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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendments
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 02/16/2026. Claims 1, 6, and 8-13 have been amended. Claims 3 and 7 were previously canceled. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-13 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-13 filed on 02/16/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive and the arguments on the amended feature has been addressed in the instant Office Action with previously identified prior art by mapping the relevant teachings for more clarification thereof that read on said added feature are moot. Applicant argues that neither Makinen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190069195, hereinafter “Makinen”) nor Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170324652, hereinafter “Lee”) discloses or suggests the newly added limitation (a) through (d) of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant contends that the prior art fails to teach a first QoS level associated with the item of client equipment, a second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment, and applying the second QoS level to the routing instead of the first QoS level based on a connection token. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
1. Regarding limitation (a): “a first QoS level associated with the item of client equipment” of Amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that neither reference teaches a first QoS level associated with a client equipment. However, this limitation is explicitly disclosed in the prior art.
Makinen discloses that “[t]he services and/or applications used by users in a telecommunication network, and the traffic needs of such services and/or applications, may vary dramatically. In order to provide a good QoE, or for other reasons, certain embodiments can allow for the treatment of data to vary dynamically in each data flow. For example, the QoS class of each data flow may be varied dynamically. Such embodiments may also be beneficial in a bearer-less network” (para [0024] of Makinen). Makinen explicitly teaches that “the UE initiates new traffic, the UE may first use some default QoS class when transmitting the data traffic to a network entity” (para [0049] of Makinen). A default QoS class (‘level’) allocated to a user equipment (‘UE’) by its provider explicitly defines “a first QoS level associated with the item of client equipment.” (see paragraphs [0024-0028] of Makinen, “… the MNO (‘mobile network operator’) may determine the parameters according to the MNO's criteria, such as network capabilities and subscription policies.”)
Lee similarly teaches that traffic policies and service levels are instituted “to ensure that a device … is being provided with an agreed upon level of service (e.g., QoS)” (see para [0082] of Lee).
Therefore, establishing a baseline QoS level based on a client device’s subscription profile is a standard practice clearly disclosed by both references, Makinen and Lee.
2. Regarding limitation (b) & (c): “a second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment … being higher than the first QoS level” of Amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that the prior art merely teaches general QoS modifications, rather than a higher second QoS level associated with a server equipment. This formalistic distinction is unpersuasive.
Lee explicitly teaches that “an application function (AF) associated with an application server may interact with the core network control-plane device/entity/function to request QoS and specific packet treatment for individual packets associated with a given packet flow (e.g., packet stream, IP flow, data flow, Ethernet PDU flow, an unstructured data flow)” (see para [0100] of Lee).
Lee further details that the server’s AF can request multiple cases of traffic filtering tokens representing distinct priority levels, such as “guaranteed delivery” or “high priority’ (see para [0113] of Lee: obtaining the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens for the given packet flow may occur during quality of service (QoS) establishment negotiation between the control-plane device/entity/function and a non-core network entity. By way of example, the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens may include: Token 1 (associated with guaranteed delivery); Token 2 (associated with high priority)).
Because an Application Server is an “item of server equipment” hosting the AF, a specific QoS policy requested by the AF for its connection explicitly constitutes a “second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment.” Furthermore, providing “guaranteed” or “high priority” treatment to packets that would otherwise receive baseline/subscription-based routing explicitly teaches that the second QoS level is higher than the first QoS level.”
3. Regarding limitation (d): “applying the second QoS … instead of the first QoS” of Amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that Lee’s token-based approach is intended only for efficient traffic classification, not for overriding subscription-based QoS limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagree.
Lee explicitly states that “a changed QoS treatment overrides an original QoS treatment established for the first set of packets marked with the identification value” (see paragraphs [0009, 0010, and 0208] of Lee). Furthermore, Lee teaches that this mechanism enables a packet flow to have “dynamic priority (e.g., dual priority at a minimum) without requiring QoS re-negotiation” (see para [0128] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the item of server equipment to detect a server-provided token (of Lee) and dynamically apply an upgraded, higher-priority routing rule requested by the server’s application function, thereby overriding the client equipment’s default QoS constraints (discussed in Makinen) to ensure latency-sensitive data delivery. Accordingly, amended independent Claim 1 (and its corresponding device Claim 10) lacks patentable distinction over the combined teaching of Makinen and Lee, and the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
4. Regarding limitation: “recording in a data table, …, at least one item of activation information of a second QoS level associated with the item of server equipment … said second QoS level being higher than the first QoS” of Amended Claim 6
Applicant asserted that “Chen's tables serve network admission control by tracking infrastructure capacity. It is totally different from the connection management table where at least one item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment is recorded.” See pages 14-15 of the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/16/2026.
The Examiner respectfully disagree. The claimed functional role of the “connection management table” is fully disclosed by Chen when viewed in light of Lee.
Chen’s system includes an access network resource management device containing a database unit that stores a table (e.g., node data table/link data table, see para [0013] of Chen) to establish and track active “service connections” (see para 0012) of Chen: “search the node data table to acquire links constituting a service connection through which service data would pass from the user access device to an access server; determine whether there are link resources available for the links by checking link resources occupation information saved in a link data table”). Crucially, Chen teaches that upon allowing a resource occupation request, the management control unit searches for the corresponding QoS policy for the service based on the type of service requested, sends the QoS policy of the service to the BAS (see para [0027] of Chen). This process identifies the logical binding of a specific service connection to its requested QoS status.
While Chen uses service types to identify connections, Lee explicitly teaches replacing traditional flow-matching templates with an “identification token” (activation information) recorded in association with client/server identifiers to differentiate specific traffic flows dynamically (see para [0089] of Lee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the server-driven connection admission framework of Chen (where a server equipment requests resource allocation and decides whether to accept a QoS connection), and incorporate the token-based policy enforcement of Lee to record a verified activation token within the network database to dynamically override the client’s default QoS level found in Makinen. Accordingly, amended independent Claim 1 (and its corresponding device Claim 11) lacks patentable distinction over the combined teaching of Makinen, Lee and Chen, and the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5 is sustained for the same rejection ground with respect to the independent claims.
Amended Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 have similar limitation as of Claim(s) 1, therefore Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 are also sustained for the same reasons as described above.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makinen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190069195, hereinafter “Makinen”) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170324652, hereinafter “Lee”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Makinen unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding Claim 1, Makinen teaches A method comprising:
processing a data packet exchanged between an item of client equipment and an item of server equipment in a communications network (Figs. 2& 3, and para [0042]: FIG. 3 illustrates a signal flow diagram according to certain embodiments. Specifically, FIG. 2 illustrates a downlink transmission from the network to the UE (interpreted as “an item of client terminal equipment”)) (para [0052]: In step 410, a network entity (interpreted as “an item of server equipment”, also see para [0056].) may receive a data flow packet,), which the item of client equipment accesses via a first network (para [0042]: FIG. 2 illustrates a downlink transmission from the network to the UE (interpreted as “the item of client equipment accesses via a first network”)), a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being intended to be applied to said data packet (para [0048]: the UE may set the proper QoS level using the values of the QoS parameter table. The UE may then use such values when deciding how to fill up the transport blocks that are being transmitted to a network entity.) (para [0049]: In an embodiment in which the UE initiates new traffic, the UE may first use some default QoS class (interpreted as “a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being intended to be applied to said data packet”) when transmitting the data traffic to a network entity.), said processing being implemented by an item of routing equipment of said first network (para [0052]: FIG. 4 illustrates a flow diagram according to certain embodiments. In step 410, a network entity (interpreted as “an item of routing equipment of said first network”) may receive a data flow packet,…) and comprising:
detecting in said data packet at least one item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment to be applied to said data packet (para [0052]: Depending on the marking in the header of the packet (interpreted as “at least one item of activation information”), which may include a requested QoS level (interpreted as “a second quality of service level”) for a new data flow, for example, a new sub-flow identification, or a requested QoS level for an existing data flow, for example, the network entity may detect a requested quality of service level may be needed, as shown in step 420. A change in the QoS marking in the packet headers can mean that new processing parameters should be fetched from the table.) (para [0028]: While the parameter table may be standardized with default parameters, …the MNO may determine the parameters according to the MNO's criteria, such as network capabilities and subscription policies.), (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Lee);
obtaining a quality of service management rule according to the second quality of service level, associated with said item of activation information (para [0053]: in step 430, once the network entity has detected a requested quality of service level (interpreted as “according to the second quality of service level, associated with said item of activation information”), then it may proceed to retrieve a needed parameter linked to the requested quality of service level by using the table (The ‘needed parameter’ is interpreted as “a quality of service management rule”). In step 440, the network entity may use the needed linked parameter to create a new processing instance, as shown in step 330 of FIG. 3, or to update an existing processing instance, at the network entity.); and
applying the second quality of service level to the routing of said data packet according to the obtained rule, instead of the first quality of service level (para [0053]: In step 440, the network entity may use the needed linked parameter to create a new processing instance (interpreted as “applying the second quality of service level to the routing of said data packet according to the obtained rule”), as shown in step 330 of FIG. 3, or to update an existing processing instance, at the network entity.) (para [0046]: The RLC instance can be configured by reading the parameters in the available QoS table. In certain embodiments, once the RLC instance is configured, the lower layer procedures, for example, MAC and PHY, may remain unchanged. A processing instance, such as an RLC instance, for example, may include one or more functionalities used to process a certain sub flow.).
Lee teaches the missing limitations “said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising a connection token representative of a connection between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment”..
Lee explicitly teaches that “an application function (AF) associated with an application server may interact with the core network control-plane device/entity/function to request QoS and specific packet treatment for individual packets associated with a given packet flow (e.g., packet stream, IP flow, data flow, Ethernet PDU flow, an unstructured data flow)” (see para [0100] of Lee).
Lee further details that the server’s AF can request multiple cases of traffic filtering tokens representing distinct priority levels, such as “guaranteed delivery” or “high priority’ (see para [0113] of Lee: ‘obtaining the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens for the given packet flow may occur during quality of service (QoS) establishment negotiation between the control-plane device/entity/function and a non-core network entity. By way of example, the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens may include: Token 1 (associated with guaranteed delivery); Token 2 (associated with high priority)’).
Because an Application Server is an “item of server equipment” hosting the AF, a specific QoS policy requested by the AF for its connection explicitly constitutes a “second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment.” Furthermore, providing “guaranteed” or “high priority” treatment to packets that would otherwise receive baseline/subscription-based routing explicitly teaches that the second QoS level is higher than the first QoS level.”
Lee, therefore, discloses the “said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising a connection token representative of a connection between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment” (para [0079] of Lee: Downlink Packet flows 414 (e.g., flows of IP packets in the user-plane toward the device 402 from application servers (not shown) in the PDN 410) may be applied to a decision and processing module/circuit/function 420 of the gateway device 408.)(para [0081] of Lee: a traffic filtering token including an application identifier (App ID) may be included (e.g., embedded, associated) with a downlink data packet) (para [0089] of Lee: … an identification token may be used to identify specific traffic (e.g., a packet flow)(interpreted as “a connection token representative of a connection between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment”) (para [0113] of Lee: ‘obtaining the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens for the given packet flow may occur during quality of service (QoS) establishment negotiation between the control-plane device/entity/function and a non-core network entity. By way of example, the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens may include: Token 1 (associated with guaranteed delivery); Token 2 (associated with high priority)’) (Examiner’s comments: Because an Application Server is an “item of server equipment” hosting the AF, a specific QoS policy requested by the AF for its connection explicitly constitutes a “second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment.” Furthermore, providing “guaranteed” or “high priority” treatment to packets that would otherwise receive baseline/subscription-based routing explicitly teaches that the second QoS level is higher than the first QoS level.” Lee further states that “a changed QoS treatment overrides an original QoS treatment established for the first set of packets marked with the identification value” (see paragraphs [0009, 0010, and 0208] of Lee). Furthermore, Lee teaches that this mechanism enables a packet flow to have “dynamic priority (e.g., dual priority at a minimum) without requiring QoS re-negotiation” (see para [0128] of Lee)).
Thus, the traffic filtering token (identification token) discussed in Lee is interpreted as the claimed limitation “a connection token”. As reproduce above, Lee, therefore, teaches the above claimed limitation “said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising a connection token representative of a connection between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment”.
Makinen and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of QoS packet networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the item of server equipment to detect a server-provided token (of Lee) and dynamically apply an upgraded, higher-priority routing rule requested by the server’s application function, thereby overriding the client equipment’s default QoS constraints (discussed in Makinen) to ensure latency-sensitive data delivery.
Regarding claim 9, Makinen teaches A method comprising:
managing a quality of service of a connection of an item of client equipment to an item of server equipment in a communication network which the item of client equipment accesses via a first network (para [0055]: The user equipment can then send the uplink data packet to a network entity) (para [0042]: FIG. 2 illustrates a downlink transmission from the network to the UE (interpreted as “the item of client equipment accesses via a first network”)), a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being applied by the first network to data packets exchanged in said connection (para [0048]: the UE may set the proper QoS level using the values of the QoS parameter table. The UE may then use such values when deciding how to fill up the transport blocks that are being transmitted to a network entity.) (para [0049]: In an embodiment in which the UE initiates new traffic, the UE may first use some default QoS class (interpreted as “a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being intended to be applied to said data packet”) when transmitting the data traffic to a network entity.), wherein the managing is implemented by a quality of service management entity of the first network and comprises:
receiving from the item of client equipment a request to update said connection for routing data packets exchanged between said item of client equipment and said item of server equipment (para [0052]: In step 410, a network entity (interpreted as “a quality of service management entity”) may receive a data flow packet, such as a sub-service flow packet. Depending on the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS for a new data flow (the marking in the header is interpreted as “a request to update said connection for routing data packets”), for example, a new sub-flow identification, or a requested QoS level for an existing data flow, for example, ...);
detecting an item of activation information of the second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment in said update request (para [0052]: … the network entity may detect a requested quality of service level may be needed (interpreted as “detecting an item of activation information”), as shown in step 420. A change in the QoS marking in the packet headers can mean that new processing parameters should be fetched from the table.),
(The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Lee); and
installing a quality of service management rule according to the second quality of service level associated with said item of activation information of the second quality of service level for said connection (para [0053]: in step 430, once the network entity has detected a requested quality of service level, then it may proceed to retrieve a needed parameter linked to the requested quality of service level by using the table. In step 440, the network entity may use the needed linked parameter (interpreted as “a quality of service management rule”) to create a new processing instance, as shown in step 330 of FIG. 3, or to update an existing processing instance, at the network entity (interpreted as “installing a quality of service management rule”) and
(The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Lee).
Lee, in analogous art, teaches
“said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level;” (para [0009] of Lee: a changed QoS treatment overrides an original QoS treatment established for the first set of packets marked with the identification value) (para [0113] of Lee: obtaining the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens for the given packet flow may occur during quality of service (QoS) establishment negotiation between the control-plane device/entity/function and a non-core network entity. By way of example, the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens may include: Token 1 (associated with guaranteed delivery); Token 2 (associated with high priority)’) (Examiner’s comments: Lee details that the server’s AF can request multiple cases of traffic filtering tokens representing distinct priority levels, such as “guaranteed delivery” or “high priority’. Because an Application Server is an “item of server equipment” hosting the AF, a specific QoS policy requested by the AF for its connection explicitly constitutes a “second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment.” Furthermore, providing “guaranteed” or “high priority” treatment to packets that would otherwise receive baseline/subscription-based routing explicitly teaches that the second QoS level is higher than the first QoS level.”)
“verifying a validity of said item of activation information by querying a data table, known as a connection management table, at least from a connection token comprised in said item of activation information, said connection token being representative of said connection of the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment;” (Fig. 2 and para [0062] of Lee: Second packet flows 208 do have traffic filtering tokens (e.g., Token 1, Token 2, Token 3, . . . , Token N) included (e.g., embedded, associated) with each IP packet.)(Fig. 2 and para [0063]: Second P-GW 212 utilizes a second module/circuit/function 222 to validate and/or map second packet flows 208 (e.g., downlink IP packets including traffic filtering tokens) to packet flows or bearers such as bearer 224 and bearer 225, and ultimately to devices 226.) (para [0089] of Lee: … an identification token (“traffic filtering token”, see para [0088] of Lee) may be used to identify specific traffic (e.g., a packet flow) (interpreted as “said connection token being representative of said connection of the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment”).) ((para [0208] of Lee: receiving a request to change a QoS treatment of packets in the packet flow that are marked with an identification value, from a user device, wherein the request, when granted, triggers a different QoS treatment of packets in a first set of packets of the packet flow marked with the identification value 1802. The method may further include verifying that the user device is authorized to send the request to change the QoS treatment of packets in the packet flow, wherein a changed QoS treatment overrides an original QoS treatment established for the first set of packets marked with the identification value, responsive to receiving the request 1804.)
and
transmitting a response to the item of client equipment (para [0193] of Lee: The exemplary method 1400 may still further comprise including the selected token in the downlink data packet 1412. Still further, the exemplary method 1400 may include sending the downlink data packet including the selected token to the device 1414.).
Makinen and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone to have modified Makinen to incorporate the teaching of Lee and provide the verifying a validity of the item of activation information of the requested QoS and transmitting a response to the terminal. Doing so would possible to efficiently allocate resources.
Regarding claim 10, it is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 9, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makinen in view of Lee, and further in view of Chen et al. (EP1976184 B1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 5, Makinen and Lee teach The method according to claim 1,
Makinen and Lee fail to explicitly teach wherein the method comprises obtaining an item of count information of a quantity of resources allocated for routing said stream in application of the second quality of service level and recording said item of count information
Chen discloses wherein the method comprises obtaining an item of count information of a quantity of resources allocated for routing said stream in application of the second quality of service level and recording said item of count information (para [0012] of Chen: the application server is adapted to receive a request from a service terminal for a service with QoS requirements; … a management control unit (32), is adapted to receive a request from a application server (25); wherein the request is sent from a service terminal (11) for occupying resources through a user access device; acquire information indicating the user access device; search a node data table to acquire links constituting a service connection through which service data would pass from the user access device to an access server according to the information indicating the user access device (interpreted as “obtaining an item of count information of a quantity of resources allocated for routing said stream” ); … ; a database unit (31), adapted to record links from a user access device to an access server in the node data table according to the network topology (interpreted as “recording said item of count information” ) and further record all the link resources including occupied and unoccupied resources in the links from the user access device to the access server; store the node data table and the link data table.
Makinen, Lee, and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone to have modified the combination of Makinen and Lee to incorporate the teaching of Chen and provide the obtaining of information on links constituting the service connection and recording all the link resources including occupied and unoccupied resources. Doing so would possible to efficiently allocate resources of the network device based on the node data table and the link data table.
Regarding claim 6, Makinen teaches A method comprising:
processing a request to change a quality of service level of a connection from an item of client equipment to an item of server equipment in a communication network which the item of client equipment accesses via a first network of an access provider (para [0042]: FIG. 2 illustrates a downlink transmission from the network to the UE (interpreted as “the item of client equipment accesses via a first network”))(para [0052]: In step 410, a network entity (interpreted as “a first network of an access provider”, also see para [0056]: network entity can be a network node, a base station, an NB, server, host, RLC, ACS, PDCP, RLC, or any of the other access or network node discussed herein.) may receive a data flow packet, Depending on the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS level for a new data flow (interpreted as “processing a request to change a quality of service level of a connection”)), a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being applied by the first network to data packets exchanged in said connection (para [0048]: the UE may set the proper QoS level using the values of the QoS parameter table. The UE may then use such values when deciding how to fill up the transport blocks that are being transmitted to a network entity.) (para [0049]: In an embodiment in which the UE initiates new traffic, the UE may first use some default QoS class (interpreted as “a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being intended to be applied to said data packet”) when transmitting the data traffic to a network entity.), said request being received by the item of server equipment from the item of client equipment in the communication network, which said item of client equipment accesses via the first network, wherein the processing is implemented by the server equipment (para [0052]: Depending on the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS level (interpreted as “said request”) for a new data flow, for example, a new sub-flow identification, or a requested QoS level for an existing data flow, for example, the network entity may detect a requested quality of service level may be needed, as shown in step 420. A change in the QoS marking in the packet headers can mean that new processing parameters should be fetched from the table.) and comprises, upon reception of said request to change the quality of service level (para [0052]: Depending on the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS level for a new data flow (interpreted as “upon reception of said request to change the quality of service level”), for example, a new sub-flow identification, or a requested QoS level for an existing data flow,).
While disclosing the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS level (interpreted as “second quality of service level”) for a new data flow, Makinen does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
deciding whether or not to accept the received request to change the quality of service level;
in response to the server equipment deciding to accept the request to change the quality of service,
obtaining a connection token representative of said connection from the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment;
recording in a data table, known as a connection management table, accessible from the communication network, at least one item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment applicable to routing of the data packets exchanged between said item of client equipment and said item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising said connection token; and
transmitting a response to the item of client equipment, comprising said item of activation information.
Lee, in analogous art, teaches:
“deciding whether or not to accept the received request to change the quality of service level;” (Fig. 14 and para [178] of Lee: … the exemplary method 1200 may include obtaining, from a non-core network entity, a request for individualized quality of service (QoS) treatment of packets in a packet flow destined for a device 1202, where a service session between the device and the non-core network entity is established via the core network.)(para [0180] of Lee: In another aspect the control plane entity authorizes the request based on a device subscription profile, network policy, and/or service agreement with the non-core network entity (interpreted as “deciding whether or not to accept the received request to change the quality of service level”))
in response to the server equipment deciding to accept the request to change the quality of service, obtaining a connection token representative of said connection from the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment (para [0009] of Lee: a changed QoS treatment overrides an original QoS treatment established for the first set of packets marked with the identification value) (para [0178] of Lee: obtaining a plurality of tokens in response to the request, each token corresponding to one of multiple classes (interpreted as “obtaining a connection token …”), wherein the plurality of classes correspond to a plurality of types of packets and related priorities 1204.) (para [0081] of Lee: a traffic filtering token including an application identifier (App ID) may be included (e.g., embedded, associated) with a downlink data packet (see para [0081] of Lee) (para [0089] of Lee: … an identification token may be used to identify specific traffic (e.g., a packet flow) (interpreted as “a connection token representative of said connection from the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment”). The identification token may provide for efficient access control and/or efficient admission control for a service. For example, an identification token may be bound to a specific application. When an entity of a core network (e.g., a control-plane entity such as an MME, MMF, AMF, SMF, and/or a PCRF) derives an identification token, after authorizing traffic associated with the specific application and associating a QoS policy with the identification token, packet filtering/matching may no longer need to be based on an SDF/TFT approach; instead, as explained above, a packet associated with the identification token (i.e., a first type of traffic filtering tokens) may effectively be filtered/matched based on a token verification process.).
recording in a data table, known as a connection management table, accessible from the communication network, at least one item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment applicable to routing of the data packets exchanged between said item of client equipment and said item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising said connection token; (para [0113] of Lee: obtaining the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens for the given packet flow may occur during quality of service (QoS) establishment negotiation between the control-plane device/entity/function and a non-core network entity. By way of example, the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens may include: Token 1 (associated with guaranteed delivery); Token 2 (associated with high priority)’) (Examiner’s comments: Lee details that the server’s AF can request multiple cases of traffic filtering tokens representing distinct priority levels, such as “guaranteed delivery” or “high priority’. Because an Application Server is an “item of server equipment” hosting the AF, a specific QoS policy requested by the AF for its connection explicitly constitutes a “second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment.” Furthermore, providing “guaranteed” or “high priority” treatment to packets that would otherwise receive baseline/subscription-based routing explicitly teaches that the second QoS level is higher than the first QoS level.”)
While disclosing the “obtaining a connection token representative of said connection from the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment” and “at least one item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment applicable to routing of the data packets exchanged between said item of client equipment and said item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising said connection token”, Lee does not explicitly teach the limitations of “recording in a data table, known as a connection management table, accessible from the communication network, at least one item of activation information of a second quality of service level …”
Chen, in analogous art, teaches the missed limitations as follows:
(para [0027] of Chen: After obtaining the links through which the service data would pass, the management control unit 32 checks the link resources occupation information saved in the database unit 31, allows the request for occupying resources delivered by the application server 25 if there are resources available for the service terminal 11 in all of the links, or rejects the request for occupying resources if there are not enough resources for the service terminal 11 in all of the links from the service terminal 11 to the BAS. When allowing the request for occupying resources (interpreted as “in response to the server equipment deciding to accept the request to change the quality of service”), the management control unit 32 searches for the corresponding QoS policy for the service based on the type of service requested, sends the QoS policy of the service to the BAS, and updates the link resources occupation information saved in the database unit 31 according to the resources occupied by the presently requested service (interpreted as “recording in a data table, known as a connection management table, accessible from the communication network, at least one item of activation information … ”) (Examiner’s comments: Chen’s system includes an access network resource management device containing a database unit that stores a table (e.g., node data table/link data table, see para [0013] of Chen) to establish and track active “service connections” (see para 0012) of Chen: “search the node data table to acquire links constituting a service connection through which service data would pass from the user access device to an access server; determine whether there are link resources available for the links by checking link resources occupation information saved in a link data table”). Crucially, Chen teaches that upon allowing a resource occupation request, the management control unit searches for the corresponding QoS policy for the service based on the type of service requested, sends the QoS policy of the service to the BAS (see para [0027] of Chen). This process identifies the logical binding of a specific service connection to its requested QoS status. While Chen uses service types to identify connections, Lee explicitly teaches replacing traditional flow-matching templates with an “identification token” (activation information) recorded in association with client/server identifiers to differentiate specific traffic flows dynamically (see para [0089] of Lee).
transmitting a response to the item of client equipment, comprising said item of activation information (para [0045] of Chen: the application server (interpreted as “a quality of service management entity”) returns a result of establishing the call connection to the service terminal (interpreted as “transmitting a response to the item of client equipment … ”) according to the result of the resources occupancy returned by the access network resource management device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the server-driven connection admission framework of Chen (where a server equipment requests resource allocation and decides whether to accept a QoS connection), and incorporate the token-based policy enforcement of Lee to record a verified activation token within the network database to dynamically override the client’s default QoS level found in Makinen.
Regarding claim 8, Makinen teaches A method comprising:
requesting to change a quality of service level of a connection of an item of client equipment to an item of server equipment in a communication network which the item of client equipment accesses via a first network (para [0052]: In step 410, a network entity (interpreted as “a quality of service management entity”) may receive a data flow packet, such as a sub-service flow packet. Depending on the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS for a new data flow (the marking in the header is interpreted as “a request to update said connection for routing data packets”), for example, a new sub-flow identification, or a requested QoS level for an existing data flow, for example, ...), a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being applied by the first network to data packets exchanged in said connection (para [0048]: the UE may set the proper QoS level using the values of the QoS parameter table. The UE may then use such values when deciding how to fill up the transport blocks that are being transmitted to a network entity.) (para [0049]: In an embodiment in which the UE initiates new traffic, the UE may first use some default QoS class (interpreted as “a first quality of service level associated with the item of client equipment being applied by the first network to data packets exchanged in said connection”) when transmitting the data traffic to a network entity.), wherein the requesting is implemented by the item of client equipment and further comprises:
While disclosing the marking in the header of the packet, which may include a requested QoS level (interpreted as “second quality of service level”) for a new data flow, Makinen does not explicitly teach the limitations of
“receiving a response from the item of server equipment, said response comprising an item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising a connection token representative of said connection of the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being applicable to data packets exchanged between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment;”
“transmitting a request to update the connection to an item of control equipment of said communication network, said update request comprising said item of activation information of a second quality of service level;” and
“inserting said item of activation information of a second quality of service level in a data packet and transmitting said data packet in the first network.”
Lee, in analogous art, teaches:
receiving a response from the item of server equipment, said response comprising an item of activation information of a second quality of service level associated with the item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being higher than the first quality of service level, said item of activation information comprising a connection token representative of said connection of the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment, said second quality of service level being applicable to data packets exchanged between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment;” (para [0178] of Lee: obtaining a plurality of tokens in response to the request, each token corresponding to one of multiple classes(interpreted as “receiving a response from the item of server equipment, said response comprising an item of activation information of a second quality of service level …”), wherein the plurality of classes correspond to a plurality of types of packets and related priorities 1204 (interpreted as “said second quality of service level being applicable to data packets exchanged between the item of client equipment and the item of server equipment”))(para [0079] of Lee: Downlink Packet flows 414 (e.g., flows of IP packets in the user-plane toward the device 402 from application servers (not shown) in the PDN 410) may be applied to a decision and processing module/circuit/function 420 of the gateway device 408.)(para [0081] of Lee: a traffic filtering token including an application identifier (App ID) may be included (e.g., embedded, associated) with a downlink data packet (see para [0081] of Lee) (para [0089] of Lee: … an identification token may be used to identify specific traffic (e.g., a packet flow) (interpreted as “said item of activation information comprising a connection token representative of said connection of the item of client equipment to the item of server equipment”). The identification token may provide for efficient access control and/or efficient admission control for a service. For example, an identification token may be bound to a specific application. When an entity of a core network (e.g., a control-plane entity such as an MME, MMF, AMF, SMF, and/or a PCRF) derives an identification token, after authorizing traffic associated with the specific application and associating a QoS policy with the identification token, packet filtering/matching may no longer need to be based on an SDF/TFT approach; instead, as explained above, a packet associated with the identification token (i.e., a first type of traffic filtering tokens) may effectively be filtered/matched based on a token verification process.). (Examiner’s comments: Lee further details that the server’s AF can request multiple cases of traffic filtering tokens representing distinct priority levels, such as “guaranteed delivery” or “high priority’ (see para [0113] of Lee: ‘obtaining the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens for the given packet flow may occur during quality of service (QoS) establishment negotiation between the control-plane device/entity/function and a non-core network entity. By way of example, the multiple classes of traffic filtering tokens may include: Token 1 (associated with guaranteed delivery); Token 2 (associated with high priority)’). Because an Application Server is an “item of server equipment” hosting the AF, a specific QoS policy requested by the AF for its connection explicitly constitutes a “second QoS level associated with the item of service equipment.” Furthermore, providing “guaranteed” or “high priority” treatment to packets that would otherwise receive baseline/subscription-based routing explicitly teaches that the second QoS level is higher than the first QoS level.”)
While disclosing the “receiving a response from the item of server equipment …”, Lee does not explicitly teach the limitations of ““transmitting a request to update the connection to an item of control equipment of said communication network, said update request comprising said item of activation information of a second quality of service level;” and “inserting said item of activation information of a second quality of service level in a data packet and transmitting said data packet in the first network.”
Chen, in analogous art, teaches the missed limitations as follows:
transmitting a request to update the connection to an item of control equipment of said communication network (para [0044] of Chen: when the access network resource management device accepts the request for occupying resources in Step 603, it signals the application server for allowing occupying resources, and proceeds to Step 606)(para [0046] of Chen: Steps 606-607: on acceptance of the request for occupying resources for the Internet service, the access network resource management device updates the link data table in its database, searches in the database to obtain the QoS policy for the service based on the type of the Internet service, and sends the QoS policy to the BAS (Broadband Access Server (BAS) is interpreted as “an item of control equipment of said communication network”). The BAS receives and carries out the QoS policy (interpreted as “a request to update the connection”) sent by the access network resource management device), said update request comprising said item of activation information of a second quality of service level (para [0046] of Chen: the access network resource management device updates the link data table in its database, searches in the database to obtain the QoS policy for the service based on the type of the Internet service (the QoS policy is interpreted as “said update request”; and the service is interpreted as “said item of activation information of a second quality of service level”, see para [0038] of Chen “Step 601: when initiating a service with QoS requirements,”)); and
inserting said item of activation information of a second quality of service level in a data packet and transmitting said data packet in the first network (para [0046] of Chen: The BAS receives and carries out the QoS policy sent by the access network resource management device.)(para [0048] of Chen: Step 608: the service terminal sends service packets with QoS requirements to the backbone network via the broadband access network (interpreted as “inserting the item of activation information of a second quality of service level in a data packet and transmitting said data packet in the first network.”).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone to have modified the combination of Makinen and Lee to incorporate the teaching of Chen and provide the receiving a response from the item of server equipment, transmitting a request to update the connection, and inserting the item of activation information of a second quality of service level in a data packet and transmitting said data packet in the first network. Doing so would possible to efficiently allocate resources of the network device based on the node data table and the link data table.
Regarding claim 11, it is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 6, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, it is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 8, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makinen in view of Lee, and further in view of Aukia et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,594,268, hereinafter “Aukia”).
Regarding claim 2, Makinen and Lee teach The method according to claim 1,
Makinen and Lee fails to teach the wherein said item of activation information of a second quality of service level comprises an item of identification information of a source of the data packet and an item of identification information of a destination of the data packet.
It had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Aukia (“a header of the packet (interpreted as “the item of activation information of a second quality of service level”) includes fields or parameters, such as a source address where the data originates and at least one destination address where the data is to be routed.” (col. 3, lines 54-58 of Aukia)).
Makinen, Lee and Aukia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of QoS packet networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone to have modified the combination of Makinen and Lee to incorporate the teaching of Aukia and provide marking in the header comprising a source address where the data originates and at least one destination address where the data is to be routed
Regarding claim 4, Makinen and Lee teaches The method according to claim 1, Aukia teaches wherein said quality of service management rule comprises an item of information relating to a type of service and the application of said rule comprises inserting said item of information in a header of the data packet. (col. 17, lines 10-14 of Aukia: The packet network 100 may employ a message of a protocol to request resources. Such message may be, for example, Type of Service (TOS) bits of the OSPF protocol in the packet header, TOS addressed metrics of the packet payload, or the control messages of the RSVP protocol.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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 W 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights