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 the application filed on 09/11/2025.
The Claims 9-19 have been canceled by the applicant.
The claim 20 have been newly added by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220086698) in view of Chowdhury et al. (U.S. Pub. 20070036078), further in view of Hori et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200396789).
Regarding claim 1 Yao disclose, a method comprising:
performing access measurement for a first Quality of Service (QoS) flow para. 24, “generating the performance measurements related to QoS flow”;
determining that the first measurement for the first QoS flow can be reused para. 4, “determine performance measurements related to the QoS flow event; and modify at least one of the QoS flows in the wireless cellular network based on the performance measurements… a number of QoS flow events can be monitored, and performance measure can be triggered based on the QoS flow events. As described below, the QoS flow events can include: QoS flow creation requests, QoS flow successful creations, QoS flow failed creations, QoS flow modifications”, see para 27.
Yao does not specifically disclose deciding not to initiate a second measurement over a second QoS flow, based on the first measurement for the first QoS flow which can be reused. However, Chowdhury teach, “The PDSN analyzes the traffic flow template (TFT), the granted QoS, the requested QoS, and the flow mapping information, and decides, at 322, whether to downgrade the granted QoS for the particular IP flow”, see para. 34.
Yao and Chowdhury does not specifically disclose, receiving Measurement Assistance Information (MAI) from a Session Management Function (SMF) However, Hori teach, “The receiver 1300 of the UE 122 receives an RRC reconfiguration message from the gNB 108 (step S400). The processing unit 1302 of the UE 122 performs configuration in accordance with information included in the RRC reconfiguration request (step S402)” see para. 150.
Hori further teach, wherein the MAI includes a Quality of Service (QoS) flow list for which at least one measurement is to be performed performing a first measurement over a first QoS flow included in the QoS flow list para. 151, Fig. 10, “after reconfiguring the SDAP entity and performing DRB configuration according to the information indicating the configuration of the DRB to be added or modified, the processing unit 1302 of the UE 122 notifies a higher layer of QoS flow identifiers or a list of QoS flow identifiers corresponding (mapping) to established DRB, and DRB establishment information (step S1004)”.
Yao, Chowdhury and Hori are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission measurements and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chowdhury and Hori in the system of Yao so the system can modify and update the second flow parameters with the last set of measurements and reduce the unnecessary consumption of resources. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of the measurements made on similar or same path of data traffic and apply it on other flows to update the quality of services.
Regarding claim 2 Yao does not specifically disclose wherein it is determined that the first measurement for the first QoS flow can be reused based on a mapping between Access network (AN) resources and QoS flow. However, Chowdhury teach, “The PDSN analyzes the traffic flow template (TFT), the granted QoS, the requested QoS, and the flow mapping information, and decides, at 322, whether to downgrade the granted QoS for the particular IP flow”, see para. 34.
Yao and Chowdhury are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission measurements and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chowdhury in the system of Yao to determine the relationship between different traffic to be able to apply similar parameters and criteria of their performance. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of the measurements made on similar or same path of data traffic and apply it on other flows to update the quality of services of the data being transmitted.
Regarding claim 4 Yao disclose, wherein performing of the first measurement over the first QoS flow further comprises: transmitting a request message requesting to count a number of uplink (UL) packets para. 29, “Each QoS flow requested to create in the message triggers the relevant subcounter per S-NSSAI and the relevant subcounter per 5QI to increment by 1 respectively (the S-NSSAI is the S-NSSAI that the PDU session belongs to” received through the first QoS flow to a User Plane Function (UPF), para. 191, “The UPF 602 may also perform packet routing and forwarding, perform packet inspection, enforce the user plane part of policy rules, lawfully intercept packets (UP collection)”.
Regarding claim 5 Yao disclose, wherein the performing of the first measurement over the first QoS flow further comprises: transmitting a report request message requesting to report the number of the received UL packets to the UPF para. 191, “The UPF 602 may also perform packet routing and forwarding, perform packet inspection, enforce the user plane part of policy rules, lawfully intercept packets (UP collection) and perform traffic usage reporting”.
Regarding claim 6 Yao disclose, wherein the performing of the first measurement over the first QoS flow further comprises: receiving a report response message including information on the number of received UL packets from the UPF para. 191, “The UPF 602 may also perform packet routing and forwarding, perform packet inspection… and perform traffic usage reporting. Although it is not specifically disclosed sending the message with the data. It would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to understand that the UPF 602 in charge of inspecting, counting and reporting the traffic of packet usage would report back the information being requested.
Regarding claim 8 Yao teaches, a User Equipment comprising: at least one processor read as: “Application circuitry 705 includes circuitry such as, but not limited to one or more processors (or processor cores)”; and at least one memory read as: “memory circuitry 720”; furthermore claim 8 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220086698) in view of Chowdhury et al. (U.S. Pub. 20070036078), further in view of Hori et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200396789), further in view of Nimmala et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140269373).
Regarding claim 3 Yao, Chowdhury and Hori does not specifically disclose, wherein the first measurement for the first QoS flow includes a packet loss rate (PLR) measurement for the first QoS flow. However, Nimmala teach, para. 33, “The QoS that can be needed by an application can, for example, be measured in terms of packet delay and PLR”.
Yao, Chowdhury, Hori and Nimmala are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission measurements and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nimmala, in the system of Yao, Chowdhury and Hori, to be able to consider the relevant parameter required for the quality of services of the transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the management of the quality of the services for the traffic being measured.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220086698) in view of Chowdhury et al. (U.S. Pub. 20070036078), further in view of Hori et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200396789), further in view of Saiga (U.S. Pub. 20220150283).
Regarding claim 7 Yao, Chowdhury and Hori does not specifically disclose, wherein performing of the first measurement over the first QoS flow further comprises: calculating a Packet Loss Rate (PLR) based on the number of received UL packets received from the UPF and the number of UL packets transmitted by a User Equipment. However, Saiga teaches, para. 60, “the problem-occurring call extracting unit 33 calculates a packet loss rate by dividing the packet loss count by the total value of the received RTP packet count and the packet loss count”.
Yao, Chowdhury, Hori and Saiga are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission measurements and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Saiga in the system of Yao, Chowdhury and Hori to be able to consider the relevant parameter required for the quality of services of the transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the management of the quality of the services for the traffic being measured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Salkintzis (U.S. Pub. 20200336940) which disclose(s) measuring access network performance for a multi-access data connection.
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 RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–272–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/R.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights