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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al.( WO2021062738) (note: examiner relies on foreign translation of document provided herewith) in view of Ghadge et al. (US2020/0374762 herein after Ghadge).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches receiving, by a session management function (SMF), from a wireless device, a first message comprising (page 18 lines 25-35 “1101. The terminal device sends a second PDU session modification request message to the AMF network element. Wherein, the second PDU session modification request message is used to request the PDU session of the terminal device to add the first data stream of the transmission terminal device, and the second PDU session modification request message includes the service identification information and the first indication information of the first data stream. The operation of the first indication information on the first data stream is similar to a new operation. The service identification information of the first data flow includes the packet filter of the data packet of the first data flow or the application layer identification information corresponding to the first data flow.…1102. The AMF network element sends the second PDU session modification request message to the SMF network element.”),
wherein the processing of data is offloaded from the wireless device to an application server (page 18 lines 21-22 “the SMF network element delivers the information of the DNS server corresponding to the first data stream to the terminal device and the first UPF network that is determined to offload the first data stream”);
and sending, by the SMF to the wireless device, page 18 lines 21-22 “the SMF network element delivers the information of the DNS server corresponding to the first data stream to the terminal device and the first UPF network that is determined to offload the first data stream”).
Lu does not teach delay information, based on the delay information.
Ghadge teaches delay information ([0036] “A latency sensitive PDN session 133 may facilitate local offload of low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed-line 114) for UE 110 while a non-latency sensitive PDN session 103 may be used for non-low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed line 112) for UE 110, as discussed for embodiments herein, [0057] “At 302, UE 110 attaches (via over-the-air RF communications) to RAN element 124 and communicates a Create PDN Request message to mobility element 104 to initiate a PDN session creation to an APN say, the Internet, in which the Create PDN Request message includes, among other information, PCO IE 200 carrying private extension indication {0017H} [MS Supports Create Low Latency PDN Session, as discussed in FIG. 2]”), , based on the delay information ([0036] “A latency sensitive PDN session 133 may facilitate local offload of low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed-line 114) for UE 110 while a non-latency sensitive PDN session 103 may be used for non-low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed line 112) for UE 110, as discussed for embodiments herein, [0057] “At 302, UE 110 attaches (via over-the-air RF communications) to RAN element 124 and communicates a Create PDN Request message to mobility element 104 to initiate a PDN session creation to an APN say, the Internet, in which the Create PDN Request message includes, among other information, PCO IE 200 carrying private extension indication {0017H} [MS Supports Create Low Latency PDN Session, as discussed in FIG. 2]”, (Examiner’s Note: Ghadge clearly shows when establishing sessions for offloading the UE, it considers latency which is equivalent to delay).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu incorporate the teachings of Ghadge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to ensure an edge user plane (UP) is not overloaded .
Regarding claim 11, Lu teaches A session management function (SMF) comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (page 24 lines 50-54 “In the implementation process, each step of the above method can be completed by an integrated logic circuit of hardware in the processor or instructions in the form of software. The steps of the method disclosed in the embodiments of the present application may be directly embodied as being executed and completed by a hardware processor”), cause the SMF to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a wireless device, a first message comprising (page 18 lines 25-35 “1101. The terminal device sends a second PDU session modification request message to the AMF network element. Wherein, the second PDU session modification request message is used to request the PDU session of the terminal device to add the first data stream of the transmission terminal device, and the second PDU session modification request message includes the service identification information and the first indication information of the first data stream. The operation of the first indication information on the first data stream is similar to a new operation. The service identification information of the first data flow includes the packet filter of the data packet of the first data flow or the application layer identification information corresponding to the first data flow.…1102. The AMF network element sends the second PDU session modification request message to the SMF network element.”),
wherein the processing of data is offloaded from the wireless device to an application server (page 18 lines 21-22 “the SMF network element delivers the information of the DNS server corresponding to the first data stream to the terminal device and the first UPF network that is determined to offload the first data stream”); and sending, to the wireless device, page 18 lines 21-22 “the SMF network element delivers the information of the DNS server corresponding to the first data stream to the terminal device and the first UPF network that is determined to offload the first data stream”).
Lu does not teach delay information, based on the delay information.
Ghadge teaches delay information ([0036] “A latency sensitive PDN session 133 may facilitate local offload of low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed-line 114) for UE 110 while a non-latency sensitive PDN session 103 may be used for non-low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed line 112) for UE 110, as discussed for embodiments herein, [0057] “At 302, UE 110 attaches (via over-the-air RF communications) to RAN element 124 and communicates a Create PDN Request message to mobility element 104 to initiate a PDN session creation to an APN say, the Internet, in which the Create PDN Request message includes, among other information, PCO IE 200 carrying private extension indication {0017H} [MS Supports Create Low Latency PDN Session, as discussed in FIG. 2]”), , based on the delay information ([0036] “A latency sensitive PDN session 133 may facilitate local offload of low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed-line 114) for UE 110 while a non-latency sensitive PDN session 103 may be used for non-low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed line 112) for UE 110, as discussed for embodiments herein, [0057] “At 302, UE 110 attaches (via over-the-air RF communications) to RAN element 124 and communicates a Create PDN Request message to mobility element 104 to initiate a PDN session creation to an APN say, the Internet, in which the Create PDN Request message includes, among other information, PCO IE 200 carrying private extension indication {0017H} [MS Supports Create Low Latency PDN Session, as discussed in FIG. 2]”, (Examiner’s Note: Ghadge clearly shows when establishing sessions for offloading the UE, it considers latency which is equivalent to delay).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu incorporate the teachings of Ghadge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to ensure an edge user plane (UP) is not overloaded .
Regarding claim 21, Lu teaches A wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (page 24 lines 50-54 “In the implementation process, each step of the above method can be completed by an integrated logic circuit of hardware in the processor or instructions in the form of software. The steps of the method disclosed in the embodiments of the present application may be directly embodied as being executed and completed by a hardware processor”), cause the wireless device to:
send, to a session management function (SMF), a first message comprising (page 18 lines 25-35 “1101. The terminal device sends a second PDU session modification request message to the AMF network element. Wherein, the second PDU session modification request message is used to request the PDU session of the terminal device to add the first data stream of the transmission terminal device, and the second PDU session modification request message includes the service identification information and the first indication information of the first data stream. The operation of the first indication information on the first data stream is similar to a new operation. The service identification information of the first data flow includes the packet filter of the data packet of the first data flow or the application layer identification information corresponding to the first data flow.…1102. The AMF network element sends the second PDU session modification request message to the SMF network element.”),
wherein the processing of data is offloaded from the wireless device to an application server (page 18 lines 21-22 “the SMF network element delivers the information of the DNS server corresponding to the first data stream to the terminal device and the first UPF network that is determined to offload the first data stream”);
and receive, from the SMF, page 18 lines 21-22 “the SMF network element delivers the information of the DNS server corresponding to the first data stream to the terminal device and the first UPF network that is determined to offload the first data stream”).
Lu does not teach delay information, based on the delay information.
Ghadge teaches delay information ([0036] “A latency sensitive PDN session 133 may facilitate local offload of low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed-line 114) for UE 110 while a non-latency sensitive PDN session 103 may be used for non-low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed line 112) for UE 110, as discussed for embodiments herein, [0057] “At 302, UE 110 attaches (via over-the-air RF communications) to RAN element 124 and communicates a Create PDN Request message to mobility element 104 to initiate a PDN session creation to an APN say, the Internet, in which the Create PDN Request message includes, among other information, PCO IE 200 carrying private extension indication {0017H} [MS Supports Create Low Latency PDN Session, as discussed in FIG. 2]”), , based on the delay information ([0036] “A latency sensitive PDN session 133 may facilitate local offload of low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed-line 114) for UE 110 while a non-latency sensitive PDN session 103 may be used for non-low latency traffic (illustrated in FIG. 1 as dashed line 112) for UE 110, as discussed for embodiments herein, [0057] “At 302, UE 110 attaches (via over-the-air RF communications) to RAN element 124 and communicates a Create PDN Request message to mobility element 104 to initiate a PDN session creation to an APN say, the Internet, in which the Create PDN Request message includes, among other information, PCO IE 200 carrying private extension indication {0017H} [MS Supports Create Low Latency PDN Session, as discussed in FIG. 2]”, (Examiner’s Note: Ghadge clearly shows when establishing sessions for offloading the UE, it considers latency which is equivalent to delay).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu incorporate the teachings of Ghadge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to ensure an edge user plane (UP) is not overloaded .
Regarding claim 2, 12, Lu does not teach wherein the delay information comprises a delay value.
Ghadge teaches wherein the delay information comprises a delay value ([0059] “ at least one embodiment, CP element 106 may notify policy element 108 about UE 110 support for low latency traffic segregation using a private extension attribute-value pair (AVP) included in the CCR-I message that includes a UE low latency segregation support indication (IND)”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu incorporate the teachings of Ghadge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to ensure an edge user plane (UP) is not overloaded .
Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ghadge in view of Wang et al.(US20160219481).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Lu, Ghadge does not teach wherein the offloading information indicates that offloaded processing of the data is supported based on an amount of time associated with the offloaded processing of the data being less than the delay value.
Wang teaches wherein the offloading information indicates that offloaded processing of the data is supported based on an amount of time associated with the offloaded processing of the data being less than the delay value ([0070-77] “If the MeNB configures the SeNB to make report periodically, then when the period time expires, the SeNB may report the offloaded bearer status information as a level indication of the data packet transmission failure times per DRB or per UE/delay/buffer status or data or an indication of whether the threshold pre-configured by the MeNB is reached. If the MeNB configures the SeNB to report a triggering event (i.e., make report when an triggering condition is satisfied), then the SeNB should send the reported message when the offloaded data packet transmission failure times per DRB or per UE/delay/buffer status reaches the lever threshold configured by the MeNB or the data … canceling offloading transmission for the SeNB”, (Examiner’s Note: if the delay of offloading is greater then the delay threshold the offloading is cancelled which is equivalent to not support, if the delay of the offloading is less than the delay threshold the offloading is maintained which is equivalent to supported).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lu, Ghadge to incorporate the teachings of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the reliability of data transmission.
Regarding claim 4, 14, Lu, Ghadge does not teach wherein the offloading information indicates that the offloaded processing of the data is not supported based on an amount of time associated with the offloaded processing of the data being greater than the delay value.
Wang teaches wherein the offloading information indicates that the offloaded processing of the data is not supported based on an amount of time associated with the offloaded processing of the data being greater than the delay value ([0070-77] “If the MeNB configures the SeNB to make report periodically, then when the period time expires, the SeNB may report the offloaded bearer status information as a level indication of the data packet transmission failure times per DRB or per UE/delay/buffer status or data or an indication of whether the threshold pre-configured by the MeNB is reached. If the MeNB configures the SeNB to report a triggering event (i.e., make report when an triggering condition is satisfied), then the SeNB should send the reported message when the offloaded data packet transmission failure times per DRB or per UE/delay/buffer status reaches the lever threshold configured by the MeNB or the data … canceling offloading transmission for the SeNB”, (Examiner’s Note: if the delay of offloading is greater then the delay threshold the offloading is cancelled which is equivlant to not support, if the delay of the offloading is less than the delay threshold the offloading is maintained which is equivalent to supported).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lu, Ghadge to incorporate the teachings of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the reliability of data transmission.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ghadge, further in view of Jung et al.(US20210168655).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Lu, Ghadge does not teach wherein the delay information comprises a request for a delay value indicating an amount of time associated with the offloaded processing of the data.
Jung teaches wherein the delay information comprises a request for a delay value indicating an amount of time associated with the offloaded processing of the data ([0086-87] “Furthermore, the UE 100 may transmit information about requirements for the offloading data corresponding to the offloading point. The information about the requirements for the offloading data may include reference information for processing the offloading data”, [0017] “The information about the requirements may include at least one of quality of service (QoS) information, latency information, processing time information, or capacity information that needs to be satisfied when the offloading data is processed by the server”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lu in view of Ghadge to incorporate the teachings of Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a more robust system [0014].
Regarding claims 6, 16, Lu in view of Ghadge does not teach wherein the amount of time comprises a processing time at an application server.
Jung teaches wherein the amount of time comprises a processing time at an application server ([0086-87] “Furthermore, the UE 100 may transmit information about requirements for the offloading data corresponding to the offloading point. The information about the requirements for the offloading data may include reference information for processing the offloading data”, [0017] “The information about the requirements may include at least one of quality of service (QoS) information, latency information, processing time information, or capacity information that needs to be satisfied when the offloading data is processed by the server”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lu in view of Ghadge to incorporate the teachings of Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a more robust system [0014].
Regarding claim 10, Lu in view of Ghadge does not explicitly teach wherein the amount of time comprises a transmission delay associated with transmission of the data between the wireless device and an application server associated with the application.
Jung teaches wherein the amount of time comprises a transmission delay associated with transmission of the data between the wireless device and an application server associated with the application ([0086-87] “Furthermore, the UE 100 may transmit information about requirements for the offloading data corresponding to the offloading point. The information about the requirements for the offloading data may include reference information for processing the offloading data”, [0017] “The information about the requirements may include at least one of quality of service (QoS) information, latency information, processing time information, or capacity information that needs to be satisfied when the offloading data is processed by the server”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lu, Ghadge to incorporate the teachings of Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a more robust system [0014].
Claim(s) 7-9, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Ghadge, further in view of Jung further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 7, 17, Lu, Ghadge and Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the amount of time comprises a first transmission time associated with transmission of data between the wireless device and a base station, the first transmission time being associated with one or more of: transmission of data from the wireless device to the base station; and transmission of data to the wireless device from the base station.
Wang teaches wherein the amount of time comprises a first transmission time associated with transmission of data between the wireless device and a base station, the first transmission time being associated with one or more of: transmission of data from the wireless device to the base station; and transmission of data to the wireless device from the base station . If the MeNB configures the SeNB to report a triggering event (i.e., make report when an triggering condition is satisfied), then the SeNB should send the reported message when the offloaded data packet transmission failure times per DRB or per UE/delay/buffer status reaches the lever threshold configured by the MeNB or the data … canceling offloading transmission for the SeNB”, (Examiner’s Note: delay is equivalent to the time associated with transmission of data between the wireless device and a base station).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lu, Ghadge, Jung to incorporate the teachings of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the reliability of data transmission.
Regarding claims 8, 18, Lu teaches further comprising sending, to one or more of the base station and an access and mobility management function (AMF) (page 18 lines 25-35 “1101. The terminal device sends a second PDU session modification request message to the AMF network element. Wherein, the second PDU session modification request message is used to request the PDU session of the terminal device to add the first data stream of the transmission terminal device, and the second PDU session modification request message includes the service identification information and the first indication information of the first data stream. The operation of the first indication information on the first data stream is similar to a new operation. The service identification information of the first data flow includes the packet filter of the data packet of the first data flow or the application layer identification information corresponding to the first data flow.…1102. The AMF network element sends the second PDU session modification request message to the SMF network element.”),
Lu does not teach a request for information of the first transmission time.
Ghadge teaches a request for information of the first transmission time ([0038] “As described herein and in the claims, the terms ‘low latency traffic’ and ‘latency sensitive traffic’ can be used interchangeably to refer to traffic that has heightened timing constraints or requirements (e.g., due to Service Level Agreements (SLAs), URLLC, etc.) than non-latency sensitive traffic. Various constraints and/or requirements that may be associated with low latency traffic may include, not be limited to: transmission and/or processing time requirements within a network (e.g., between originating and terminating points of traffic within the network), reliability requirements (e.g., packet error rates, drop rates, etc.), combinations thereof, or the like”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lu incorporate the teachings of Ghadge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to ensure an edge user plane (UP) is not overloaded .
Regarding claim 9, 19, Lu, Ghadge does not explicitly teach wherein the request for information of the first transmission time comprises one or more of: one or more quality of service parameters; a data network name (DNN); and single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI).
Jung teaches teach wherein the request for information of the first transmission time comprises one or more of: one or more quality of service parameters ([0086-87] “Furthermore, the UE 100 may transmit information about requirements for the offloading data corresponding to the offloading point. The information about the requirements for the offloading data may include reference information for processing the offloading data”, [0017] “The information about the requirements may include at least one of quality of service (QoS) information, latency information, processing time information, or capacity information that needs to be satisfied when the offloading data is processed by the server”); a data network name (DNN); and single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lu, Ghadge to incorporate the teachings of Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a more robust system [0014].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 21 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
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.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411