DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicants amendment filed 05/20/2026 which has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 13 and 14 have been amended. Claims 5, 7, 16 and 19 have been cancelled. Claim 24 has been added. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 18 and 20-24 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 8 and 14 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 18 and 20-23 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 specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (2022/0255998 A1) in view of Jagannatha et al (10,602,422 B1).
As per Claim 1, Lee teaches a method comprising: identifying an indication, received from a base station, of at least one user equipment routing selection policy (URSP) for a user equipment (UE), wherein a URSP of the at least one URSP includes a real-time interactive traffic descriptor element (Table 3; Page 1, Paragraph [0011]; Page 9, Paragraphs [0092] and [0094]; Page 12, Paragraphs [0119] and [0120]).
(Note: In paragraph [0094], Lee describes an electronic device receiving a URSP rule from the core network which is used in setting up a packet data unit [PDU] session to access an edge network system based on the URSP rule. In paragraph [0011], Lee indicates a communication connection may be established between an electronic device [UE] and core network elements which include among other things a base station. In paragraph [0079], Lee indicates that a base station may transmit control data and/or user data from user equipment to the core network and vice versa)
(Note: In paragraph [0092], Lee indicates the URSP rule includes information related to a PDU session operation policy and further indicates that information related to an element capable of using the predetermined PDU session may be included in the traffic descriptor field. Lee also indicates that traffic descriptor information field information may include application identification information [e.g. OSAppID – name of an application that is accessing some predetermined server], address information, and/or name of accessed network [i.e. real-time information])
Lee does not teach determining to utilize the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for traffic based at least in part on a service type associated with the traffic, the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element including an indication of connection capabilities; and generating a communication for transmission from the UE to the base station, the communication including an indication of the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for the traffic.
However, Jagannatha teaches determining to utilize the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for traffic based at least in part on a service type associated with the traffic, the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element including an indication of connection capabilities; and generating a communication for transmission from the UE to the base station, the communication including an indication of the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for the traffic (Figure 3; Abstract; Column 8, Line 22 – Column 9, Line 38).
(Note: In the Abstract, Jagannatha describes a device using an application policy handler [APH] to determine based on the type of data session a user equipment route selection policy [URSP] rule associated with the utilized application. The device identifies a network slice specified by the USRP rule and establishes a data session using the network slice and the data network specified by the identified USRP rule)
(Note: In Column 8, Lines 22-52; Jagannatha describes a plurality of URSP rules, wherein each rule specifies one or more traffic descriptors and one or more route selection descriptors. Jagannatha indicates traffic descriptors may identify an application type associated with the application [i.e. productivity, streaming media, social media, etc.]. This allows the APH to navigate URSP rules to identify the traffic descriptors associated with individual URSP rules. Jagannatha also indicates route parameters may include among other things: an SSC mode parameter, network slice parameter, data network parameter, access type parameter, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee with the method taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claims 2-4, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element is determined based at least in part on URSP rules; wherein determining to utilize the real- time interactive traffic descriptor element for the traffic includes determining to utilize the real- time interactive traffic descriptor element based at least in part on the application associated with the traffic; and wherein the application associated with the traffic includes a real time interactive application as described in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee with the method taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates a routing for the traffic as described in Claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee with the method taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Jagannatha also teaches processing circuitry (Figure 5 – Reference 520; Column 11, Lines 29-55); and determining to utilize the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for traffic based at least in part on at least one QoS attribute associated with the traffic, the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element including an indication of connection capabilities (Jagannatha: Column 8, Line 22 – Column 9, Line 38).
The combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches generating a communication for transmission from the UE to the base station, the communication including an indication of the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for the traffic; and interface circuitry coupled with the processing circuitry, the interface circuitry to transmit the communication (Jagannatha: Figure 5 – References 510 and 570; Column 11, Lines 40-55; Column 12, Lines 7-19).
(Note: In Column 9, Lines 32-38; Jagannatha describes URSP rules specifying route selection description priority. In Column 6, Lines 1-10; Jagannatha indicates communication service priorities may be determined based on performance requirements for the application and may include latency, throughput, reliability of the like [i.e. QoS requirements])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Lee with the method and apparatus taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein the at least one QoS attribute includes a latency attribute, and wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element includes a low latency indicator for the traffic based at least in part on the latency attribute. (Note: The prioritization based on application type described by Jagannatha [i.e. streaming media application versus productivity application]. The latency requirement associated with a productivity application versus what is required for streaming media is significant and is considered when examining the URSP rules)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Lee with the method and apparatus taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element includes a QoS indicator for the traffic based at least in part on the at least one QoS attribute as described in Claims 1, 8 and 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Lee with the method and apparatus taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claims 11 and 12, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates a routing for the traffic; and wherein the communication is to be transmitted prior to transmission of the traffic as described in Claims 6 and 7 respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Lee with the method and apparatus taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein to determine to utilize the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element for the traffic includes to determine to utilize the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element based at least in part on an application associated with the traffic as described in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and apparatus taught by Lee with the method and apparatus taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches a method as described in Claim 1. The combination of Lee and Jagannatha also teaches identifying a user equipment (UE) for provision of at least one user equipment route selection policy (URSP) rule that includes a real-time interactive traffic descriptor element with an indication of connection capabilities; and generating, for transmission to the UE, a message to configure the UE with the at least one URSP rule, wherein configuring the UE with the at least one URSP rule allows the UE to label traffic with the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element (Jagannatha: Column 8, Line 22 – Column 9, Line 38)
(Note: In Column 8, Lines 45-67; Jagannatha describes an SSC mode parameter that specifies how a network address [e.g. IP address, port identifier, etc.] assigned to the UE [identifying a UE] as being part of every URSP rule which includes at least one traffic descriptor element with an indication of connection capabilities as described in Claim 1. Additionally, the generating of a message to configure the UE with the at least one URSP rule is also described above in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee with the method taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
As per Claims 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element is for a real time interactive application associated with a corresponding application; wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates a routing for traffic; wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element is associated with a quality of service (QoS) attribute; wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element defines a latency, loss, and bandwidth for the traffic as described in Claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee with the method taught by Jagannatha to perform optimized resource matching to ensure that each distinct application leverages the exact quality of service required by the application rather than treating all data form a device uniformly which lessens the burden on the network and increase overall network and UE performance.
Claim(s) 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (2022/0255998 A1) in view of Jagannatha et al (10,602,422 B1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Guduru et al (2023/0284089 A1).
As per Claims 22 and 23, the combination of Lee and Jagannatha teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates that the traffic is to be provided a low level of latency, a normal loss amount, and a low bandwidth amount; and wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates a priority, a packet delay, a packet error rate, a burst volume, or an averaging window for the traffic.
However, Guduru teaches wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates that the traffic is to be provided a low level of latency, a normal loss amount, and a low bandwidth amount; and wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element indicates a priority, a packet delay, a packet error rate, a burst volume, or an averaging window for the traffic (Figure 6 – Reference 601, 603 and 605; Page 1, Paragraphs [0013] – [0015]; Page 2, Paragraph [0019]; Page 4, Paragraphs [0036] and [0038]). (Note: In paragraphs [0013] – [0015], Guduru describes the dynamic adjustment of maximum transmission unit [MTU] parameters in a network [e.g. wireless network])
(Note: In paragraph [0014], Guduru describes adjusting MTU size for different QoS parameters, Service Level Agreements [SLAs], network slices, traffic or application type [e.g. voice traffic, content streaming, data traffic, etc.], terminal location, and/or other factors. In paragraph [0015], Guduru indicates that adjusting MTU parameters optimize efficiency and/or help make it possible top achieve QoS thresholds and comply with SLAs. Guduru also indicates adjusting MTU parameters reduce fragmentation, reduces the number of dropped packets or other errors)
(Note: In paragraph [0019], Guduru indicates communication sessions may be a protocol data unit [PDU] session, an Internet Protocol [IP] session, a Transmission Control Protocol [TCP] session, etc. Guduru also indicates requested communication sessions may be associated with one or more network slices, SLAs, QoS parameters which may specify or indicate particular performance metrics, thresholds, goals [e.g. throughput, latency, etc.] for the requested session)
(Note: In paragraph [0022], Guduru indicates that QoS parameters may be based on performance thresholds, traffic or application type; and that QoS parameters may be determined based on models/mappings to terminal information, network slice information, session information or other information)
(Note: In paragraph [0036], Guduru describes traffic type as including traffic types, categories, classification or labels associated with particular traffic types [i.e. voice call, data, content streaming] and indicates it may include or be based on URSP rules. In paragraphs [0038] and [0039], Guduru describes slice, SLA, QoS identifiers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee and Jagannatha with the method taught by Guduru to enable user equipment [UE] to select the best or most appropriate network slice for specific applications without relying on manually configuration, optimizing overall performance of the network – i.e. a user terminal selecting a low latency slice for gaming while using a standard latency slice for background updates.
As per Claim 24, the combination of Lee, Jagannatha and Guduru teaches determining target attributes for transmission of the traffic, wherein the real-time interactive traffic descriptor element is determined to be utilized for the traffic based at least in part on the target attributes as described in Claims 1, 22 and 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Lee and Jagannatha with the method taught by Guduru to enable user equipment [UE] to select the best or most appropriate network slice for specific applications without relying on manually configuration, optimizing overall performance of the network – i.e. a user terminal selecting a low latency slice for gaming while using a standard latency slice for background updates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NIGLEKHU et al (2022/0272620 A1), ASTHANA et al (2022/0124609 A1), Panchal et al (2022/0264540 A1), DAO et al (2019/0394279 A1), YANG et al (2022/0150991 A1),DAO et al (2018/0262924 A1), Wang et al (11,071,055 B1), Jagannatha et al (11,606,303 B1), Guduru et al (2023/0284089 A1) and Jagannatha et al (2022/0141713 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods for routing traffic in packet-based networks.
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 KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights