DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 3/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The present amendments to claims 1, 13, and 20 has moved the limitation of “determining that the reporting condition is to be updated” up in the claim, thereby establishing antecedent basis for the “updated reporting condition” such that the subsequent step of receiving “an updated reporting condition” should instead refer to receiving “ the updated reporting condition”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao et al. (US20200112907A1), hereafter Dao, in view of Sun (US20200367110A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20,
Dao discloses Quality of Service Information Notification to UE, Users, and Application Server (Title) including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon, which, when executed by a processing circuitry of a RAN (Fig. 1-10B, RAN 102; Fig. 9, device 900; paragraph 351) to perform a method for notifying a quality of service (QoS) change (Abstract; Fig. 3-7, 10A-B; paragraph 5-8, 447-448).
Dao shows determining, by an access network device/RAN circuitry in the mobile network (Fig. 10B, RAN 102), that a change of a parameter of QoS notification control (QNC) of a non-guaranteed bit rate (non-GBR; paragraphs 64, 322) bearing flow in a mobile network meets a reporting condition (paragraphs 24, 51-53, 80, 84, 111-114, 324, 374; QoS report trigger/threshold) and in response to the determination that the change of the parameter of the QNC meets the reporting condition, transmitting a notification message to an application entity configured to perform an application function (Fig. 10B; SMF 104) through a core network entity (i.e. AMF 103; Fig. 10B, step 1075-1080; paragraph 24, 51-53, 80, 84, 111-114, 150, 207, 296-299, 324, 374; QoS Notification Control procedure initiates QoS monitoring events when triggered from RAN to SMF through AMF).
Dao further shows such information may be communicated to/obtained by an application function (Fig. 3-4; paragraph 8, 23-24; obtaining QoS requirements for an application by “another function” operating in the network such as Application Function AF 302) and shows UE-AF communication including providing network QoS to an Application Function through the RAN node to which the UE is connected (Fig. 3, step 350; paragraph 30, 150; UE-AF through RAN to adjust application settings).
Dao also discloses changes in QoS parameters (paragraph 52) and potential QoS change probability for QoS threshold (paragraph 114) including dynamically adjusting application settings (Fig. 3, step 350; paragraph 150; UE-AF through RAN node to dynamically adjust application settings) but fails to expressly disclose determining an updated reporting condition by the application entity based on a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold.
Sun discloses analogous art of 5G link quality obtaining (Title) including determining an updated reporting condition by the application entity based on a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold (Fig. 5, steps 450-460; paragraphs 25-26, 46-47, 61, 93-95, 182-183; updating the reporting policy by core network entities such as SMF/AF based on thresholds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Dao by determining an updated reporting condition by the application entity based on a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold, as shown by Sun, thereby improving link quality awareness capability of the network.
Regarding claim 13,
Dao discloses Quality of Service Information Notification to UE, Users, and Application Server (Title) including an apparatus of a radio access network (Fig. 1-10B, RAN 102; Fig. 9, device 900; paragraph 351) for notifying a quality of service (QoS) change (Abstract; Fig. 3-7, 10A-B; paragraph 5-8, 447-448) comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 9, processor 910) configured to determine that a change of a parameter of QoS notification control (QNC) of a non-guaranteed bit rate (non-GBR; paragraphs 64, 322) bearing flow in a mobile network meets a reporting condition (paragraphs 24, 51-53, 80, 84, 111-114, 324, 374; QoS report trigger/threshold) and transmit a notification message to an application entity configured to perform an application function (Fig. 10B; SMF 104) through a core network entity (i.e. AMF 103; Fig. 10B, step 1075-1080; paragraph 24, 51-53, 80, 84, 111-114, 150, 207, 296-299, 324, 374; QoS Notification Control procedure initiates QoS monitoring events when triggered from RAN to SMF through AMF).
Dao further shows such information may be communicated to/obtained by an application function (Fig. 3-4; paragraph 8, 23-24; obtaining QoS requirements for an application by “another function” operating in the network such as Application Function AF 302) and shows UE-AF communication including providing network QoS to an Application Function through the RAN node to which the UE is connected (Fig. 3, step 350; paragraph 30, 150; UE-AF through RAN to adjust application settings).
Dao also discloses changes in QoS parameters (paragraph 52) and potential QoS change probability for QoS threshold (paragraph 114) including dynamically adjusting application settings (Fig. 3, step 350; paragraph 150; UE-AF through RAN node to dynamically adjust application settings) but fails to expressly disclose determining an updated reporting condition by the application entity based on a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold.
Sun discloses analogous art of 5G link quality obtaining (Title) including determining an updated reporting condition by the application entity based on a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold (Fig. 5, steps 450-460; paragraphs 25-26, 46-47, 61, 93-95, 182-183; updating the reporting policy by core network entities such as SMF/AF entity based on thresholds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Dao by determining an updated reporting condition by the application entity based on a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold, as shown by Sun, thereby improving link quality awareness capability of the network.
Regarding claims 2 and 14,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses the parameter of the QNC comprises at least one of a PDB, PER, CBR (paragraph 41, 53, 73).
Regarding claims 4 and 16,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses the reporting condition comprises at least one of: a value change of the parameter of the QNC within a first duration is greater than a first threshold (paragraph 24-26, 46-57, 71-72, 81); a change rate of the parameter of the QNC within a second duration is greater than a second threshold; the value change of the parameter of the QNC within the first duration is greater than the first threshold, and the value change of the parameter of the QNC is maintained over a third time duration continuously; or the change rate of the parameter of the QNC within the second duration is greater than the second threshold, and the change rate of the parameter of the QNC is maintained over a fourth time duration continuously.
Regarding claims 5 and 17,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses the notification message comprises a value/quantized value of the changed parameter of the QNC (paragraph 46-57, 71, 81).
Regarding claims 6 and 18,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses the non-GBR bearing flow comprises: a non-GBR QoS flow or a non-GBR evolved packet system (EPS) bearer (paragraph 5, 64, 135, 158; non-GBR for EPS and 5G to support enhancements to assist Application Adjustment).
Regarding claims 7 and 19,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses the QNC is defined in an uplink; or the QNC is defined in a downlink; or the QNC is defined in the uplink and the downlink (paragraph 333; downlink and/or uplink data rate at geographical locations).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses a one-to-one correspondence between the non-GBR bearing flow and a target service flow, and the target service flow is a service flow comprising the QNC and the parameter of the QNC (paragraphs 41, 80-82, 115, 175, 270, 360, 389, 397-400; matching non-GBR flow QoS to QoS targets of the subscribed service).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses transmitting the notification message to the core network entity, so as to cause the core network entity to transmit the notification message to the application entity (Fig. 3, 5, 7, 10B; paragraphs 84-85, 145-150; transmit/forward QoS notification messages from RAN to SMF to AS/AF).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses the core network entity comprises a first core network entity and a second core network entity; the transmitting the notification message to the core network entity comprises: transmitting the notification message to the first core network entity, so as to forward, by the first core network entity, the notification message to the second core network entity (Fig. 3, 5, 7, 10B; paragraphs 84-85, 145-150; transmit/forward QoS notification messages from RAN to SMF to AS/AF).
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses receiving, by the access network device, a QNC profile transmitted by the core network entity, comprising the parameter of the QNC of the non-GBR bearing flow and the reporting condition (paragraph 133-136, 155, 186, 201, 386).
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Dao and Sun discloses receiving, by the access network device, an N2 interface protocol data unit (PDU) session request transmitted by the core network entity, and the N2 PDU session request carrying the QNC profile (Fig. 10B; para 80-86; N2 QoS report).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao and Sun in view of Ramachandra et al. (US20220039190A1), hereafter Ramachandra.
Regarding claims 3 and 15,
Dao discloses the parameter of the QNC comprises at least two of the PDB, the PER, and the CBR (paragraph 41, 53, 73; PDB, PER) but the combination of Dao and Sun does not expressly disclose the reporting condition of at least two reporting conditions corresponding to the at least two of the PDB, the PER, and the CBR, where the at least two reporting conditions are the same or different.
Ramachandra discloses analogous art including a reporting condition of at least two reporting conditions corresponding to the at least two of the PDB, the PER, and the CBR, where the at least two reporting conditions are the same or different (paragraph 78-83, 89-93; multiple/two or more conditions for quality reporting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Dao and Sun by providing the reporting condition of at least two reporting conditions corresponding to the at least two of the PDB, the PER, and the CBR, where the at least two reporting conditions are the same or different, thereby reducing the signaling power and saving power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8 of the Amendment, Applicant contends the present amendments are based on the discussion during the interview on 1/6/2026. Applicant further contends, on pg. 9 of the Amendment that the combination of Dao and Sun fails to disclose the application entity (emphasis by Applicant) determining the reporting condition to be updated.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Appendix to the 1/6/2026 interview, the present amendments do not incorporate the limitations proposed in the interview pertaining to a core network entity such as SMF or PCF. Rather, the present amendments merely moves the previous limitations concerning determining an updated reporting frequency based on a frequency threshold from the “adjusting” step to before the “receiving” step. As shown in the rejection, Dao does show transmitting the notification message to the SMF through the AMF, but also discloses such information may be communicated to/obtained by another function operating in the network such as Application Function AF 302 to dynamically adjust application settings including QoS parameters and identifying QoS change probability for QoS threshold (paragraphs 52, 114) while Sun is relied upon to specifically show such settings pertaining to updated reporting condition of the QNC transmitted by the application entity that determines a reporting frequency is greater/less than a frequency threshold (Fig. 5, steps 450-460; paragraphs 25-26, 46-47, 61, 93-95, 182-183), such that modifying Dao with the updated reporting frequency based on the frequency threshold, as taught by Sun, continues to meet a broadest reasonable interpretation of the pending claims. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 103 based on the combination of Dao and Sun are properly maintained.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477