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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 6/10/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-24, 26-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. “Zhu” WO 2018/071209 in view of Vairavakkalai et al. “Vairavakkalai” US 2021/0273827 and further in Deng US 2023/0354085.
Regarding claims 1, 21, 28 and 30, Zhu teaches a method, medium (Paragraph 50) and a network node for wireless communication (Figure 9), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
identify a marking of one or more packets, of a quality of service (QoS) flow, with a transport layer identifier associated with a QoS of the QoS flow, wherein the transport layer identifier persists between a user plane function (UPF) and a user equipment (UE) (QoS Flow ID (QFI); Paragraph 79. The FPI is equivalent to the QFI. At the first stage, the UPF receives an IP packet and at stage 2 the UPF determines the FPI (FPI_1 of Figure 9) to apply as a marking based on the QoS of the packet which is used in a transport-layer header; Paragraphs 86-87); and
provide the one or more packets via one or more tunnels with the QoS of the QoS flow (Paragraph 79 teaches the NG3 protocol is a tunneling protocol. Paragraph 87 teaches sending packets with NG3 (which includes the FPI, thus the packets are sent via tunnels).
Zhu does not expressly disclose IPv6 with respect to the transport layer and assigning packets to first and second tunnels based on QoS associated with a first/second IPv6 flow label; however, Vairavakkalai teaches transport layer communications; Paragraph 104. Packets are assigned to tunnels based on quality information as well as IPv6 characteristics; Paragraph 34. Further, every packet (i.e. first and second packets) that are transmit in the network include information indicating which service color with respect to services are associated with the packet; Paragraph 33. As the packets have information with respect to service colors and the tunnels have corresponding color information, one can see the packets are assigned to a first and second tunnel based on QoS information as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Zhu to include mapping first/second IPV6 packets to first/second tunnels based on quality information as taught by Vairavakkalai.
One would be motivated to make the modification to enable packets associated with certain quality/services to be routed alone their respective tunnels which can handle the quality requirements as taught by Vairavakkalai; Paragraph 34.
The prior art does not expressly disclose receiving, from another network node, information indicating a mapping between IPv6 flow label and a QFI; however, Deng teaches the SMF network element (i.e. another network node) sends an association (i.e. mapping) between the QoS flow identifier and the associated IPv6; Paragraphs 55, see also paragraphs 192-194 and Figure 7).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include receiving a mapping indication between IPv6 and QFI as taught by Deng.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can store mapping relationships between QFI and IPv6 and perform proper encapsulation for the UL and decapsulation for the DL as taught by Deng; Paragraph 194.
Regarding claims 2, Zhu teaches the network includes a session management function or UPF (Paragraphs 78 and 87).
The prior art does not expressly disclose the other network node includes an access network session management function; however, Deng teaches the SMF network element sends an association to a UPF regarding the QoS flow identifier and the associated IPv6; Paragraphs 55, see also paragraphs 192-194 and Figure 7).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include SMF and UPF as taught by Deng.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can store mapping relationships between QFI and IPv6 and perform proper encapsulation for the UL and decapsulation for the DL as taught by Deng; Paragraph 194.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Zhu teaches mapping the transport layer identifier to a QoS QFI and provide the one or more packets on the one or more tunnels with the QoS using the QFI (the packets are mapped to a particular QoS flow in accordance with the QFI in the NG3; Paragraphs 80, 89, 91. Paragraph 79 teaches the NG3 protocol is a tunneling protocol. Paragraph 87 teaches sending packets with NG3 (which includes the FPI, thus the packets are sent via tunnels Thus one can see the QFI is mapped to packets and transmit on the tunnels).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Zhu teaches the identifier is an IP identifier (Paragraphs 84, 87, 88 which discuss the IP headers and IP-header 5 tuples).
Regarding claims 6 and 26, Zhu teaches assign packets to the one or more tunnels based on a mapping between the transport layer identifier and QoS flow identifier (the packets are mapped to a particular QoS flow in accordance with the QFI in the NG3; Paragraphs 80, 89, 91. Paragraph 79 teaches the NG3 protocol is a tunneling protocol. Paragraph 87 teaches sending packets with NG3 (which includes the FPI, thus the packets are sent via tunnels Thus one can see the QFI is mapped to packets and transmit (i.e. assigned) to the tunnels).
Zhu does not expressly disclose assigning packets to different tunnels based on QoS associated with a first/second IPv6 flow label; however, Vairavakkalai teaches transport layer communications; Paragraph 104. Packets are assigned to tunnels based on quality information as well as IPv6 characteristics; Paragraph 34. Further, every packet (i.e. first and second packets) that are transmit in the network include information indicated which service color with respect to services are associated with the packet; Paragraph 33. As the packets have information with respect to service colors and the tunnels have corresponding color information, one can see the packets are assigned to a first and second tunnel based on QoS information as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Zhu to include mapping first/second IPV6 packets to first/second tunnels based on quality information as taught by Vairavakkalai.
One would be motivated to make the modification to enable packets associated with certain quality/services to be routed alone their respective tunnels which can handle the quality requirements as taught by Vairavakkalai; Paragraph 34.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Zhu teaches provide a PDU of the QoS flow in a packet with a header field set based on the transport layer ID (Paragraphs 14 and 80 teach the use of PDUs. The PDUs are SDUs and can also be referred to as service data flows (SDFs). Paragraphs 86-87 discuss the transport layer header which is associated with the SDFs. Paragraph 84 further teaches the SDF carried in a packet with NG3 is encapsulated with transport layer headers).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu teaches the transport layer ID is an IP header marking (Paragraphs 84, 86-87 teach the transport layer markings tied to IP headers/addresses).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches the node is a base station (AN of Figure 9 is a base station (Paragraph 78)).
Regarding claims 10 and 31, Zhu teaches receiving information associated with the transport layer ID and provide the information to the UE (QoS Flow ID (QFI); Paragraph 79. The FPI is equivalent to the QFI. At the first stage, the UPF receives an IP packet and at stage 2 the UPF determines the FPI (FPI_1 of Figure 9) to apply as a marking based on the QoS of the packet which is used in a transport-layer header; Paragraphs 86-87. Figure 9 shows the AN (base station) receiving the information before passing it along to the UE).
Regarding claims 11 and 32, Zhu teaches providing information associated with the transport layer ID to a base station in communication with the UE (QoS Flow ID (QFI); Paragraph 79. The FPI is equivalent to the QFI. At the first stage, the UPF receives an IP packet and at stage 2 the UPF determines the FPI (FPI_1 of Figure 9) to apply as a marking based on the QoS of the packet which is used in a transport-layer header; Paragraphs 86-87. Figure 9 shows the AN (base station) receiving the information).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the transport layer ID and QFI (the packets are mapped to a particular QoS flow in accordance with the QFI in the NG3; Paragraphs 80, 89, 91. Paragraph 79 teaches the NG3 protocol is a tunneling protocol. Paragraph 87 teaches sending packets with NG3 (which includes the FPI, thus the packets are sent via tunnels Thus one can see the QFI is mapped to packets and transmit on the tunnels).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu teaches transmitting a request for a flow with one or more QoS including packet delay, bit rate (Paragraph 13), packer error rate, QFI (paragraph 80), or marking (Paragraphs 86-87). In Figure 9, the reception of data packets which then trigger the determination of FI, marking, and other parameters is viewed as the request).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu teaches the node is a UE (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu teaches a request for binding a service flow of a QoS flow to another flow and receive configuration information for the other QoS flow as a response to the request (Paragraph 83 teaches service data flows (SDF) being mapped to the same DRB (i.e. binding) based on a rule (i.e. request). After this occurs, various header information and UPF (i.e. configuration information) is transmit between nodes; see Paragraph 84 and Figure 9).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu teaches using NAS which includes a PDU establishment or modification request (Paragraph 78 teaches NGI is a NAS protocol. Paragraph 14 teaches the UE establishing a PDU session between itself and a network node. Thus one can see in the system of Zhu, a NAS protocol can be used and there are PDU session establishing occurring).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu teaches a request for binding a service flow of a QoS flow to another flow and receive configuration information for the other QoS flow as a response to the request wherein a source of a request for binding the flow is a UE, UPF, or base station (Paragraph 83 teaches service data flows (SDF) being mapped to the same DRB (i.e. binding) based on a rule (i.e. request). After this occurs, various header information and UPF (i.e. configuration information) is transmit between nodes; see Paragraph 84 and Figure 9 which shows a UE, base station and UPF, thus all of these can read on the claimed source being a UE, base station or UPF).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu teaches the configuration includes a rule (Paragraphs 83-84).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu teaches the QoS flow is a flow of a plurality of flows marked by transport layer IDs (Abstract, see also paragraphs 80 and 87-89. For all flows, at the first stage, the UPF receives an IP packet and at stage 2 the UPF determines the FPI (FPI_1 of Figure 9) to apply as a marking based on the QoS of the packet which is used in a transport-layer header; Paragraphs 86-87. Thus one can see the flows are marked with IP label IDs).
Zhu does not expressly disclose IPv6 with respect to the transport layer and marking/assigning packets to different tunnels based on QoS associated with a first/second IPv6 flow label; however, Vairavakkalai teaches transport layer communications; Paragraph 104. Packets are assigned to tunnels based on quality information as well as IPv6 characteristics; Paragraph 34. Further, every packet (i.e. first and second packets) that are transmit in the network include information indicated which service color with respect to services are associated with the packet; Paragraph 33. As the packets have information with respect to service colors and the tunnels have corresponding color information, one can see the packets are assigned to a first and second tunnel based on QoS information as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Zhu to include mapping first/second IPV6 packets to first/second tunnels based on quality information as taught by Vairavakkalai.
One would be motivated to make the modification to enable packets associated with certain quality/services to be routed alone their respective tunnels which can handle the quality requirements as taught by Vairavakkalai; Paragraph 34.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu teaches mapping the packets to an UL or DL tunnel in connection with the transport layer ID (Paragraph 79 teaches the NG3 protocol is a tunneling protocol. Paragraph 87 teaches sending packets with NG3 (which includes the FPI, thus the packets are sent via tunnels. At the first stage, the UPF receives an IP packet and at stage 2 the UPF determines the FPI (FPI_1 of Figure 9) to apply as a marking based on the QoS of the packet which is used in a transport-layer header; Paragraphs 86-87. Thus one can see the flows are marked with transport layer IDs and transmit/mapped to tunnels as claimed. As the communications are between UE and base station, this is viewed as uplink and downlink).
Regarding claims 22 and 29, Zhu teaches the network includes a session management function or UPF (Paragraphs 78 and 87).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-24, 26-32 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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights