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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/29/2026 has been entered. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No dependent claims have been amended. No new claims have been cancelled. No claims are new. Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 19-23 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/29/2026 on pages 10-12 of applicant’s remark regarding Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 23.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 23 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specified challenged in the argument.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, 19-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (Pub. No.: US 20200022020 A1, hereafter “Yan”) in view of Chen (Pub. No.: US 20230389129 A1, hereafter “Chen”), further in view of McKibben (Pub. No.: US 12683905 B1, hereafter “McKibben”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 8, and Claim 15
Yan teaches the method, device, and medium comprising
determining (Yan ¶0025: comparing loss of traffic forwarded), by the AGF network device (Yan Fig. 9A: 335-1), whether the information associated with the PDU session indicates that one or more packet drops occurred at the AGF network device during the PDU session (Yan ¶0025: loss of traffic forwarded; Yan teaches determining a lack of messages for traffic forwarding, see Fig. 9A and ¶0025);
generating (Yan ¶0072: final usage calculation), by the AGF network device, a PDU accounting adjustment container based on one or more packet drops occurring at the AGF network device during the PDU session (Yan ¶0072: usage based on traffic type, e.g., DROPPED or USAGE; Yan teaches generating a final calculation for different types of traffics, such as dropped or used data, see ¶0072);
Yan does not explicitly teach
providing, by the AGF network device, the PDU accounting adjustment container to the UPF peer endpoint within the core network to cause the UPF peer endpoint to utilize the accounting adjustment container to calculate a usage report for the user device.
However, Chen teaches
providing (Chen ¶0133: encapsulates), by the AGF network device (Chen ¶0133: by the base station), the PDU accounting adjustment container (Chen ¶0133: PDU packet loss) to a UPF peer endpoint (Chen ¶0133: terminal side receives) within the core network (Chen Fig. 5: RLC channel is contained within the QoS flow MBS service) to cause the UPF peer endpoint to utilize the accounting adjustment container (Chen ¶0133: sequence number of unsuccessfully received PDCP PDUs) to calculate a usage report (Chen ¶0133: PDCP status report) for the user device (Chen ¶0133: terminal side receives; Chen teaches a base station encapsulating a PDU packet loss report that includes a sequence number of lost packets for the terminal side, see Fig. 5 and ¶0133).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yan by way of Chen teach an element teaches a base station encapsulating a PDU packet loss report that includes a sequence number of lost packets for the terminal side, as taught by Chen Fig. 5 and ¶0133, to enable a reliable transmission of the MBS service transmitted in PTM at a PDCP layer.
Yan by way of Chen does not explicitly teach
receiving, by an access gateway function (AGF), information associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session of a user device wherein the AGF network device is configured to receive downlink traffic corresponding to the user device being served from a user plane function (UPF) peer endpoint wherein the AFG network device and the UPF peer endpoint are within a core network, and wherein one or more traffic policies of the UPF peer endpoint are configured by a session management function (SMF);
However, McKibben teaches
receiving (McKibben Col 6 line 14: Transfer of user-plane data), by an access gateway function (AGF) (McKibben Fig. 5: 538), information associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) (McKibben Col 6 lines 24-25: Reflective QoS flow to DRB mapping for the UL SDAP protocol data units (PDUs)) session of a user device (McKibben Fig. 5: 524), wherein the AGF network device (McKibben Fig. 5: 520, W-AGF) is configured to receive downlink traffic (McKibben Fig. 5: 538, e.g. PDCP equivalent end points using MTS to CM upper layer functions as shown by dashed line 538, see Col. 8 line 48-53) corresponding to the user device (McKibben Fig. 5: 524, UE) being served from a user plane function (UPF) peer endpoint (McKibben Fig. 5: 516, UPF) wherein the AFG network device and the UPF peer endpoint are within a core network (McKibben Fig. 5: 520 and 516 are within 502, Wireless Core Network), and wherein one or more traffic policies (McKibben Fig. 5: 512, PCF, e.g. AMF 518 then cooperates with SMF 514 to launch a user plane function (UPF) 516, which communicates with wireless access network 502 to provide the data session, see Col 7 lines 52-55) of the UPF peer endpoint (McKibben Fig. 5: 514 is connected to 516) are configured by a session management function (SMF) (McKibben Fig. 5: 514, SMF, e.g. Wireline access network 506 and SMF 514 cooperate to launch a UPF 516, see McKibben Col 8 lines 5-6; McKibben teaches a W-AGF and UPF within a wireless core network, wherein the SMF is used to configure the UPF, and the W-AGF manages communication from a UE, see Fig. 5, Col 6 line 14, Col 6 lines 24-25, Col 7 lines 52-55, Col 8 lines 5-6, and Col. 8 line 48-53);
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yan by way of Chen by way of McKibben, to include an element that teaches a W-AGF and UPF within a wireless core network, wherein the SMF is used to configure the UPF, and the W-AGF manages communication from a UE, as taught by McKibben in Fig. 5, Col 6 line 14, Col 6 lines 24-25, Col 7 lines 52-55, Col 8 lines 5-6, and Col. 8 line 48-53 to combine a known element with another known element to enable communication systems to have more responsive communication system and have the ability to optimize system response through a configuration system.
Claim 8 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art,
one or more memories (Yan Fig. 11: 1130; Yan teaches memory); and one or more processors (Yan Fig. 11: 1120; Yan teaches processor)
and selectively: prevent an accounting adjustment container from being generated based on no packet drops occurring during the PDU session (Yan ¶0046: UPF may forgo adding information; Yan teaches the UPF not always giving information, see Fig. 11 and ¶0046);
Claim 15 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (Yan Fig. 11: 1130), and to provide the usage report to a core network (Yan ¶0034: SMF; Yan teaches memory and the UPF sending the report to a core node, see Fig. 11 and ¶0034).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 9, and Claim 19
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 1. Yan further discloses
wherein the PDU accounting adjustment container includes information identifying a quantity of the one or more packet drops occurring at the AGF network device during the PDU session (Yan ¶0061: DROPPED field indicates the amount of traffic that was dropped; Yan teaches the counter including the amount of traffic that was dropped, see ¶0061).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 12, Claim 16
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 1. Yan further discloses
wherein providing the UPF accounting adjustment container to the UPF peer endpoint comprises: providing the UPF accounting adjustment container to the UPF peer endpoint after a time period (Yan ¶0015: over a given time period; Yan teaches outputting data traffic over a given time period, see ¶0015).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 17
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 1. Chen teaches
wherein providing the UPF accounting adjustment container to the UPF peer endpoint comprises: determining whether a quantity of the one or more packet drops occurring at the AGF network device during the PDU session satisfies a quantity threshold (Chen ¶0096-¶0097: terminal side counts the PDU and determines the packet loss reaches a threshold; Chen teaches counting the lost PDU packets, see ¶0096-¶0097); and providing PDU the accounting adjustment container to the UPF peer endpoint based on the quantity of the one or more packet drops occurring at the AGF network device during the PDU session satisfying the quantity threshold (Chen ¶0101: triggers a report when lost PDU sessions reaches a threshold; Chen teaches sending a report based on a number of PDU packet loss, see ¶0101).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yan with Chen to have a threshold-based report from the amount dropped PDU sessions, as taught by Chen ¶0096-¶0101, to enable a reliable transmission of the MBS service transmitted in PTM at a PDCP layer.
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 13
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 1. Yan further discloses
wherein providing the PDU accounting adjustment container to the UPF peer endpoint further causes the UPF peer endpoint to provide the usage report to a core network (Yan ¶0042: report count usage; Yan teaches creating a report based off of lost data for billing, see ¶0042).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 20, and Claim 23
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 8. Yan further discloses
wherein the PDU accounting adjustment container is provided in an extension header of a general packet radio service (GPRS) (Yan ¶0018: UPF may use GPRS) tunnelling protocol user data tunneling (GTP-U) packet (Yan ¶0049: includes a GTP-U header; Yan teaches communicating with GPRS and GTP-U, see ¶0018 and ¶0049).
Regarding Claim 11
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 10. Yan further discloses
wherein the extension header is included with another extension header in the GTP-U packet (Yan ¶0049: GPT-U header may include one or more extension headers; Yan teaches the GTP-U header can be extended, see ¶0049).
Claim(s) 14, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (Pub. No.: US 20200022020 A1, hereafter “Yan”) in view of Chen (Pub. No.: US 20230389129 A1, hereafter “Chen”), further in view of McKibben (Pub. No.: US 12683905 B1, hereafter “McKibben”), and even further in view of Jorgensen (Pub. No.: US 20020099854 A1, hereafter “Jorgensen”).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 21, and Claim 22
Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben teaches the method, device, and medium as explained above in Claim 8. Yan in view of Chen, further in view of McKibben does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more packet drops occurred at the AGF network device during the PDU session due to one or more of: congestion in an access network, disconnection of the user device, or link failure in the access network
However, Jorgensen teaches
wherein the one or more packet drops occurred at the AGF network device during the PDU session due to one or more of: congestion in an access network (Jorgensen ¶0564: congestion), disconnection of the user device (Jorgensen ¶0564: dropping transmission), or link failure in the access network (Jorgensen ¶0564: link failure; Jorgensen teaches having packet drops due to congestion, dropping the connection, or link failure, see ¶0564).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yan in view of Chen and further with McKibben, with Jorgensen to have packet drops due to congestion, dropping the connection, or link failure, as taught by Jorgensen ¶0564, to have an increased priority to QoS for the guiding principle in architecting the network systems.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights