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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment/arguments filed on 08/31/2026. Claims 2-3, 13, 21, 22 and 24 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 14-20 and 25 have been amended. Currently, claims 1, 4-12, 14-20, 23, 25 and 26 are pending. This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to amended claims 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Response to Amendments
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 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.
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1).
Consider claim 1, Rossbach discloses a method (read as base station 102, through processor 646 executing stored program instructions, performing the method for mapping quality service flow identifiers to portions of extended reality data bursts, figures 4 and 8, par [0107], [0113] and [0137]) comprising:
detecting, by a processing system including at least one processor, a first extended reality (XR) traffic flow and a second XR traffic flow exchanged between an XR application executing on a user endpoint device and an application server supporting the XR application, wherein the first XR traffic flow carries traffic containing a first component of the XR application and the second XR traffic flow carries traffic containing a second component of the XR application that is different from the first component, and wherein each of the first component and the second component is one of: a multimedia component, an interactivity component, a user proximity component, or a user location component (read as network entity, including the base station, supporting a UE that executes a 5G-XR Aware Application and exchanges necessary data streams through the radio access network (RAN) and user plane function (UPF) with a 5G-XR Application service, one service data flow contains video frames and another contains audio information, which are different multimedia components; the packet filters distinguish the service data flows, the QoS Flow IDs (QFIs) identify the resulting QoS flows, and the network maps a first data segment to a first QoS flow and a second data segment to a different QoS flow, which functionally correspond to detecting the first and second XR traffic flows for their respective mappings, figures 6 and 8, par [0124]-[0125], [0133]-[0135], [0137], [0139]-[0140] and [0144]);
mapping, by the processing system, the first XR traffic flow to a first radio access network (RAN)-level metric and the second XR traffic flow to a second RAN-level metric that is different from the first RAN-level metric (read as mapping the video service data flow to a first QoS parameter set and the audio service data flow to a different QoS parameter set, the first and second QoS flows receive their respective QoS parameters and different treatment over the air interface, including parameters associated with latency and reliability, which reasonably corresponds to different first and second RAN-level metrics, figure 8, par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]);
optimizing, by the processing system, the first XR traffic flow by making a first adaptation (read as optimizing the first XR flow by appl6ing the traffic forwarding treatment associated with the first QoS flow’s traffic pattern and QoS parameters, with the base station controlling that treatment to improve transmission efficiency and fidelity, figure 8, par [0139] and [0141]);
optimizing, by the processing system, the second XR traffic flow by making a second adaptation, wherein the second adaptation is different from the first adaptation, and wherein the first and second adaptations are applied on a per-flow basis (read as optimizing the second XR flow through the second QoS flow having forwarding treatment and QoS parameters different from those applied to the first flow, each QoS flow has its own forwarding treatment, so the two different treatments are applied according to the respective flow, figure 8, par [0134] and [0140]-[0141]).
However, Rossbach discloses the claimed invention above and first and second XR flows assigned different RAN-level QoS parameters and respective forwarding treatments (par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second RAN-level metrics each comprise an XR coverage metric; the first adaptation that adapts a setting of a radio access node serving the user endpoint device so that the first RAN-level metric is met for the first XR traffic flow; and the second, different adaptation that adapts a setting of the radio access node serving the user endpoint device so that the second RAN-level metric is met for the second XR traffic flow.
Nonetheless, Vargantwar discloses per flow power control mode appliable to a forward link in which BTS 204 (radio access mode) is the sending entity serving AT 202 (receiving entity), the receiving entity maintains a separate SNR or power threshold for each flow (radio coverage metric), compares each flow’s received power with its applicable threshold and issues the corresponding command, which adjusts the BTS transmit power setting to control the received level relative to that threshold (col. 4 with liens 37-51, col. 7 with lines 25-54 and col. 9 with lines 1-21); and the BTS applies the commands separately per flow and retains different power states, including 12 dB for flow A and 8 dB for flow B, while an adjustment for one flow does not affect the power used for other flow, figure 4, col. 3 with lines 1-16, col. 9 with line 38 to col. 10 with line 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vargantwar into the teachings of Rossbach, to configure Rossbach’s first and second XR QoS flows using Vargantwar’s separate SNR thresholds and RAN transmit power states for respective flows, including different threshold values selected for Rossbach’s different QoS requirements, in order to preserve the different XR treatment while improving power efficiency by adjusting each threshold only in response to the corresponding flow’s performance (see col. 10 with lines 21-30 of Vargantwar).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein at least one of: the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric is an XR QoS metric (read as the first and second XR service data flows having respective QoS parameter sets and different forwarding treatment over the air interface, so at least one RAN-level metric reasonably corresponds to an XR QoS metric assigned to the corresponding flow, figure 8, par [0133]-[0134] and [0139]-[0140]) but does not specifically disclose the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric is an XR coverage metric.
Nonetheless, Vargantwar further discloses per flow power control mode appliable to a forward link in which BTS 204 (radio access mode) is the sending entity serving AT 202 (receiving entity), the receiving entity maintains a separate SNR or power threshold for each flow (radio coverage metric), compares each flow’s received power with its applicable threshold and issues the corresponding command, which adjusts the BTS transmit power setting to control the received level relative to that threshold, col. 7 with lines 25-54 and col. 9 with lines 1-21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vargantwar into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure Rossbach’s first and second XR QoS flows using Vargantwar’s separate SNR thresholds and RAN transmit power states for respective flows, including different threshold values selected for Rossbach’s different QoS requirements, in order to preserve the different XR treatment while improving power efficiency by adjusting each threshold only in response to the corresponding flow’s performance (see col. 10 with lines 21-30 of Vargantwar).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the first QoS parameter set is mapped to a first identifier of the first XR traffic flow, and the second QoS parameter set is mapped to a second identifier of the second XR traffic flow (read as first QFI identifying the first XR QoS flow and corresponding to its first QoS parameters, and a second QFI identifying the second XR QoS flow and corresponding to its different second QoS parameter, figure 8, par [0135] and [0139]-[0140]) but does not specifically disclose the association of the first RAN-level metric with the first identifier of the first XR traffic flow, and the second RAN-level metric with the second identifier of the second XR traffic flow.
Nonetheless, Nonetheless, Vargantwar further discloses separate SNR or power threshold for each individual flow, including a data flow A threshold power level and a data flow B threshold power level, so the respective radio target remains associated with its respective flow, col. 7 with lines 31-44 and col. 9 with lines 1-16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vargantwar into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure Rossbach’s first and second XR QoS flows using Vargantwar’s separate SNR thresholds and RAN transmit power states for respective flows, including different threshold values selected for Rossbach’s different QoS requirements, in order to preserve the different XR treatment while improving power efficiency by adjusting each threshold only in response to the corresponding flow’s performance (see col. 10 with lines 21-30 of Vargantwar).
Consider claim 23, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first adaptation and the second adaptation adapts at least one of: a transmit power of the radio access node serving the user endpoint device, a frequency band of the radio access node serving the user endpoint device, or a channel bandwidth of the radio access node serving the user endpoint device.
Nonetheless, Vargantwar further discloses forward link implementation in which BTS 204 is the sending radio access node, applies power adjustment separately for each flow and retains different transmit power states for flows A and B; thus, each flow receives its own adaption of the serving radio access node’s transmit power, col. 4 with lines 37-51, col. 9 with lines 1-21 and 38-59, col. 10 with lines 1-12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vargantwar into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure Rossbach’s first and second XR QoS flows using Vargantwar’s separate SNR thresholds and RAN transmit power states for respective flows, including different threshold values selected for Rossbach’s different QoS requirements, in order to preserve the different XR treatment while improving power efficiency by adjusting each threshold only in response to the corresponding flow’s performance (see col. 10 with lines 21-30 of Vargantwar).
Consider claim 25, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein at least one of: the optimizing the first XR traffic flow or the optimizing the second XR traffic flow further comprises adapting a setting of the user endpoint device (read as optimizing XR QoS flow by modifying or augmenting its QoS setting and configuring the UE to use PDCP duplication, additional configured grant repetition, a different MCS or a secondary QoS profile for the same QFI, each change adapts a setting of the user endpoint device (i.e. UE) during optimization of the selected XR flow, par [0149]-[0150]).
Claims 5, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Gupta et al. (US 20130083661 A1).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 4 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the XR coverage metric comprises cross-layer information (read as using cross-layer dependencies to establish QoS rules and exposing access stratum radio scheduling and QoS information to the XR application’s higher layers (par [0146]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the XR coverage metric comprises physical layer and higher layer measurements.
Nonetheless, Gupta discloses using separate physical layer (PHY) and MAC protocol drivers and a common QoS monitoring operation, the RSSI and SNR are physical layer radio measurements, while missed beacons, transmit retries, transmit errors and CRC statistics correspond to MAC or link layer measurement above (higher) PHY, figure 3B, par [0073], [0090] and [0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure the existing XR coverage evaluation using Gupta’s PHY and MAC measurements, in order to evaluate both received radio conditions and link delivery performance when controlling the flow’s coverage target (see par [0090] and [0095] of Gupta).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar and Gupta, discloses wherein the physical layer and higher layer measurements comprise measurements of at least one of: a reference signal received power, a received signal strength indicator, or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (read as using Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) as a measured radio condition when determining whether to change the XR flow’s reliability treatment, par [0154]).
Consider claim 11, as applied to claim 9 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the first identifier is associated with the first XR traffic flow, and the second identifier is associated with the second XR traffic flow (read as first QFI identifying the first XR QoS flow and second QFI identifying the second XR QoS flow, figure 8, par [0135], [0139] and [0140]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first identifier is uniquely associated with the first XR traffic flow, and the second identifier is uniquely associated with the second XR traffic flow.
Nonetheless, Gupta discloses a separate table entry for each service flow and a flow identifier value that identifies the corresponding individual flow, assigning a flow identifier value to each flow uniquely distinguishes the respective flows within the flow table, figures 1A-1B, par [0076], [0082] and [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to implement Rossbach’s first and second QFI using Gupta’s individual flow table entries, in order to retrieve and apply the correct radio treatment without confusing the two XR flows.
Claims 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Ang et al. (US 20150334653 A1), and in further view of Naware et al. (US 20110208984 A1).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein at least one of: the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric is an XR QoS metric, and wherein the XR QoS metric supports power conservation (read as XR QoS flow mappings that reduce unnecessary transmissions and receptions, increase UE and base station power conservation and use cross-layer dependencies to establish the QoS rules applied to the XR traffic, par [0135]-[0136] and [0146]) but does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of: the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric is an XR energy metric.
Nonetheless, Ang discloses a base station identifying an energy metric associated with the mobile device and configuring the wireless transmission according to that metric, figures 5-6, par [0117], [0119] and [0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ang into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure XR flow’s RAN metric using Ang’s energy metric and transmission configuration, in order to reduce UE processing energy while preserving the selected flow’s QoS (see par [0117]-[0120] of Ang).
However, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar and Ang, discloses the claimed invention and XR energy metric above but does not specifically disclose and wherein the XR energy metric comprises physical layer and higher layer measurements.
Nonetheless, Naware discloses cross-layer energy measurements, comprising forming an energy control input by combining measurements from the PHY layer with measurements from higher application and transport (upper) layers and mapping the combined information to power conserving actions figure 3, par [0017], [0023] and [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Naware into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar and Ang, to configure the XR energy metric using Naware’s cross-layer power measurements, in order to balance XR application performance with UE energy consumption using information from both radio operation and the XR service (see par [0017] and [0034]-[0037 of Naware).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, Ang and Naware, discloses wherein the physical layer and higher layer measurements comprise measured conditions (read as XR QoS flow mappings that reduce unnecessary transmissions and receptions, increase UE and base station power conservation and use cross-layer dependencies to establish the QoS rules applied to the XR traffic, par [0135]-[0136] and [0146]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the physical layer and higher layer measurements comprise measurements of at least one of: an instantaneous battery consumption, an average battery consumption, a control channel utilization, a data channel utilization, an uplink transmit power headroom report, a discontinuous reception utilization, a measurement gap utilization, or a frequency band utilization.
Nonetheless, Naware further discloses a battery powered UE and monitoring of a change in the UE’s current or power consumption, which reasonably corresponds to instantaneous battery consumption measurement, par [0005] and [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Naware into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, Ang and Naware, to configure the XR energy metric using Naware’s current and power consumption monitoring, in order to quantify the UE’s present energy use before selecting a power conserving radio treatment (see par [0017]-[0018] of Naware).
Claims 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Li et al. (US 20200374741 A1).
Consider claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the first RAN-level metric is mapped to the first identifier of the first XR traffic flow and the second RAN-level metric is mapped to the second identifier of the second XR traffic flow (read as first and second QFI identified XR flows mapped under network established or predefined rules to their respective first and second QoS parameters, with eh QFI available in the transmission to identify the applicable mapping, figure 8 par [0139]-[0141]) but does not specifically disclose the first and second RAN-level metrics are mapped to the respective first and second identifiers in a mapping table, and an index to the mapping table is associated with the first identifier and the second identifier.
Nonetheless, Li discloses a tabulated correspondence between a flow identifier and its RAN QoS parameter, then determines the applicable parameter using the identifier carried by the packet; applying the lookup separately to the first and second QFIs uses each identifier as the key for its corresponding table entry, which reasonably correspond to identifier associated index, table 6, figures 4-5, par par [0169]-[0171], 0201] and [0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to implement the associations between the QFIs and respective SNR thresholds using Li’s tabulated correspondence between flow identifier and its RAN parameter, in order to allow the serving RAN to retrieve the applicable radio target from each packet’s QFI and perform precise resource scheduling for the corresponding flow (see par [0202] of Li).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the optimizing the first XR traffic flow or the optimizing the second XR traffic flow further comprises modifying QoS settings (read as optimizing an XR QoS flow by modifying or augmenting its QoS settings and configuring a secondary set of QoS parameters for the same QFI, including switching to another QoS or QFI parameter, par [0149]-[0150] but does not specifically disclose providing an updated RAN-level metric for at least one of: the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric to at least one of: the user endpoint device or the radio access node serving the user endpoint device.
Nonetheless, Li discloses updating a RAN domain QoS parameter, re-dividing that parameter after the RAN capability changes and sending the updated value to the RAN network domain; the serving access network device obtains and uses its current RAN parameter for precise scheduling, figures 3A-3B, par [0176], [0178]-[0179] and [0191].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to modify the flow associated RAN parameter using Li’s QoS re-division and delivery process, in order to keep the serving RAN’s flow target current when its capability or transmission path changes (see par [0178]-[0179] of Li).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Wei et al. (US 20240064557 A1).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 9 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the first identifier identifies the first XR traffic flow (read as first QFI identifying the first XR QoS flow, together with the QoS parameters and forwarding treatment applied to that flow, figure 8, par [0135] and [0139]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first identifier is uniquely associated with a group of XR traffic flows including the first XR traffic flow.
Nonetheless, Wei discloses unique QoS group identifiers, which each member flow receives QoS Group information including QFGI and each QoS flow group is identified by a unique QFGI, par [0008]-[0009] and [0023]-[0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wei into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure Rossbach’s first identifier as Wei’s unique QFGI for a QoS flow group containing the first XR flow, in order to coordinate QoS treatment of correlated XR flows and conserve resources when the group’s QoS requirements cannot be fulfilled (see par [0011] of Wei).
Claims 14 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Kamel et al. (US 6285886 B1).
Consider claim 14, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the optimizing the first XR traffic flow or the optimizing the second XR traffic flow comprises controlling forwarding treatment (read as optimizing the first and second XR flow by controlling the forwarding treatment corresponding to that flow’s traffic pattern and QoS parameters at the serving base station, figure 8, par [0139]-[0141] but does not specifically disclose providing, to the radio access node serving the user endpoint device, an updated transmit power value or an updated range of transmit power values.
Nonetheless, Kamel discloses the mobile station providing the base station with control data representing an incremental increase or decrease in decibels for the base station transmit power; a subsequent incremental amount updates the previous amount and therefore corresponds to an updated transmit power value supplied to the serving radio access node, figures 2-3, col. 5 with 15 to col. 6 with line 9, col. 6 with lines 61 to col.7 with line 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamel into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to implement the RAN transmit power adaptation using Kamel’s incremental decibel power values, in order to communicate definite power changes while reducing the amount of power control information sent over the air interface (col. 6 with lines 3-29 of Kamel).
Consider claim 26, as applied to claim 25 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the adapting the setting of the user endpoint device comprises switching QoS parameter (read as adapting the UE configuration for the selected XR flow by providing a secondary set of QoS parameters and causing the UE to switch to another parameter value, par [0150]) but does not specifically disclose providing, to the user endpoint device, an updated transmit power value or an updated range of transmit power values.
Nonetheless, Kamel discloses the base station providing the mobile station with control data representing an incremental increase or decrease in decibels for the mobile station transmit power; the control data may later be updated, so the supplied incremental decibel amount corresponds to an updated transmit power value provided to the user endpoint device and applied by its uplink power controller, figures 4, col. 8 with line 49 to col. 9 with line 46.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamel into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to implement the adapted UE radio setting using Kamel’s incremental uplink power value, in order to communicate the required UE power change while reducing the amount of control information transmitted to the mobile station (see col. 1 with lines 55-67 of Kamel).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Ang et al. (US 20150334653 A1).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 1 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein at least one of: the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric is associated with power conservation (read as associating its XR flow mappings and QoS treatment with increased power conservation for the UE and base station and seeks to optimize their power saving according to XR traffic characteristics, par [0135]-[0136]) but does not specifically disclose the first RAN-level metric or the second RAN-level metric is associated with an energy saving parameter for at least one of: the user endpoint device or the radio access node serving the user endpoint device.
Nonetheless, Ang discloses techniques for managing power consumption of a mobile device, comprising an energy metric associated with transmission parameters affecting the mobile device’s energy use and configuring the wireless transmission according to that energy metric, figures 5-6, par [0007] [0117]-[0120], [0124] and [0136].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ang into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to configure XR flow’s RAN metric using Ang’s power consumption technique with energy aware transmission, in order to reduce UE processing energy while preserving the selected flow’s QoS (see par [0117]-[0120] of Ang).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Ang et al. (US 20150334653 A1), and in further view of Wei et al. (US 20240064557 A1).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the QoS rule is based on configuration from upper layers (read as changing the QoS rule and QFI treatment applied to XR data according to configuration received from uppwer layers, par [0144]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the updated RAN-level metric is based on a network or service policy update.
Nonetheless, Wei discloses policy modification and RAN adjustment, comprising modifying an session management (SM) policy association that includes a group treatment policy, providing the resulting police information with QoS profiles and QFIs to the RAN, and causing the RAN to adjust its resource according to the policy control function (PCF) policy, figure 11, par [0219], [0224], [0226] and [0231]-[0232].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wei into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar and Ang, to update the flow associated RAN parameter using Wei’s modified PCF policy, in order to keep the RAN treatment aligned with the network’s current QoS policy (see par [0224] and [0226] of Wei).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Li et al. (US 20200374741 A1), and in further view of Ang et al. (US 20150334653 A1).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 16 above, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses wherein the augmented QoS setting is based on a history of earlier abnormal events (read as modifying an XR connection using augmented QoS settings triggered according to a history of earlier abnormal evens and radio condition information, par [0153]-[0154]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the updated RAN-level metric is based on historical network data.
Nonetheless, Ang discloses using long term cell loading information stored in database and information from prior transmissions as historical inputs when determining parameters used to configure a later wireless transmission, and those inputs are historical network data, figure 6, par [0125] and [0127].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ang into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar and Li, to update the flow associated RAN parameter using Ang’s long term loading and prior transmission information, in order to make later radio scheduling reflect sustained network conditions rather than only a single instantaneous observation (see par [0127] of Ang).
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossbach et al. (US 20130269620 A1) in view of Vargantwar et al. (US 8224371 B1), and in further view of Li et al. (US 20200374741 A1).
Consider claim 19, Rossbach discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations (read as non-transitory computer readable medium storing program instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the device to perform XR flow mapping method, par [0068], [0166] and [0172]), the operations comprising:
detecting a first extended reality (XR) traffic flow and a second XR traffic flow exchanged between an XR application executing on a user endpoint device and an application server supporting the XR application, wherein the first XR traffic flow carries traffic containing a first component of the XR application and the second XR traffic flow carries traffic containing a second component of the XR application that is different from the first component, and wherein each of the first component and the second component is one of: a multimedia component, an interactivity component, a user proximity component, or a user location component (read as network entity, including the base station, supporting a UE that executes a 5G-XR Aware Application and exchanges necessary data streams through the radio access network (RAN) and user plane function (UPF) with a 5G-XR Application service, one service data flow contains video frames and another contains audio information, which are different multimedia components; the packet filters distinguish the service data flows, the QoS Flow IDs (QFIs) identify the resulting QoS flows, and the network maps a first data segment to a first QoS flow and a second data segment to a different QoS flow, which functionally correspond to detecting the first and second XR traffic flows for their respective mappings, figures 6 and 8, par [0124]-[0125], [0133]-[0135], [0137], [0139]-[0140] and [0144]);
using a first flow identifier for the first XR traffic flow and a second flow identifier for the second XR traffic flow (read as using a first QFI to identify the first XR QoS flow and a second QFI to identify the second XR QoS flow, which the QFIs included in the transmission, figure 8, par [0135] and [0139]-[0140]);
associating the first flow identifier and the second flow identifier with a first radio access network (RAN)-level metric and a second RAN-level metric, respectively (read as associating the first and second QFIs with respective QoS flows and their radio access QoS parameters, the video and audio service data flows receive different QoS parameter sets and treatment over the air interface, including parameters associated with latency and reliability, which reasonably correspond to different first and second RAN-level metrics, figure 8, par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]);
mapping the first XR traffic flow to a first RAN- level metric and the second XR traffic flow to a second RAN-level metric that is different from the first RAN-level metric (read as mapping the video service data flow to a first QoS parameter set and the audio service data flow to a different QoS parameter set, the first and second QoS flows receive their respective QoS parameters and different treatment over the air interface, including parameters associated with latency and reliability, which reasonably corresponds to different first and second RAN-level metrics, figure 8, par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]);
optimizing the first XR traffic flow by making a first adaptation (read as optimizing the first XR flow by appl6ing the traffic forwarding treatment associated with the first QoS flow’s traffic pattern and QoS parameters, with the base station controlling that treatment to improve transmission efficiency and fidelity, figure 8, par [0139] and [0141]); and
optimizing the second XR traffic flow by making a second adaptation, wherein the second adaptation is different from the first adaptation (read as optimizing the second XR flow through the second QoS flow having forwarding treatment and QoS parameters different from those applied to the first flow, each QoS flow has its own forwarding treatment, so the two different treatments are applied according to the respective flow, figure 8, par [0134] and [0140]-[0141]).
However, Rossbach discloses the claimed invention above and first and second XR flows assigned different RAN-level QoS parameters and respective forwarding treatments (par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second RAN-level metrics each comprise an XR coverage metric; the first adaptation that adapts a setting of a radio access node serving the user endpoint device so that the first RAN-level metric is met for the first XR traffic flow; and the second, different adaptation that adapts a setting of the radio access node serving the user endpoint device so that the second RAN-level metric is met for the second XR traffic flow.
Nonetheless, Vargantwar discloses per flow power control mode appliable to a forward link in which BTS 204 (radio access mode) is the sending entity serving AT 202 (receiving entity), the receiving entity maintains a separate SNR or power threshold for each flow (radio coverage metric), compares each flow’s received power with its applicable threshold and issues the corresponding command, which adjusts the BTS transmit power setting to control the received level relative to that threshold (col. 4 with liens 37-51, col. 7 with lines 25-54 and col. 9 with lines 1-21); and the BTS applies the commands separately per flow and retains different power states, including 12 dB for flow A and 8 dB for flow B, while an adjustment for one flow does not affect the power used for other flow, figure 4, col. 3 with lines 1-16, col. 9 with line 38 to col. 10 with line 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vargantwar into the teachings of Rossbach, to configure Rossbach’s first and second XR QoS flows using Vargantwar’s separate SNR thresholds and RAN transmit power states for respective flows, including different threshold values selected for Rossbach’s different QoS requirements, in order to preserve the different XR treatment while improving power efficiency by adjusting each threshold only in response to the corresponding flow’s performance (see col. 10 with lines 21-30 of Vargantwar).
However, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses the claimed invention above and first and second QFIs associated with respective radio coverage thresholds and different RAN transmit power states (par [0139]-[0140] of Rossbach, col. 7 with lines 25-54, and col. 9 with lines 1-21) but does not specifically disclose extracting a first flow identifier for the first XR traffic flow and a second flow identifier for the second XR traffic flow; querying a mapping table using the first flow identifier and the second flow identifier to obtain a first radio access network (RAN)-level metric and a second RAN-level metric.
Nonetheless, Li discloses RAN parameter retrieval by flow identifier, comprising a tabulated correspondence between a flow identifier and its RAN QoS parameter, the first access network device determines the RAN parameter from the first identifier in the received packet and the correspondence in the downlink and performs the corresponding determination using the second identifier in the uplink; using each identifier from its packet to perform the respective determination functionally corresponds to extracting the identifier, while the two identifier applications of the tabulated correspondence reasonably corresponds to querying a mapping table for the corresponding first and second metrics, figures 4 and 5, par [0169]-[0171], [0194], [0200]-[0201] and [0205]-[0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to implement the associations between the QFIs and respective SNR thresholds using Li’s tabulated correspondence between flow identifier and its RAN parameter, in order to allow the serving RAN to retrieve the applicable radio target from each packet’s QFI and perform precise resource scheduling for the corresponding flow (see par [0202] of Li).
Consider claim 20, Rossbach discloses a device comprising: a processing system including at least one processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations (read as a device, i.e. base station 102, having processor 404 and a computer readable memory medium storing program instructions with processor 404 executes to implement the method, figure 4, par [0107], [0113] and [0173]), the operations comprising:
detecting a first extended reality (XR) traffic flow and a second XR traffic flow exchanged between an XR application executing on a user endpoint device and an application server supporting the XR application, wherein the first XR traffic flow carries traffic containing a first component of the XR application and the second XR traffic flow carries traffic containing a second component of the XR application that is different from the first component, and wherein each of the first component and the second component is one of: a multimedia component, an interactivity component, a user proximity component, or a user location component (read as network entity, including the base station, supporting a UE that executes a 5G-XR Aware Application and exchanges necessary data streams through the radio access network (RAN) and user plane function (UPF) with a 5G-XR Application service, one service data flow contains video frames and another contains audio information, which are different multimedia components; the packet filters distinguish the service data flows, the QoS Flow IDs (QFIs) identify the resulting QoS flows, and the network maps a first data segment to a first QoS flow and a second data segment to a different QoS flow, which functionally correspond to detecting the first and second XR traffic flows for their respective mappings, figures 6 and 8, par [0124]-[0125], [0133]-[0135], [0137], [0139]-[0140] and [0144]);
using a first flow identifier for the first XR traffic flow and a second flow identifier for the second XR traffic flow (read as using a first QFI to identify the first XR QoS flow and a second QFI to identify the second XR QoS flow, which the QFIs included in the transmission, figure 8, par [0135] and [0139]-[0140]);
associating the first flow identifier and the second flow identifier with a first radio access network (RAN)-level metric and a second RAN-level metric, respectively (read as associating the first and second QFIs with respective QoS flows and their radio access QoS parameters, the video and audio service data flows receive different QoS parameter sets and treatment over the air interface, including parameters associated with latency and reliability, which reasonably correspond to different first and second RAN-level metrics, figure 8, par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]);
mapping the first XR traffic flow to a first RAN-level metric and the second XR traffic flow to a second RAN-level metric that is different from the first RAN- level metric (read as mapping the video service data flow to a first QoS parameter set and the audio service data flow to a different QoS parameter set, the first and second QoS flows receive their respective QoS parameters and different treatment over the air interface, including parameters associated with latency and reliability, which reasonably corresponds to different first and second RAN-level metrics, figure 8, par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]);
optimizing the first XR traffic flow by making a first adaptation (read as optimizing the first XR flow by appl6ing the traffic forwarding treatment associated with the first QoS flow’s traffic pattern and QoS parameters, with the base station controlling that treatment to improve transmission efficiency and fidelity, figure 8, par [0139] and [0141]); and
optimizing the second XR traffic flow by making a second adaptation, wherein the second adaptation is different from the first adaptation, and wherein the first and second adaptations are applied on a per-flow basis (read as optimizing the second XR flow through the second QoS flow having forwarding treatment and QoS parameters different from those applied to the first flow, each QoS flow has its own forwarding treatment, so the two different treatments are applied according to the respective flow, figure 8, par [0134] and [0140]-[0141]).
However, Rossbach discloses the claimed invention above and first and second XR flows assigned different RAN-level QoS parameters and respective forwarding treatments (par [0133]-[0134], [0137] and [0139]-[0140]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second RAN-level metrics each comprise an XR coverage metric; the first adaptation that adapts a setting of a radio access node serving the user endpoint device so that the first RAN-level metric is met for the first XR traffic flow; and the second, different adaptation that adapts a setting of the radio access node serving the user endpoint device so that the second RAN-level metric is met for the second XR traffic flow.
Nonetheless, Vargantwar discloses per flow power control mode appliable to a forward link in which BTS 204 (radio access mode) is the sending entity serving AT 202 (receiving entity), the receiving entity maintains a separate SNR or power threshold for each flow (radio coverage metric), compares each flow’s received power with its applicable threshold and issues the corresponding command, which adjusts the BTS transmit power setting to control the received level relative to that threshold (col. 4 with liens 37-51, col. 7 with lines 25-54 and col. 9 with lines 1-21); and the BTS applies the commands separately per flow and retains different power states, including 12 dB for flow A and 8 dB for flow B, while an adjustment for one flow does not affect the power used for other flow, figure 4, col. 3 with lines 1-16, col. 9 with line 38 to col. 10 with line 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vargantwar into the teachings of Rossbach, to configure Rossbach’s first and second XR QoS flows using Vargantwar’s separate SNR thresholds and RAN transmit power states for respective flows, including different threshold values selected for Rossbach’s different QoS requirements, in order to preserve the different XR treatment while improving power efficiency by adjusting each threshold only in response to the corresponding flow’s performance (see col. 10 with lines 21-30 of Vargantwar).
However, Rossbach, as modified by Vargantwar, discloses the claimed invention above and first and second QFIs associated with respective radio coverage thresholds and different RAN transmit power states (par [0139]-[0140] of Rossbach, col. 7 with lines 25-54, and col. 9 with lines 1-21) but does not specifically disclose extracting a first flow identifier for the first XR traffic flow and a second flow identifier for the second XR traffic flow; querying a mapping table using the first flow identifier and the second flow identifier to obtain a first radio access network (RAN)-level metric and a second RAN-level metric.
Nonetheless, Li discloses RAN parameter retrieval by flow identifier, comprising a tabulated correspondence between a flow identifier and its RAN QoS parameter, the first access network device determines the RAN parameter from the first identifier in the received packet and the correspondence in the downlink and performs the corresponding determination using the second identifier in the uplink; using each identifier from its packet to perform the respective determination functionally corresponds to extracting the identifier, while the two identifier applications of the tabulated correspondence reasonably corresponds to querying a mapping table for the corresponding first and second metrics, figures 4 and 5, par [0169]-[0171], [0194], [0200]-[0201] and [0205]-[0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li into the teachings of Rossbach, which modified by Vargantwar, to implement the associations between the QFIs and respective SNR thresholds using Li’s tabulated correspondence between flow identifier and its RAN parameter, in order to allow the serving RAN to retrieve the applicable radio target from each packet’s QFI and perform precise resource scheduling for the corresponding flow (see par [0202] of Li).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights