DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 06/10/26.
Independent claims have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2023/0217310, “Zhang”) in view of Youn et al. (US 2023/0319634, “Youn”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a user equipment (UE) (See 115-b Fig.4 and Figs.5-7) comprising:
- an access performance acquisition circuit (See 625 Fig.6 and ¶.125, communication management circuitry), arranged to acquire performance of a 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) access and performance of a non-3GPP access (See 425 Fig.4, communicates in accordance with a dual networking mode such as 3GPP and a non-3GPP; See ¶.106, in accordance with ATSSS, Access Traffic Steering may refer to selection of an access network (AN) (e.g., a cellular access network, such as a 3GPP access network, and a non-cellular access, such as a non-3GPP access network) for a new data flow (e.g., IP flows) and transferring the traffic of this data flow over the selected AN; See Fig.3, cellular access and non-cellular access); and
- a wireless communication circuit (See Fig.5 and ¶.125, hardware includes a processor and circuit), arranged to
- determine a non-network-decided access traffic steering, switching and splitting (ATSSS) policy (See Fig.3 and ¶.107, ATSSS rules may refer to rules associated with ATSSS modes; See 405 & 410 Fig.4, UE monitors conditions of a non-cellular network and predict availability status of the non-cellular network) according to the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access (See ¶.54, to improve ATSSS operation, a UE may be configured to perform techniques for predicting network availability of a cellular network, a non-cellular network, or both; See ¶.109, UE may perform a network availability monitoring procedure while operating in accordance with an ATSSS mode for cellular access and non-cellular access as shown in Fig.3),
- report the non-network-decided ATSSS policy to a network (See 420 Fig.4, UE sends ‘Indication of non-availability of non-cellular network’), and
- receive a network-decided ATSSS policy from the network (420 Fig.4, UE receives indication to change dual networking mode; See ¶.3, the UE may be configured to connect with the one or more networks in accordance with a dual networking mode (e.g., an access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) mode); See ¶.104, the signal may indicate the network will likely become unavailable, which may prompt one or both of the networks (e.g., access node, base station) to adjust the ATSSS mode (e.g., ATSSS steering mode) of UE accordingly),
- wherein the network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the network to the UE is generated based on suggestion of the UE, the suggestion of the UE comprises the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network (See ¶.54, to improve ATSSS operation, a UE may be configured to perform techniques for predicting network availability of a cellular network, a non-cellular network, or both, and pre-emptively taking action so as to reduce latency and improve reliability for the UE. If the algorithm predicts that one of the networks may become unavailable, the UE may be configured to signal to one or both of the networks that the network is unavailable prior to the network actually becoming unavailable, which may prompt one or both of the networks to adjust the ATSSS mode of the UE accordingly; See ¶.104, UE may autonomously adjust the traffic steering, switching, and/or splitting on the uplink, or adjust the feedback of the downlink channel quality feedback of a cellular and/or non-cellular system; See ¶.107, the UE may provide access availability and/or unavailability reports to the network, such as if requested by the network in the Measurement Assistance Information; Examiner’s Note: Youn further discloses the limitations “the network generates ATSSS policy based on suggestion of the UE”); and the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least steering mode (See ¶.107, with reference to communicating uplink traffic, and when uplink resources are available for multiple network accesses, a UE may apply ATSSS rules and consider local conditions (e.g., such as network interface availability, signal loss, user preferences) to determine how to distribute the uplink traffic. With reference to communicating downlink traffic over a MA-PDU session, the UE may provide access availability and/or unavailability reports to the network, such as if requested by the network (e.g., in the Measurement Assistance Information). In some cases, the ATSSS rules may refer to rules associated with ATSSS modes, such as steering modes (e.g., ATSSS steering modes, AT steering modes). For example, a steering mode may indicate how traffic is to be distributed across multiple accesses. A steering mode may set to active-standby that may include steering a SDF on a first access when the first access is available, and include switching the SDF to a second access when Active access becomes unavailable).
Youn further discloses the limitations “the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least steering mode“ (Youn, See ¶.[224]-[225] that “in the PDU session establishment request message transmitted to request a new MA PDU session, the UE may provide ATSSS capability information of the UE. ATSSS capability information may include information about the steering mode and steering functionalities supported by the UE. [0225] If the UE indicates that it can support ATSSS-LL (Low Layer) function with any steering mode, and the network accepts to activate this function, the network may provide UE Measurement Assistance Information to the UE. And, the network may provide one or more ATSSS rules to the UE. [0226] the UE indicates that the UE can support the MPTCP function in any steering mode, and can support the ATSSS-LL function only in the Active-Standby steering mode, and the network may accept to activate these functions. In this case, the network provides MPTCP proxy information to the UE, the network may allocate one IP address/prefix for the MA PDU session and two additional IP addresses/prefixes called “link-specific multipath” to the UE. Additionally, the network may provide the UE with UE measurement assistance information and provide the UE with one or more ATSSS rules, including ATSSS rules for non-MPTCP traffic. ATSSS rules for non-MPTCP traffic can use the ATSSS-LL function and Active-Standby steering mode to indicate how non-MPTCP traffic is transmitted over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access in the uplink direction; See further ¶.298-304 for ATSSS rules including one or more steering modes such as Active-Standby mode, Smallest Delay mode, Load-Balancing mode; and Priority-based Mode).
Youn further discloses the limitations “the network generates ATSSS policy based on suggestion of the UE” (Youn, See ¶.270, the UE requests an MA PDU session, the UE may indicate that the UE can support the MPTCP function in all steering modes and support the ATSSS-LL function only in the Active-Standby steering mode. In this case, in order for the UE to transmit an access availability/unavailability report to the UPF, the network may transmit Measurement Assistance Information for the UE to the UE. In this case, since the UE and UPF can use the measurements available in the MPTCP layer; See ¶.352, upon receiving this, the SMF can notify the PCF of the UE's request, and based on this, the SMF can receive an updated PCC rule from the PCF. The SMF may generate an updated ATSSS rule based on the updated PCC rule. Alternatively, the SMF may generate an ATSSS rule directly updated by the SMF according to a current PCC rule).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “the non-network-decided ATSSS policy being sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least steering mode” and “the network generates ATSSS policy based on suggestion of the UE” as taught by Youn into the system of Zhang, so that it provides a way for the UE to indicate to the network the steering mode supported by the UE by including one of the following in the UE ATSSS capability such as Active-Standby mode, Smallest Delay mode, Load-Balancing mode; and/or Priority-based Mode (Youn, See ¶.275).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses “the access performance acquisition circuit is arranged to perform access performance measurement upon the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access for measuring the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access (See ¶.54, a UE may monitor one or more parameters of the cellular network, such as throughput, degree of QoS satisfaction, channel quality, channel occupancy, etc. The UE may also monitor one or more parameters of the non-cellular network such as receive SINR measurements, etc. and in some cases may monitor one or more parameters of the UE such as the motion of the UE, positioning of the UE, whether the UE is connected to Bluetooth, etc.).”
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses “the access performance acquisition circuit is arranged to perform access performance prediction upon the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access for predicting the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access (See ¶.4, generally, the described techniques provide for improved methods of utilizing dual networking modes for steering, switching, or splitting traffic (e.g., access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) modes) by a user equipment (UE) to coordinate communications from multiple networks, such as one or more cellular networks, one or more non-cellular networks (e.g., a WiFi network), or a combination thereof. The described techniques may allow a UE to monitor an availability of one or more of networks the UE is receiving service from. The UE may predict an availability status of one or more of the networks and the UE may adjust dual networking modes based on the availability. Accordingly, the UE may predict that one or more of the networks will become unavailable and adjust modes prior to the unavailability so that communications are unaffected).”
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses “the access performance acquisition circuit predicts the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access through machine learning (See ¶.95, UE may be configured to input the first, second, and/or third set of parameters into one or more algorithms (e.g., neural networks, machine-learning), where the one or more algorithms may predict network availability of base station, access point, or both).”
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses “the wireless communication circuit is further arranged to receive neural-network (NN) parameters transmitted from a network, and the access performance acquisition circuit uses an NN model indicated by the NN parameters to predict the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access (See ¶.95, UE may be configured to input the first, second, and/or third set of parameters into one or more algorithms (e.g., neural networks, machine-learning), where the one or more algorithms may predict network availability of base station, access point, or both. The one or more algorithms may receive inputs from various heterogenous sources, such as a non-cellular receiver of UE, motion sensors, GNSS receivers, Bluetooth modules, OS modules, etc. In some cases, one algorithm may be associated with one set of parameters. For example, UE may be configured with a first algorithm for predicting availability of access node by inputting the first set of parameters and/or the third set of parameters. Accordingly, the first algorithm may predict the availably of access node based on the parameters associated with access node and/or based on the behavior of UE with respect to access node).”
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses “the wireless communication circuit is arranged to determine the non-network-decided ATSSS policy through machine learning (See ¶.4, utilizing dual networking modes for steering, switching, or splitting traffic (e.g., access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) modes) by a user equipment (UE) to coordinate communications from multiple networks, such as one or more cellular networks, one or more non-cellular networks, or a combination thereof. the UE may determine whether to change dual networking modes based on the availability status and may communicate in accordance with the same or a different dual networking mode using at least one of the cellular network, the non-cellular network, or a combination thereof based on the prediction; See ¶.98, the motion sensors may compare the detected motion with one or more patterns (e.g., trained patterns, stored patterns, learned patterns).”
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses “the wireless communication circuit is further arranged to receive neural-network (NN) parameters transmitted from a network, and use an NN model indicated by the NN parameters to determine the non-network-decided ATSSS policy (See ¶.54, a UE may monitor one or more parameters of the cellular network, such as throughput, degree of quality of service (QoS) satisfaction, channel quality, channel occupancy, etc. The UE may also monitor one or more parameters of the non-cellular network such as receive signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements, etc. and in some cases may monitor one or more parameters of the UE such as the motion of the UE, positioning of the UE, whether the UE is connected to Bluetooth, etc. The UE may input the one or more parameters of the cellular network, the non-cellular network, the UE, or a combination thereof into an algorithm (e.g., a neural network) and the algorithm may predict availability of the networks; See ¶.95, for channel quality prediction, both a filter-based model (e.g., traditional filter-based mode) and neural network based model may be used and subject to a selector based on prediction performance).”
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim corresponding to the a user equipment claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 12-15, 17, and 18, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-5, 7, & 8, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Youn and Salkintzis et al. (US 2024/0334219, “Salkintzis”).
Regarding claim 6, it is a user equipment claim corresponding to the claim 1, except the limitation “each of the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access predicted by the access performance acquisition circuit comprises at least one of predicted round-trip time (RTT) and predicted congestion.”
Zhang and Youn do not explicitly discloses what Salkintzis discloses “each of the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access predicted by the access performance acquisition circuit comprises at least one of predicted round-trip time (RTT) and predicted congestion and computation of the at least one of predicted RTT and predicted congestion is performed locally on the UE” (Salkintzis, See ¶.33, a UE may be required to measure a latency (or RTT) over 3GPP access and the latency (or RTT) over non-3GPP access. Similarly, the UPF may be required to measure the latency (or RTT) over 3GPP access and the latency (or RTT) over non-3GPP access to decide how to route the DL traffic to comply with the policy rules; See ¶.34, a Performance Measurement Functionality (“PMF”) may be supported in a UE and in a UPF (e.g., which assists in taking real-time RTT measurements over the two accesses). In particular, RTT measurements may be taken by exchanging PMF-Echo Request and/or PMF-Echo Response messages between a PMF function in the UE (UE-PMF) and the PMF function in the UPF (UPF-PMF). Thus, the UE may calculate a RTT over each access, which is associated with the latency of each access).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “each of the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access predicted by the access performance acquisition circuit comprises at least one of predicted round-trip time (RTT) and predicted congestion and computation of the at least one of predicted RTT and predicted congestion is performed locally on the UE” as taught by Salkintzis into the system of Zhang and Youn, so that it provides a way for the UE to calculate a RTT over each access, which is associated with the latency of each access (Salkintzis, See ¶.34).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang and Youn do not explicitly discloses what Salkintzis discloses “each of the performance of the 3GPP access and the performance of the non-3GPP access predicted by the access performance acquisition circuit comprises at least one of predicted round-trip time (RTT) and predicted congestion” (Salkintzis, See ¶.54, the RTT analytics provided by the NWDAF contains a predicted RTT for each access type and is derived by the NWDAF based on historical RTT measurements available in the NWDAF. The predicted RTT values in the RTT analytics are then sent back to the remote unit 105 (e.g., UE) and are applied for determining a smallest-delay access type, or evaluating RTT thresholds, and so forth; See ¶.59, the RTT analytics may be used to predict the RTT that will be experienced if data is transmitted in a certain 3GPP cell or non-3GPP AP at a certain time period and via a certain QoS flow). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the amended claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims by Zhang and Youn, especially for the newly added claim limitations “the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least one steering mode”, which is explicitly disclosed and/or suggested by Youn.
At pages 7-9, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that any combination of Zhang and Youn fail to disclose “the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least steering mode” by asserting that;
“In view of above remarks/arguments, the applicant asserts that the claim limitation "wherein the network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the network to the UE is generated based on suggestion of the UE, and the suggestion of the UE comprises the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network" is not taught or suggested by Zhang's network conditions (network unavailability) reported from the UE to the network and Youn's ATSSS update request sent from the UE to the network. Furthermore, to expedite the prosecution of the instant application, claim 1 has been amended to specify "the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least one steering mode". (emphasis added) The applicant asserts that none of Zhang's network conditions (network unavailability) reported from the UE to the network and Youn's ATSSS update request sent from the UE to the network can read on this added limitation.”
In reply, the limitations the non-network-decided ATSSS policy sent from the UE to the network comprises ATSSS rules for at least steering mode” explicitly read on:
See ¶.[224]-[225] of Youn discloses “in the PDU session establishment request message transmitted to request a new MA PDU session, the UE may provide ATSSS capability information of the UE. ATSSS capability information may include information about the steering mode and steering functionalities supported by the UE.” [0225] If the UE indicates that it can support ATSSS-LL (Low Layer) function with any steering mode, and the network accepts to activate this function, the network may provide UE Measurement Assistance Information to the UE. And, the network may provide one or more ATSSS rules to the UE.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0226] of Youn discloses “the UE indicates that the UE can support the MPTCP function in any steering mode, and can support the ATSSS-LL function only in the Active-Standby steering mode, and the network may accept to activate these functions. In this case, the network provides MPTCP proxy information to the UE, the network may allocate one IP address/prefix for the MA PDU session and two additional IP addresses/prefixes called “link-specific multipath” to the UE. Additionally, the network may provide the UE with UE measurement assistance information and provide the UE with one or more ATSSS rules, including ATSSS rules for non-MPTCP traffic. ATSSS rules for non-MPTCP traffic can use the ATSSS-LL function and Active-Standby steering mode to indicate how non-MPTCP traffic is transmitted over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access in the uplink direction.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0298]-[0304] of Youn discloses “for ATSSS rules including one or more steering modes such as Active-Standby mode, Smallest Delay mode, Load-Balancing mode; and Priority-based Mode).”
At pages 10-11, with respect to claims 6 and 16, applicant argues that “RTT measurement performed locally on the UE as taught by Salkintzis fails to teach or suggest the claim limitation “predicted RTT” by asserting that;
“Salkintzis' disclosure expressly teaches that RTT measurement performed locally on the UE is not RTT prediction (which is performed on remote NWDAF of the network). The applicant asserts that RTT measurement performed locally on the UE as taught by Salkintzis fails to teach or suggest the claim limitation "predicted RTT". (emphasis added).”
In reply, the limitation “predicted RTT performed on a network” explicitly read on:
¶.[0301] of Youn discloses “2) Smallest Delay: Smallest Delay can be used to steer the SDF to the access determined to have the smallest Round-Trip Time (RTT). Measurements may be performed by the UE and UPF to determine RTT over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0054] of Salkintzis discloses “The RTT analytics provided by the NWDAF contains a predicted RTT for each access type and is derived by the NWDAF based on historical RTT measurements available in the NWDAF. The predicted RTT values in the RTT analytics are then sent back to the remote unit (e.g., UE) and are applied for determining a smallest-delay access type, or evaluating RTT thresholds, and so forth.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0073] of Salkintzis discloses “In Step 13, the UPF sends to the UE a PMF-RttReport notify message containing the estimated RTT values for the two accesses.” Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights