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 Remark filed on 11/28/25.
Claim(s) 16-35 was/were amended.
Claim(s) 16-35 is/are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16-35 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “identifying that a default QoS rule (DQR) bit is set to " the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule" and a type of a PDU session is "unstructured, " in case that a rule operation of the received QoS rule is "create new QoS rule "”? The Examiner is not entirely sure what is it the Applicant trying to do? What is the claimed invention? What exactly is “unstructured PDU session” means? The Detail Description is not really clear on that. What about “a default QoS rule” not set to “default”? how about “create new QoS rule”? When is the system create new QoS rule? Please clarify
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fu, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0322869 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] Each PDU session is identified by a PDU session ID, and may include multiple QoS flows and QoS rules. Each QoS flow is identified by a QoS flow ID (QFI) which is unique within a PDU session. Each QoS rule is identified by a QoS rule ID (QRI). 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 if the existing QoS rule is not the default QoS rule, then UE shall not diagnose an error and further process the create request, and if the creation was processed successfully, the UE will delete the existing QoS rule);
identifying that a default QoS rule (DQR) bit is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule" and a type of a PDU session is "unstructured" in case that a rule operation of the received QoS rule is "create 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). 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. 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, wherein the DQR bit is included in the QoS rule (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [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; [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 17, Fu 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 "unstructured" 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., [0019] Each QoS flow is identified by a QoS flow ID (QFI) which is unique within a PDU session. Each QoS rule is identified by a QoS rule ID (QRI). Within a PDU session, there should be one and only one default QoS rule. 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. 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] 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. 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).
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) 32-33 & 34-35 is/are directed to a method and system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 16-17. Therefore, claim(s) 32-33 & 34-35 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 16-17.
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) 19, 23, 27 & 31 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 Tien, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2020/0275305 A1.
As to claim 19, Fu teaches the method as recited in claim 16, further comprising:
a packet filter list in the QoS rule is empty, in case the rule operation of the QoS rule is "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., [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. [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] 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 if the existing QoS rule is not the default QoS rule, then UE shall not diagnose an error and 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).
But Fu 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 to substitute a network-initiated PDU session modification process from Tien for the printer information from Fu 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 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 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 11/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that: A) with respect to claims 1, 24, 32 & 34; Fu as cited in the Office Action does not teach or suggest at least to "identifying that a default QoS rule (DQR) bit is set to 'the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule' and a type of a PDU session is 'unstructured,' in case that a rule operation of the received QoS rule is 'create new QoS rule" (page 13-14).
In response to A); Fu does teach the claimed limitation of “identifying that a default QoS rule (DQR) bit is set to "the QoS rule is not the default QoS rule" and a type of a PDU session is "unstructured" in case that a rule operation of the received QoS rule is "create new QoS rule" (Fu, page 2, paragraph 19-21; page 3, paragraph 26; i.e., [0019] Each QoS flow is identified by a QoS flow ID (QFI) which is unique within a PDU session. Each QoS rule is identified by a QoS rule ID (QRI). Within a PDU session, there should be one and only one default QoS rule. A default QoS rule (DQR) indication bit is used as an indicator to indicate whether a QoS rule is a default QoS rule; [0020] 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] The default QoS rule (DQR) indicator and the QoS flow identifier (QFI) of a signaled QoS rule should not be changed. 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. 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; [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", then UE 114 shall not diagnose an error, further process the create request and, if it was processed successfully, delete the old QoS rule. [0026] The command message is for UE to perform certain QoS operations for the PDU session, for example, to create a new QoS rule. The new QoS rule has a QRI and a DRQ bit, which is an indicator indicating whether the new QoS rule becomes a default QoS rule). Moreover, Fu discloses the method of setting the QoS rule to default or non-default and a PDU session modification command such as “create new QoS rule” or delete the QoS rule. Therefore, Fu meets the claim limitation.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
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