Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 01/11/2023.
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2023 and 08/08/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parvataneni et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0366559), the prior art discloses a MEC cluster includes a first MEC platforms, wherein the MEC platforms includes a first local policy analyzer; see figure 6 numeral 230-1. The first MEC platform applies local algorithm to a collected data to determine if a local policy [processing rule] improvement is available; see figure 7 numeral 730-750 & ¶ 0060. When the local policy improvement is available, the first MEC platform provide the improvement policy model to a policy optimizer; see figure 7 numeral 760. The policy optimizer resolves any differences in the policy models for the one or more MEC platforms; see figure 8 numeral 830.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-7, 11, 13, 16-18, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0241317, hereinafter referred as Jamadagni) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0219481, hereinafter referred as Wang).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Jamadagni discloses a method performed by a first device in a communication system (The network includes a serving eNB (S-eNB); see figure 6.), comprising:
detecting a need to update a traffic processing rule in a second device processing with the first device (The S-eNB [first device] performs offloading assessment to determine whether to add a target eNB (T-eNB) [second device]; see figure 6 operation 4 & ¶ 73.) ;
determining whether to update the traffic processing rule to be used in the second device based on performance information of the first device and performance profile information of the second device (The S-eNB determination is based on the measurement reports received from the UEs and its load [performance information of the first device] and small cell load [performance information of second device] as part of RRM; see figure 6 operation 4 & ¶ 73.); and
delivering information related to the update of the traffic processing rule to the second device based on the determination (The S-eNB sends a message to the T-eNB to move the certain EPS bearer to the T-eNB; see figure 6 operation 7.).
Jamadagni discloses an offloading system for data transmission and reception between a UE and two or more eNBs (e.g. S-eNB and T-eNB), but fails to explicitly disclose that the first device is processing traffic together with the second device. However, in analogous art, Wang discloses the master eNB [first device] adjusting an offloading strategy for the secondary eNB [second device] according to the offloaded bearer status information of the secondary eNB; see ¶ 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamadagni offloading system with the adjustment mechanism of Wang in order to avoid degradation of the offloaded communications by timely adjusting the offloading strategy; see ¶ 15.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0241317, hereinafter referred as Jamadagni) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0219481, hereinafter referred as Wang) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0223093, hereinafter referred as Zhang)
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Jamadagni as modified discloses the parent claims 1 and 12. In addition, Jamadagni discloses an offloading system for data transmission and reception between a UE and two or more eNBs (e.g. S-eNB and T-eNB), but fails to explicitly disclose that the performance profile information of the second device is determined based on measurement information of the second device received from the second device, and wherein the measurement information of the second device includes a measurement value of a packet transmission rate and packet transmission delay time of the second device per unit time. However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses that the macro eNB [S-eNB] receive a measurement report message from a local eNB [T-eNB] in order optimize the network configuration, wherein the measurement report message includes the utilization rate and the packet delay; see figure 10a & ¶ 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamadagni offloading system with the load balancing mechanism of Zhang in order to reduce the mutual interference, improve the resource utilization rate and improve the total performance of the system; see ¶ 9.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0241317, hereinafter referred as Jamadagni) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0219481, hereinafter referred as Wang) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0112907, hereinafter referred as Zhang).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Jamadagni as modified discloses the parent claims 1 and 12. In addition, Jamadagni discloses an offloading system for data transmission and reception between a UE and two or more eNBs (e.g. S-eNB and T-eNB), but fails to explicitly disclose that the performance profile information of the second device is received from a third device, and the third device operates a module providing a data analysis function. However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses that the management entity (NMF) instructs a NWDAF to collect RAN nodes data, wherein the NWDAF report as requested by the management entity data collected from the RAN nodes, wherein the data event such as packet delay; see ¶ 314-317. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamadagni offloading system with the management mechanism of Dao in order to select alternative route that provide the same or better QoS support; see 303.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0241317, hereinafter referred as Jamadagni) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0219481, hereinafter referred as Wang) and further in view of Li et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0269182, hereinafter referred as Li).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Jamadagni as modified discloses the parent claims 1 and 12. In addition, Jamadagni discloses an offloading system for data transmission and reception between a UE and two or more eNBs (e.g. S-eNB and T-eNB), but fails to explicitly disclose that detecting the need to update the traffic processing rule in the second device is determined by receiving a control message from a fourth device. However, in analogous art, Li discloses detecting a preset condition, the virtual switch sends an update instruction to the N network interface cards, where the update instruction instructs the N network interface cards to update an offloaded flow table associated with a target packet; see ¶ 37. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamadagni offloading system with the update instruction of Li in order to avoid slow path.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni, Wang, Li, and further in view of Talebi Fardet al. (US Patent Publication No. 2025/0176056, hereinafter referred as Talebi Fard).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Jamadagni as modified discloses the parent claims 1 and 12. In addition, Jamadagni discloses an offloading system for data transmission and reception between a UE and two or more eNBs (e.g. S-eNB and T-eNB), but fails to explicitly disclose that the control message includes information related to whether a protocol data unit (PDU) session corresponding to a specific flow and session transitions to an idle state. However, in analogous art, Talebi Fard discloses that the UE transitions to CM idle 960, the network may deactivate a user plane connection of a PDU session of the UE; see ¶ 139. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamadagni offloading system with the deactivation instruction of Talebi Fard in order to optimize the path utilization by deleting idle sessions.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0241317, hereinafter referred as Jamadagni) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0223093, hereinafter referred as Zhang).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Jamadagni discloses that the measurement information is used to determine whether to update the traffic processing rule by the first device to the second device. (The S-eNB determination is based on the measurement reports received from the UEs and its load [performance information of the first device] and small cell load [performance information of second device] as part of RRM; see figure 6 operation 4 & ¶ 73. The S-eNB sends a message to the T-eNB to move the certain EPS bearer to the T-eNB; see figure 6 operation 7.).
Jamadagni discloses an offloading system for data transmission and reception between a UE and two or more eNBs (e.g. S-eNB and T-eNB), but fails to explicitly disclose measuring a packet transmission rate and a packet transmission delay time of the second device per unit time; and delivering measurement information including a measurement value of the packet transmission rate and packet transmission delay time measured per the unit time to the first device. However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses that the macro eNB [S-eNB] receive a measurement report message from a local eNB [T-eNB] in order optimize the network configuration, wherein the measurement report message includes the utilization rate and the packet delay; see figure 10a & ¶ 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamadagni offloading system with the load balancing mechanism of Zhang in order to reduce the mutual interference, improve the resource utilization rate and improve the total performance of the system; see ¶ 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472