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 .
Claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: network element in claims 9-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-6, 9-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al.(US20230171320) in view of Bayer et al. (US9055557B1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches A method for network access by a residential gateway (Fig. 2 “Terminal”, Fig 5 “5G-RG”, [0095] “The terminal includes, for example, a residential gateway (RG), and the RG may specifically include a modem or the like. The terminal is a fixed gateway device that supports 5G access, and is also referred to as a 5G-RG or an FN-RG. The terminal mentioned below in embodiments of this disclosure may be understood as the 5G-RG or the FN-RG”) in a control and user plane separation architecture (Fig. 2,”AGF-CP”, “AGF-UP”, [0098] “The access gateway function (AGF) network element is an access node for the fixed network to access the 5G core network. The AGF network element may communicate with a core network control plane network element, such as the AMF network element, through an N2 interface. The AGF network element may further send a data packet (which is also referred to as a packet) of a fixed network user to a core network user plane network element (for example, the user plane function (UPF) network element) through an N3 interface.”) the method comprising:
establishing, via an aggregate gateway function, a packet forwarding control protocol session between the residential gateway and a network ([0151] “Step 501: A 5G-RG sends a session establishment request message to an SMF via an AGF-CP”, (Examiner’s note: SMF is part of the 5G core network, AGF-CP is part of the AGF network element, AGF (Access Gateway Function) network element is equivalent to aggregate gateway function), [0093] “The control plane network element is mainly responsible for delivering a data packet forwarding policy, a QoS control policy, or the like to the user plane function network element”, ([0109] “ AGF in FIG. 2 is an upper layer convergence point of the AN, and is deployed on a fixed network access network side. The AGF is wiredly connected to the fixed network AN in FIG. 2, (Examiner’s Note: convergence point is equivalent to aggregate),
the packet forwarding control protocol session hosting a set of forwarding rules for forwarding data traffic, the set of forwarding rules ([0105] “ generation of QoS and a charging rule, and delivery of a corresponding rule to the UPF via the SMF network element, to complete installation of a corresponding policy and rule”)
and facilitating, via the aggregate gateway function, network access by the residential gateway according to the packet forwarding control protocol session ([0251] “Based on the session established according to the foregoing method, the terminal may perform uplink and downlink data transmission. Refer to FIG. 9A for the uplink packet transmission process. The following steps may be specifically included. ”).
Zhang does not explicitly teach including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template, the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more QOS rule indices, wherein the set of traffic classifiers is associated with the classification index, each of the one or more sets of QoS parameters is associated with a respective QoS rule index among one or more QoS rule indices, and each traffic classifier in the set of traffic classifiers is associated with a QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices.
Bayer teaches including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template (col 11 lines 25 -35 “Local QoS policy 64 further associates each of the pre defined PCC rules with one or more (e.g., a combination) QoS parameter values, such as QCI, ARP MBR, and/or GBR values. For example, local QoS policy 64 may associate a subset of the pre-defined PCC rules with a QoS profile defined by QCI=0 and ARP=1. Local QoS policy 64 may also associate a different subset of the pre-defined PCC rules with a QoS profile defined as QCI=1 and ARP=1, (Examiner’s Note: QoS template ==Qos profile, classification index == combination of QCI/ARP)) ,
the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more QOS rule indices ([col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: QCI, are the index used to are used to classify the traffic, R1 -R3 ==QOS rule indices),
wherein the set of traffic classifiers is associated with the classification index ([col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services’),
each of the one or more sets of QoS parameters is associated with a respective QoS rule index among one or more QoS rule indices (Fig. 5 [col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: the QCI and rules are mapped, 150),
and each traffic classifier in the set of traffic classifiers is associated with a QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices (Fig. 5 [col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: the QCI and rules are mapped, 150) ;
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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a specific quality of service.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches A network element (Fig. 2 “AGF network element”) to facilitate network access by a residential gateway (Fig. 2 “Terminal”, Fig 5 “5G-RG”, [0095] “The terminal includes, for example, a residential gateway (RG), and the RG may specifically include a modem or the like. The terminal is a fixed gateway device that supports 5G access, and is also referred to as a 5G-RG or an FN-RG. The terminal mentioned below in embodiments of this disclosure may be understood as the 5G-RG or the FN-RG”) in a control and user plane separation architecture (Fig. 2,”AGF-CP”, “AGF-UP”, [0098] “The access gateway function (AGF) network element is an access node for the fixed network to access the 5G core network. The AGF network element may communicate with a core network control plane network element, such as the AMF network element, through an N2 interface. The AGF network element may further send a data packet (which is also referred to as a packet) of a fixed network user to a core network user plane network element (for example, the user plane function (UPF) network element) through an N3 interface.”)
, a the network element comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor ([0395] “ the apparatus 1500 may include a processing unit 1502 and a communication unit 1503. The processing unit 1502 is configured to control and manage an action of the apparatus 1500. The communication unit 1503 is configured to support the apparatus 1500 in communicating with another device. Optionally, the communication unit 1503 is also referred to as a transceiver unit, and may include a receiving unit and/or a sending unit, respectively configured to perform a receiving operation and a sending operation. The apparatus 1500 may further include a storage unit 1501, configured to store program code and/or data of the apparatus 1500.”),
cause the network element to establish a packet forwarding control protocol session between the residential gateway and a network ([0151] “Step 501: A 5G-RG sends a session establishment request message to an SMF via an AGF-CP”, (Examiner’s note: SMF is part of the 5G core network, AGF-CP is part of the AGF network element, AGF network element is equivalent to aggregate gateway function), [0093] “The control plane network element is mainly responsible for delivering a data packet forwarding policy, a QoS control policy, or the like to the user plane function network element”),
the packet forwarding control protocol session hosting a set of forwarding rules for forwarding data traffic , the set of forwarding rules ([0105] “ generation of QoS and a charging rule, and delivery of a corresponding rule to the UPF via the SMF network element, to complete installation of a corresponding policy and rule”)
and facilitate network access by the residential gateway according to the packet forwarding control protocol session ([0251] “Based on the session established according to the foregoing method, the terminal may perform uplink and downlink data transmission. Refer to FIG. 9A for the uplink packet transmission process. The following steps may be specifically included.”).
Zhang does not explicitly teach including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template
the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more sets of QoS rule indices,
wherein the set of traffic classifiers is associated with the classification index, each of one or more sets of QoS parameters is associated with a respective QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices, and each traffic classifier in the set of traffic classifiers is associated with a QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices.
Bayer teaches including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template (col 11 lines 25 -35 “Local QoS policy 64 further associates each of the pre defined PCC rules with one or more (e.g., a combination) QoS parameter values, such as QCI, ARP MBR, and/or GBR values. For example, local QoS policy 64 may associate a subset of the pre-defined PCC rules with a QoS profile defined by QCI=0 and ARP=1. Local QoS policy 64 may also associate a different subset of the pre-defined PCC rules with a QoS profile defined as QCI=1 and ARP=1, (Examiner’s Note: QoS template ==Qos profile, classification index == combination of QCI/ARP)),
the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more sets of QoS rule indices ([col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: QCI, are the index used to are used to classify the traffic, R1 -R3 ==QOS rule indices) ,
wherein the set of traffic classifiers is associated with the classification index ([col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services’),
each of one or more sets of QoS parameters is associated with a respective QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices (Fig. 5 [col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: the QCI and rules are mapped, 150),
and each traffic classifier in the set of traffic classifiers is associated with a QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices (Fig. 5 [col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: the QCI and rules are mapped, 150) .
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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a specific quality of service.
Regarding claim 17, Bayer teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor at a network element in a control and user plane separation architecture, cause the network element to perform a method for network access by a residential gateway, the method comprising: establishing a packet forwarding control protocol session between the residential gateway and a network, the packet forwarding control protocol session hosting a set of forwarding rules for forwarding data traffic , the set of forwarding rules including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template, the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more sets of QoS rule indices, wherein the set of traffic classifiers is associated with the classification index, each of one or more sets of QoS parameters is associated with a respective QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices, and each traffic classifier in the set of traffic classifiers is associated with a QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices; and facilitating network access by the residential gateway according to the packet forwarding control protocol session (Claim 17 contains similar claim limitations as claim 9, see claim 9 rejection).
Regarding claim 2, 10, 18, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more QoS rule indices and the one or more sets of QoS parameters are expressed as information elements.
Bayer teaches wherein the one or more QoS rule indices and the one or more sets of QoS parameters are expressed as information elements (col 3 lines 10-15 “For each service request, the service unit maps the QoS information provided therein to a subset of the set of PCC rules defined by the local QoS policy. The service unit, using the information in the pre-defined rule cache, identifies a group identifier that is associated with a PCC rule map having at least every element of the subset of the set of PCC rules mapped to the service request.”)
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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a specific quality of service.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more sets of QoS parameters include at least one of rate or priority information for the data traffic.
Bayer teaches wherein the one or more sets of QoS parameters include at least one of rate or priority information for the data traffic (col 7 lines 1-15 “For example, various dedicated bearers may provide different guaranteed bit rates (GBR bearers) (or may not provide a guaranteed bit rate), maximum bit rates (MBRS), priority, packet delay bud get, packet error loss rate, and allocation and retention prior ity (ARP) characteristics. Wireless device 6 may issue one or more service requests 13 each specifying QoS parameters for the service session requested and an APN of PDN 12. Such QoS parameters may include, for a requested service session, a QoS Class Identifier (QCI) and Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP) value”)).
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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a specific quality of service.
Regarding claim 4, 12, 20, Zhang teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network element to update at least one of the one or more sets of QoS parameters based on Residential Gateway-Level Wireline Access Characteristics (RG-LWAC) from the network ([0116] “A 5G-RG sends a session establishment request message to an SMF via an AGF-CP, where the session establishment request is for … modify a first session.”, [0111] “ Therefore, the parameter for ensuring the QoS needs to be identified on a corresponding tunnel between an AGF and a 5G-RG, for example, the PDU session ID, the QFI, or the RQI is identified”, (Examiner’s Note: update is equivalent to modify ).
Regarding claim 5, 13, Zhang teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network element to update the at least one of the one or more sets of QoS parameters by changing the QoS template based on the RG-LWAC ([0373-375] “Step 14901 is the same as step 13801 … Step 14902: An AGF-CP sends a first message # 1 of an FN-RG to an AMF, where the first message # 1 carries first service information, and the first message # 1 is for requesting to register the FN-RG with a core network or requesting to establish or update a session… For example, the first message # 1 may be a registration request message, or may be a session request message or a session update message”, ([0116] “A 5G-RG sends a session establishment request message to an SMF via an AGF-CP, where the session establishment request is for … modify a first session.”, [0111] “ Therefore, the parameter for ensuring the QoS needs to be identified on a corresponding tunnel between an AGF and a 5G-RG, for example, the PDU session ID, the QFI, or the RQI is identified”, (Examiner’s Note: update is equivalent to modify )) .
Regarding claim 6, 14, Zhang teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network element to update the QoS template to change at least one of (i) a QoS parameter of a first of the one or more sets of QoS parameters or (ii) the QoS rule indices, based on the RG-LWAC ([0179] “step 601: A 5G-RG sends a session establishment request message to an SMF via an AGF-CP, where the session establishment request message is for requesting to … modify a first session”, [0188-189] “In addition, the N2-SM information may further include session parameter information such as a QFI, a quality of service flow profile (QoS profile), CN tunnel information , and a PDU session type … Step 604: The AGF-CP receives the session identifier of the established session and the virtual interface information from the SMF network element, and establishes a first association relationship between the session identifier and the virtual interface information.”).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bayer further in view of Canete Martinez et al. (US 20220353336 herein after Canete).
Regarding claim 7, 15, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network element to send a packet forwarding control protocol session modification message from control plane to separate user plane,
the packet forwarding control protocol session modification message including reference to a QoS rule index and one or more QoS parameters to be updated, and update the QoS parameters based on the packet forwarding control protocol session modification message.
Bayer teaches the packet forwarding control protocol session modification message including reference to a QoS rule index and one or more QoS parameters to be updated, and update the QoS parameters based on the packet forwarding control protocol session modification message (col 11 lines 40-60 “Modify Bearer Request message trans mitted by a Serving Gateway (S-GW) to gateway 8 operating as a PGW of an EPC of an LTE network … service request 13 may specify QoS profiles for various services defined by QCI-0 and ARP-1 and QCI-1 and ARP 1, as in the above examples for local QoS policy 64”, (Fig. 5 [col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3).
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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a specific quality of service.
Bayer does not explictly teach wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network element to send a packet forwarding control protocol session modification message from control plane to separate user plane.
Canete teaches wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network element to send a packet forwarding control protocol session modification message from control plane to separate user plane ([0071] “The CPF 301 may send a second request for session modification to the UPF 303. The second request may comprise at least one modified detection and enforcement rule, or it may comprise instructions to modify at least one detection and enforcement rule identified by an identifier. The second request may be a second request for PCFP session modification, or it may be any other suitable second request for session modification. The first request may be referred to as a session modification request message.”).
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 Zhang, Bayer to incorporate the teachings of Canete. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize resource usage.
Regarding claims 8, 16, Zhang, Bayer does not explicitly teach programming the QoS template at separate user plane prior to the establishing.
Canete teaches programming the QoS template at separate user plane prior to the establishing ([0061] “The UPF 303 informs the CPF 301 that it supports the pre-configuration of one or more profiles”).
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 Zhang, Bayer to incorporate the teachings of Canete. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize resource usage
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument 1
The Office Action alleges that the classification index referencing a QoS template of claim 1 is "equivalent to QoS profile" of Zhang and that the set of traffic classifiers of claim 1 are "equivalent to QFI" of Zhang. Applicants respectfully disagree.
First, claim 1 requires both a classification index and a QoS template. A singular element of a QoS profile cannot describe both the classification index and the QoS template of claim 1.
Further, the traffic classifiers of claim 1 are included in a QoS template which is referenced by a classification index. Zhang describes that "N2-SM information may further include session parameter information such as QFI, a quality of service flow profile, CN tunnel information, and PDU session type." Zhang, paragraph [0161]. As recited in claim 1, the set of traffic identifiers are included in the QoS template. The QoS flow profile of Zhang is not described as being related to the QFI. Thus, the QFI of Zhang cannot describe the set of traffic classifiers of claim 1 at least because the QFI of Zhang is not included in the quality of service flow profile of Zhang.
The Office Action then admits that "Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the set of traffic classifiers is associated with the classification index, each of the one or more sets of QoS parameters is associated with a respective QoS rule index among one or more QoS rule indices, and each traffic classifier in the set of traffic classifiers is associated with a QoS rule index among the one or more QoS rule indices."
Examiner’s Response 1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See update rejection, Liao is no longer relied upon. The combination of Zhang in view of Bayer shows including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template, the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more QOS rule indices.
More specifically, Bayer is relied upon to show including a classification index referencing a Quality of Service (QoS) template (col 11 lines 25 -35 “Local QoS policy 64 further associates each of the pre defined PCC rules with one or more (e.g., a combination) QoS parameter values, such as QCI, ARP MBR, and/or GBR values. For example, local QoS policy 64 may associate a subset of the pre-defined PCC rules with a QoS profile defined by QCI=0 and ARP=1. Local QoS policy 64 may also associate a different subset of the pre-defined PCC rules with a QoS profile defined as QCI=1 and ARP=1, (Examiner’s Note: QoS template ==Qos profile, classification index == combination of QCI/ARP)), the QoS template including a set of traffic classifiers and one or more QOS rule indices ([col 15 lines 30-40 “For example, the entry QoS profile rule map 136 specifying the QoS profile QCI/ARP(1) combination species PCC rules R1, R2, and R3, col 12 lines 60-67 “local QoS policy 64 to identify a subset of PCC rules 76 for classifying subscriber data traffic for the CAN session to the one or more requested services. That is, Subscriber management daemon 54 applies local QoS policy 64 to determine the subset of the pre-defined PCC rules associated with the QoS profiles for the requested services, (Examiner’s Note: QCI, are the index used to are used to classify the traffic, R1 -R3 ==QOS rule indices).
Applicant’s Argument 2
Applicant remarks Thus, at least the QoS rule of Bayer cannot describe any of the features of the QoS template of claim 1 because a feature that is unique to a particular session is not a feature of a template.
Further, the QFI and QoS flow profile are unique elements of Zhang while the QFI references a QoS flow in Bayer.
Examiner’s Response 2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that a template cannot be unique is not in the claim limitation of for example claim 1.
Conclusion
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 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