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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-19, 24-27, and 30 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 25, and 30 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-19, 24-27, and 30 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/18/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Examiner would like to state for the record the following regarding claims 25-27. (Please note, this is not a rejection)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
For claims 25-27, claims limitations containing the terms “means for” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph since the terms “means for” are used and such limitations do not include the structures necessary to perform the claimed functions. Hence, the limitations invoke the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: paragraphs 126-127, 131, 134, 142.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 13-17, 19, 25-27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230072769_A1_Yeh in view of US_20240049104_A1_Sun.
Regarding claim 1, Yeh discloses a method for improving Quality of Service (QoS) in an end-to-end network connection performed by a user equipment (UE) (Yeh figure 9, paragraph 32-33, and paragraph 186, “…The IoT devices 911 can utilize technologies such as M2M or MTC for exchanging data with an MTC server ( e.g., a server 950), an edge server 936 and/or edge computing system 935, or device via a PLMN, ProSe or D2D communication,…”), comprising: wherein the end-to-end network connection is via: a fifth generation (5G) communication network including the UE and a 5G network function (Yeh figure 9, paragraph 184, “…the communication networks and/or access technologies may include cellular technology such as LTE, MuLTEfire, and/or NR/5G…”); and a non-5G communication network including the UE and a wireless device (Yeh figure 9, , paragraph 194, “…The UEs 921, 911 may further directly exchange communication data via respective direct links 905, …”), wherein the non-5G communication network is a Wi-Fi network, a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) network, or a universal serial bus (USB) network (Yeh paragraph 194, “…The UEs 921, 911 may further directly exchange communication data via respective direct links 905, which may be… WiFi based links… WiFi-direct; Bluetooth/Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocols)).
but does not disclose determining, a QoS requirement of the end-to-end network connection, obtaining, QoS information of the non-5G communication network; and sending, to the 5G network function of the 5G communication network, a QoS parameter indicating a requested QoS of the 5G communication network, wherein the QoS parameter is based on the determined QoS requirement and the obtained QoS information.
Sun discloses determining, a QoS requirement of the end-to-end network connection (Sun figure 4A, step 406, the relay UE 104 receives the E2E QoS requirement from remote UE 106, and forwards it to the base station 102), obtaining, QoS information of the non-5G communication network (Sun figure 4B, step 420, paragraph 71); and sending, to the 5G network function of the 5G communication network, a QoS parameter indicating a requested QoS of the 5G communication network (Sun figure 4B, step 426, paragraph 74, “At 426, the relay UE 104 transmits a communication resource request to the base station 102…”), wherein the QoS parameter is based on the determined QoS requirement and the obtained QoS information (Sun figure 4A-4B, step 426, the requested communication resource is determined based on the hop QoS status and QoS requirement).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sun’s the relay UE determines the E2E QoS requirement and the hop QoS status in Yeh’s system to request the proper resource for the E2E communication based the requirement and the link status between the relay UE and the remote UE. This method for improving the system of Yeh was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Sun. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yeh and Sun to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the end-to-end network connection is between the wireless device and an endpoint server associated with an augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), or extended reality (XR) application that is running on the wireless device (Yeh figure 9, paragraph 32-33, and paragraph 186, “…The IoT devices 911 can utilize technologies such as M2M or MTC for exchanging data with an MTC server ( e.g., a server 950), an edge server 936 and/or edge computing system 935, or device via a PLMN, ProSe or D2D communication,…”, and paragraphs 25, 94, 178, AR/VR applications).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, and Yeh further discloses wherein the QoS information includes a round-trip delay of the end-to-end network connection or a one-way delay of the end-to-end network connection (Yeh paragraph 45, “…The performance measurements may include…round trip times (RTTs) and/or round-trip delay times (RTDs); QoS and/or QoE parameters…”).
Regarding claim 4, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, and Yeh further discloses wherein the QoS information includes a packet error rate of the non-5G communication network (Yeh paragraph 45, “…The performance measurements may include…error rate…”).
Regarding claim 5, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, and Sun further discloses wherein the QoS information includes a classification of the non-5G communication network, the classification indicating that the non-5G communication network is the Wi-Fi network, the BLE network, or the USB network (Sun figure 4B, hop QoS status).
Regarding claim 7, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, and Sun further discloses wherein the QoS information includes at least one of application information or traffic information (Sun paragraph 71, traffic information).
Regarding claim 13, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Sun further discloses user equipment (UE) network element, comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (Sun figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 25, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 27, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 30, Yeh and Sun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Sun further discloses a non-transitory processor-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processor of a network element to perform operations (Sun figure 102, 105).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230072769_A1_Yeh in view of US_20240049104_A1_Sun and US_20230111943_A1_Maeda.
Regarding claim 6, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the QoS information includes a request message indicating a requested change in a round-trip delay of the end-to-end network connection, a one-way delay of the end-to-end network connection, or a packet error rate provided to the reporting entity.
Maeda discloses wherein the QoS information includes a request message indicating a requested change in a round-trip delay of the end-to-end network connection, a one-way delay of the end-to-end network connection, or a packet error rate provided to the reporting entity (Maeda paragraph 39, “For example, the communication apparatus 101 may make a request for changing the configuration so as to shorten delay to the network orchestrator 112 so that the RTT becomes shorter than a predetermined value in the above-described third network slice. Further, the communication apparatus 101 may make a request for changing the configuration for error control to the network orchestrator 112 so that the error rate takes on a value that is suitable for the communication service”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Maeda’s the communication apparatus may make a request for changing the configuration of a network slice in Yeh and Sun’s system to perform communication control so as to be able to sufficiently satisfy a required communication quality in response to a change in the communication state (Maeda paragraph 39). This method for improving the system of Yeh and Sun was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Maeda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yeh, Sun and Maeda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, Yeh, Sun and Maeda disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230072769_A1_Yeh in view of US_20240049104_A1_Sun and US_20170041231_A1_Seed.
Regarding claim 12, Yeh and Sun disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the QoS requirement of the end-to-end network connection is determined based on a service agreement, application type, or user request.
Seed discloses wherein the QoS requirement of the end-to-end network connection is determined based on a service agreement, application type, or user request (Seed paragraph 77, “…Depending on the type of application and the type of device, this communication may have specific E2E QoS requirements…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Seed’s the QoS requirement of an E2E communication is depending on the type of application and the type of device in Yeh and Sun’s system to optimize network performance, and to ensure a satisfactory user experience. This method for improving the system of Yeh and Sun was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Seed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yeh, Sun and Seed to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 24, Yeh, Sun and Seed disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 12.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference US_20230093435_A1_Huang, teaches a communication method includes receiving, by a first communication apparatus, indication information from a second communication apparatus, and determining, by the first communication apparatus, a first quality of service (QoS) of the extended reality (XR) service based on the at least one piece of QoS of an XR service. The first communication apparatus is a core network device or an access network device. The indication information is useable to indicate at least one piece of QoS of the XR service. The XR device receives data of the XR service or sends data of the XR service by a terminal device. The second communication apparatus is an XR server or a chip in the XR server (Huang figures 4, 9-12).
The reference US_20150222549_A1_Kakadia, teaches a device for managing end-to-end traffic across a network based on adjusting Quality of Service (QoS) parameters. The device may receive performance requirements for packets corresponding to different applications and QoS levels within segments across the network, and measure performance values along the segments across the network. The device may also identify the application data flows and their associated network locations failing to meet performance values across network segments, and detect an application data flow failing to meet end-to-end (E2E) performance requirements. The device may determine network location(s) to adjust the QoS parameters of the detected application data flow, and adjust its QoS parameters at the determined network location(s) to bring the detected application data flow into compliance with its E2E performance requirements, while maintaining E2E performances compliance of other application data flows (Kakadia figure 8, paragraphs 84-91).
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights