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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 which includes claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 11/02/2025 is acknowledged. Group 2 which contains claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190380061 A1 herein Mehta.
Claim 1, Mehta discloses a wireless station (0031, base station/backhaul UE) comprising one or more processors (since a base station/backhaul UE, thus a processor) configured to:
determine data is to be transferred (0004, TFT applied to different types of data flows, i.e. video, images and etc.; 0007-0008, the backhaul bearer established by a backhaul user equipment (UE) at the base station; the first backhaul bearer may be a dedicated bearer to be used for prioritized traffic, since traffic will be sent on the backhaul bearer thus a determination of data to be sent);
determine a data type of the data corresponds to a priority data type (see paragraph 38, mapping of apps to QCI, QCI being the "priority data type"; 0007-0008, prioritized data traffic, the plurality of individual priority parameters may each be QCI parameters);
provide a data type signal indicating the data type corresponds to the priority data type (see paragraph 38, " PCRF tags the UE with a particular QCI and DSCP" and sends this information to the BS; UE attach request can indicate the application being used; 0042, the backhaul UE can modify the existing GBR. To request a change of the GBR, thus data type signaling);
receive a data type confirmation signal in response to the data type signal (see paragraph 38 "base station maps QCI to TOS; TOS mapped to bearer by modem"; 0073, coordination between PGW and base stations is performed for filter matching, i.e. which QCI maps to which TOS; thus confirmation signaling);
create a dedicated bearer with a network device based on the data type confirmation signal (see paragraph 39 "different QCls are enabled on backhaul UE by creating and leveraging multiple special dedicated bearers on the backhaul UE"); and
instruct the data to be transferred via the dedicated bearer (0007, 0054, transmission of data tagged with priority tags).
Claim 2, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine the data is to be transferred by receiving a data transfer request from an application within the wireless station (0038, indication of application to be used, UE attach request shows application being used); and identify the data type of the data in response to receiving the data transfer request (0009, applying filters on UE data based on priority).
Claim 3, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine the data is to be transferred by receiving a data transfer request from an Internet browser within the wireless station (0038, 0009, 0058, filtering data based on web or video, or other data type); and identify the data type of the data in response to receiving the data transfer request (0038, 0009, 0058).
Claim 4, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the dedicated bearer ensures a bit rate of transferring the data that is equal to or greater than a bit rate of transferring data via a default bearer (0008, 0020, multiple bearers guaranteeing GBR and non-GBR for data connections based on priority (i.e. QCI)).
Claim 6, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the dedicated bearer may be activated to establish an evolved packet switched system (EPS) bearer context (0042, EPS bearer context) with a quality of service (QoS) and a traffic flow template (TFT) between the wireless station and the network device (0042-0044, TFT and QCI for different apps of UEs for backhaul bearers).
Claim 7, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 6, wherein the default bearer is configured to permit transfer of data not corresponding to the priority data type (0070).
Claim 8, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the dedicated bearer comprises a pre-defined quality of service (QoS) class identifier (QCI) corresponding to the priority data type and a guaranteed bit rate (GBR) parameter corresponding to the dedicated bearer (0008, QCI and GBR).
Claim 9, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine the data is to be transferred by receiving a data transfer request (0007, establishing a backhaul bearer); and determine the data type of the data corresponds to the priority data type by determining a source type of the data transfer request corresponds to a priority source (0011, source port or source IP used for selecting a TFT for a type of traffic).
Claim 10, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the data type signal is provided to the network device via a data type interface outside the dedicated bearer and a default bearer (0066, coordinating node in the second core network providing and applying a QCI for traffic).
Claim 11, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein a QoS of the data transfer is enforced at an EPS bearer level (0003, 0004,00027, EPS bearer).
Claim 12, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1, wherein the wireless station is configured to operate within a fourth-generation cellular network (0003, LTE).
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 7.
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 10.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of US 20210029205 A1 herein Dandra.
Claim 5, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 1. Mehta may not explicitly disclose wherein the priority data type comprises at least one of a payment data type, a bank data type, a bank transfer data type, and a bank card data type.
Dandra discloses wherein the priority data type comprises at least one of a payment data type, a bank data type, a bank transfer data type, and a bank card data type (Fig. 10A, financial data given priority). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta to include changing priority of data as taught by Dandra so as to conserve resources (0007).
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of US 20200359440 A1 herein Qiao.
Claim 16, Mehta discloses the wireless station of claim 13. Mehta may not explicitly disclose wherein the QoS flow is implemented in a network slice that is different than a network slice of a default QoS flow.
Qiao discloses wherein the QoS flow is implemented in a network slice that is different than a network slice of a default QoS flow (0159, different slices with QoS flows). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta to include different slices as taught by Qiao so as to enable efficient handling of traffic on different PDU session in different directions (0162).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160044530 A1 – A congestion management method is provided. The radio access node detects and determining a congestion. The radio access node performs a process of a congestion mitigation decision if the congestion is detected and determined. The radio access node performs a congestion mitigation process based on a result of the congestion mitigation decision. The radio access node detects and determines a congestion relief The radio access node stops the congestion mitigation process, and the congestion control process according to the congestion is stopped accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419