW gateway…Said ack…indicates which…QoS parameters have ultimately been granted. In a step S910, the PGW gateway 125 implements the resources necessary to set up the session for the user equipment UE…The ack…is then propagated through messages from the PGW gateway…passing via the SGW gateway…the MME entity…and the eNB…”) wherein COE requests device gateway (any of PGW, SGW, MME, and eNB) to set up connection/first endpoint between device/UE and application).
Claim 13:
SCHOLLER teaches a connectivity orchestration entity configured to orchestrate a connectivity of a plurality of devices to a cellular network, the connectivity orchestration entity comprising: processing circuitry (SCHOLLER: FIG. 2 item 300 connectivity orchestration entity including processing circuitry); and a memory coupled to the processing circuitry, the memory including instructions executable by the processing circuitry to cause the connectivity orchestration entity to perform operations (SCHOLLER: FIG. 2 item 202 (“RAM”) and item 203 (“ROM”) the memory coupled to processing circuitry).
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 14:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the connectivity orchestration entity of claim 13. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claim 15:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the connectivity orchestration entity of claim 13. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 3 above.
Claim 18:
Modified-SCHOLLER teaches the connectivity orchestration entity of claim 13. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU in view of SCHOLLER and LIAO.
Claim 8:
YU teaches a method for operating a device gateway configured to set up of a plurality of devices to a cellular network (YU: para 319 (“…to distinguish different 5GC capable UE accessing a same RG, the RG may allocate different port numbers to the different 5GC capable UE…”)), the method comprising: registering the device gateway as a user equipment (UE) with the cellular network (YU: FIG. 11A step 201 (“Register with a 5GC to obtain a URSP of a terminal”) and para 130 (“…the relay user equipment may be a 5G residential gateway (RG).”) wherein the device gateway is a relay UE)), wherein the device gateway is connected to the plurality of devices (YU: para 319 (“…to distinguish different 5GC capable UE accessing a same RG, the RG may allocate different port numbers to the different 5GC capable UE…”)); receiving a device gateway address with which the device gateway is addressed in the cellular network (YU: para 318 (“A source IP address of the target uplink service flow is a UE-RG local IP address. The UE-RG local IP address is an IP address obtained by the RG from the first PDU session…”) wherein device gateway receives an IP address); transmitting the device gateway address of the device gateway in the cellular network (YU: FIG. 11A step 207, para 318 (“…after the service flow of the 5GC capable UE passes through the RG, the source IP address of the service flow is replaced with the UE-RG local IP address by the RG…”) and para 342 (“…The SMF network element 2 sends the UE-RG local IP address and the UE-RG port number to the PCF network element 2.”) wherein device gateway IP address is sent to the PCF); receiving a request to set up a first endpoint of a data connection used for a data exchange between the device and a corresponding application, the device being configured to exchange data with the corresponding application via the cellular network (YU: FIG. 11C and item 219-221, para 355 (“The PCF network element 1 sends the PCC rule to the SMF network element 1…in addition to the first charging policy and/or the first QoS parameter…”), and para 362 (“The RG and the UPF network element 1 match the service flow of the 5GC capable UE based on the description information) wherein PCF requests SM which requests Residential Gateway to setup a service flow with the 5GC capable UE based on the received rules); and informing the connectivity about a device identifier for each of the number of devices, the device identifier allowing each of the number of devices to be identified in the cellular network (YU: FIG. 11B item 210-214, para 319 (“…the RG may allocate different port numbers to the different 5GC capable UE…”), and para 327 (“…the TNGF obtains…source port number…from an IP packet header…”) wherein RG informs the PCF through the IP packet header of a port number identifying a device for each number of devices requesting service flow).
While YU teaches transmission to, request from, and informing to the a policy and control function (YU: FIG. 11B item (“PCF network element…”)), YU does not explicitly disclose transmitting to a connectivity orchestration entity configured to orchestrate a connectivity of a plurality of the devices to the cellular network, receiving a request from the connectivity orchestration entity; informing the connectivity orchestration entity; and informing about a number of devices which are connected to the device gateway.
SCHOLLER, in the same field of endeavor, transmitting to a connectivity orchestration entity configured to orchestrate a connectivity of a plurality of the devices to the cellular network, receiving a request from the connectivity orchestration entity; and informing the connectivity orchestration entity (SCHOLLER: FIG. 8-FIG. 9 item 140 (“ORCH”) and item 124 (“PCRF), para 136 (“The PCRF equipment…believes that it is exchanging messages with the PGW gateway…with the orchestrator equipment ORCH…the AF equipment…believes that it is exchanging messages with the PCRF equipment...whereas in fact…exchanges these messages with the orchestrator…”), and para 137 (“The orchestrator…intercepts any message…”) wherein message to and from a PCF/PCRF is intercepted first by the orchestrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YU with SCHOLLER, the combination hereby referred to as YU-SCHOLLER, for the benefit of tailored management of radio bearers and session, especially in crisis situations (SCHOLLER: para 10).
However, YU-SCHOLLER does not explicitly disclose informing about a number of devices which are connected to the device gateway.
LIAO , in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a number of devices connected to a device gateway (LIAO: para 53 (“The relay UE 502 may also report status of remote UEs to the 5GC 106…As such, the 5GC 106 can identify the 5GC capable UE 102 behind the 5G-RG 104 and its traffic…”) and para 154 (“…an NFV Orchestrator…”) wherein 5GC components can identify number of devices and QoS based on reports; wherein 5GC components include and orchestrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YU-SCHOLLER with LIAO, the combination hereby referred to as Modified-YU, for the benefit of supporting secure element and signal exchanging (LIAO: para 26) and accommodating various device (LIAO: para 29).
Claim 10:
Modified-YU teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising: informing the connectivity orchestration entity about a device gateway identifier, the device gateway identifier allowing a unique identification of the device gateway in the cellular network (YU: FIG. 11A step 207, para 318 (“…after the service flow of the 5GC capable UE passes through the RG, the source IP address of the service flow is replaced with the UE-RG local IP address by the RG…”) and para 342 (“…The SMF network element 2 sends the UE-RG local IP address and the UE-RG port number to the PCF network element 2.”) wherein device gateway IP address is a unique device gateway identifier) (SCHOLLER: para 137 (“The orchestrator…intercepts any message…”) wherein message to and from a policy function is intercepted first by the orchestrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YU and LIAO with SCHOLLER for the benefit of tailored management of radio bearers and session, especially in crisis situations (SCHOLLER: para 10).
Claim 11:
Modified-YU teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising: informing the connectivity orchestration entity of a network gateway address with which a network gateway, via which the corresponding application is connected to the cellular network, is addressed in the cellular network (YU: para 316-318 (“…The RG transmits the service flow…The service flow…includes…a destination IP address…is the IP address of the trusted access gateway or the IP address of the untrusted access gateway…”) wherein the device gateway/RG transmits the destination IP address of the network gateway) (SCHOLLER: para 137 (“The orchestrator…intercepts any message…”) wherein message to and from a policy function is intercepted first by the orchestrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YU and LIAO with SCHOLLER for the benefit of tailored management of radio bearers and session, especially in crisis situations (SCHOLLER: para 10).
Claim 19:
YU teaches a device gateway configured to set up a connection of a plurality of devices to a cellular network, the device gateway comprising: processing circuitry (YU: FIG. 15 item 101 (“Processing Unit”)); and a memory coupled to the processing circuitry, the memory including instructions executable by the processing circuitry (YU: FIG. 15 item 103 (“Storage Unit”)).
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 8 above.
Claim 21:
Modified-YU teaches the device gateway of claim 19. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 10 above.
Claim 22:
Modified-YU teaches the device gateway of claim 19. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DIMITROVSKI et al. (US 20220060350 A1) teaches a device connecting to a network through a device gateway such as a residential gateway.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416