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 .
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 action is responsive to the RCE filed on 4/13/26.
Claim(s) 16-31, 36-39 is/are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16-31, 36-39 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “transmitting, to the network, a request message for deleting the QoS rule in case that the received QoS rule is not set to the default QoS rule and the PDU is not an unstructured PDU session? The claim languages are not entirely clear what are the “condition” for determine the “unstructured PDU session” or “not an unstructured PDU session”? What exactly is the purpose of doing so? What are the connection of the ”not default QoS rule” and “unstructured PDU session”? Please clarify
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.
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) 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-30, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0322869 A1 in view of Mo, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0322834 A1.
As to claim 16, Fu teaches a method performed by a user equipment(UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network, a protocol data unit (PDU) session modification command message including a quality of service (QoS) rule (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; i.e., [0019] A default QoS rule (DQR) indication bit is used as an indicator to indicate whether a QoS rule is a default QoS rule; [0020] Based on the current QoS rule error handling, when a QoS rule operation is "Create new QoS rule" and there is already an existing QoS rule with the same QoS rule identifier, and further process the create request, and if the creation was processed successfully, the UE will delete the existing QoS rule);
identifying whether the received QoS rule is a default QoS rule and a type of the PDU to modify in case that the PDU session modification command message is an operation to create a new QoS rule (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0021] The default QoS rule (DQR) indicator and the QoS flow identifier (QFI). In one example, the QoS rule operation is "Create new QoS rule" and there is already an existing QoS rule with the same QoS rule identifier. Otherwise, if the existing QoS rule is the default QoS rule or the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is the default QoS rule", then UE 114 shall reject the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION COMMAND message); and
transmitting, to the network, a first PDU session modification request message for deleting the QoS rule (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0020] further process the create request, and if the creation was processed successfully, the UE will delete the existing QoS rule; [0021] If the existing QoS rule is not the default QoS rule and the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule", delete the old QoS rule).
But Fu failed to teach the claim limitation wherein identifying whether the received QoS rule is not set to a default QoS rule; transmitting, to the network, a request message for deleting the QoS rule in case that the received QoS rule is not set to the default QoS rule and the PDU is not an unstructured PDU session.
However, Mo teaches the limitation wherein identifying whether the received QoS rule is not set to a default QoS rule (Mo, page 3, paragraph 38 & 40; page 5, paragraph 58 i.e., [0038] the QoS flows 212-213 are not associated with a default QoS rule, and thus are referred to as non-default QoS flows; [0058] the non-default QoS flows 212-213, the UE 102 can locally delete the QoS rules and QoS flow descriptions of the respective non-default QoS flows); transmitting, to the network, a request message for deleting the QoS rule in case that the received QoS rule is not set to the default QoS rule and the PDU is not an unstructured PDU session (Mo, page 3, paragraph 38 & 40; page 5, paragraph 58; page 6, paragraph 72; i.e., [0038] the QoS flows 212-213 are not associated with a default QoS rule, and thus are referred to as non-default QoS flows; [0058] the non-default QoS flows 212-213, the UE 102 can locally delete the QoS rules and QoS flow descriptions of the respective non-default QoS flows; [0072] IE
indicating a reason for rejecting the PDU session modification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Fu to substitute a network-initiated PDU session modification process from Mo for enables a mobile device user to have wide-area mobility while retaining a stable IP address (Mo, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 17, Fu-Mo teaches the method as recited in claim 16, further comprising:
based on the PDU session modification command message including a QoS flow description, identifying that a QoS flow identifier (QFI) associated with the QoS flow description is not a same as the QFI of the QoS rule and the type of the PDU session is set to "the unstructured PDU session" in case that an operation of the QoS flow description being "Create new QoS flow description" or "Modify existing QoS flow description" (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0021] The default QoS rule (DQR) indicator and the QoS flow identifier (QFI). The UE should check the QoS rule configuration provided in the PDU session modification command message for different types of QoS rule errors. In one example, the QoS rule operation is "Create new QoS rule" and there is already an existing QoS rule with the same QoS rule identifier); and
transmitting to the network, the PDU session modification request message for deleting the QoS flow description (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0020] further process the create request, and if the creation was processed successfully, the UE will delete the existing QoS rule. However, the Default QoS Rule (DQR) bit of the new QoS rule may be different from the DQR bit of the existing QoS rule, and thus overriding the existing QoS rule; [0021] If the existing QoS rule is not the default QoS rule and the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule", delete the old QoS rule).
As to claim 18, Fu-Mo teaches the method as recited in claim 16, further comprising:
identifying that the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is set to the default QoS rule," the type of the PDU session is set to "the unstructured PDU session" and a packet filter list in the QoS rule is not empty, in case that a rule operation of the QoS rule is set to "a modify existing QoS rule and add packet filters" or "a modify existing QoS rule and replace all packet filters" (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0021] The default QoS rule (DQR) indicator and the QoS flow identifier (QFI). The UE should check the QoS rule configuration provided in the PDU session modification command message for different types of QoS rule errors. In one example, the QoS rule operation is "Create new QoS rule" and there is already an existing QoS rule with the same QoS rule identifier); and
transmitting, to the network, the PDU session modification request message for deleting the packet filter list (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0020] further process the create request, and if the creation was processed successfully, the UE will delete the existing QoS rule. However, the Default QoS Rule (DQR) bit of the new QoS rule may be different from the DQR bit of the existing QoS rule; [0021] If the existing QoS rule is not the default QoS rule and the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule", delete the old QoS rule).
As to claim 36, Fu-Mo teaches the method as recited in claim 16, wherein the QoS rule includes a Default QoS Rule (DQR) bit (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0019] A default QoS rule (DQR) indication bit is used as an indicator to indicate whether a QoS rule is a default QoS rule; [0021] The default QoS rule (DQR) indicator and the QoS flow identifier (QFI). The UE should check the QoS rule configuration provided in the PDU session modification command message for different types of QoS rule errors).
As to claim 37, Fu-Mo teaches the method as recited in claim 16. But Fu failed to teach the claim limitation wherein identifying whether a DQR bit included in the QoS rule is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule.
However, Mo teaches the limitation wherein identifying whether a DQR bit included in the QoS rule is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule (Mo, page 3, paragraph 38 & 40; page 5, paragraph 58; page 6, paragraph 72; i.e., [0038] the QoS flows 212-213 are not associated with a default QoS rule, and thus are referred to as non-default QoS flows; [0058] the non-default QoS flows 212-213, the UE 102 can locally delete the QoS rules and QoS flow descriptions of the respective non-default QoS flows; [0072] IE indicating a reason for rejecting the PDU session modification. For example, the 5GSM cause IE may include a value of #26, insufficient resources; #43, invalid PDU session identity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Fu to substitute a network-initiated PDU session modification process from Mo for enables a mobile device user to have wide-area mobility while retaining a stable IP address (Mo, page 1, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 21 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 17. Therefore, claim(s) 21 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 17.
Claim(s) 24-26 & 28-30 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 16-18 & 20-22. Therefore, claim(s) 24-26 & 28-30 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 16-18 & 20-22.
Claim(s) 19, 23, 27, 31, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0322869 A1 in view of Mo, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0322834 A1, and further in view of Tien, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0275305 A1.
As to claim 19, Fu-Mo teaches the method as recited in claim 16, further comprising:
a packet filter list in the QoS rule is empty, in case that a rule operation of the QoS rule is set to "create new QoS rule" "modify existing QoS rule and add packet filters" "modify existing QoS rule and replace all packet filters" or "modify existing QoS rule and delete packet filters" (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0021] In one example, the QoS rule operation is "Create new QoS rule" and there is already an existing QoS rule with the same QoS rule identifier. If the existing QoS rule is not the default QoS rule and the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule", delete the old QoS rule. Otherwise, if the existing QoS rule is the default QoS rule or the DQR bit is set to "the QoS rule is the default QoS rule", then UE 114 shall reject the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION COMMAND message); and
transmitting, to the network, a PDU session modification command reject message (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0020] when a QoS rule operation is "Create new QoS rule" and there is already an existing QoS rule with the same QoS rule identifier, and further process the create request, and if the creation was processed successfully, the UE will delete the existing QoS rule).
But Fu-Mo failed to teach the claim limitation wherein based on the PDU session modification command message, identifying that the type of the PDU session is one of an internet protocol version four (IPv4), an IPv6, an IPv4v6, or an Ethernet PDU session type.
However, Tien teaches the limitation wherein based on the PDU session modification command message, identifying that the type of the PDU session is one of an internet protocol version four (IPv4), an IPv6, an IPv4v6, or an Ethernet PDU session type (Tien, page 3, paragraph 43; i.e., [0043] The PDU session 101 can be of a PDU session type of IPv4, IPv6, IPv4v6, Ethernet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Fu-Mo to substitute a network-initiated PDU session modification process from Tien for the printer information from Fu-Mo to identified a PDU session ID (Tien, page 1, paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 27 & 31 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 19 & 23. Therefore, claim(s) 27 & 31 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 19 & 23.
Claim(s) 23, 38 & 39 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 19. Therefore, claim(s) 23, 38 & 39 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-31, 36-39 has/have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments include the failure of previously applied art to expressly disclose “transmitting, to the network, a request message for deleting the QoS rule in case that the received QoS rule is not set to the default QoS rule and the PDU is not an unstructured PDU session” (see Applicant’s response, 4/13/26, page 13-14). It is evident from the detailed mappings found in the above rejection(s) that Mo disclosed this functionality (see Mo, page 3, paragraph 38 & 40; page 5, paragraph 58; page 6, paragraph 72). Further, it is clear from the numerous teachings (previously and currently cited) that the provision for “transmitting, to the network, a request message for deleting the QoS rule in case that the received QoS rule is not set to the default QoS rule and the PDU is not an unstructured PDU session” was widely implemented in the networking art. Thus, Applicant’s arguments drawn toward distinction of the claimed invention and the prior art teachings on this point are not considered persuasive.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Starsinic, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20220264503 A1 discloses QoS rules using PDU, QFI.
Pan, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20190028920 A1 discloses PDU, QoS rule identifier.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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). 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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights