DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 03/25/26 .
a. 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, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebi Fard et al. (US 2019/0394833, “Fard”) in view of Kavoussi et al. (US 2018/0167861, “Kavoussi”).
Regarding claim 1, Fard discloses a transmission path determining method, comprising:
- obtaining steering information, wherein the steering information comprises a threshold condition and an application rule corresponding to the threshold condition (See Fig.20, N4 interface between SMF and UPF, i.e. UP-AT3SF receives ATSSS (Access Traffic Steering, Switching, & Splitting) configuration for UPF; See Fig.18, ATSSS rules/policy including steering mode such as an active access via 3GPP or non-3GPP;
PNG
media_image1.png
367
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
584
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See ¶.151, the 5G QoS indicator may be implemented in the access network by the 5QI referencing node specific parameters that may control the QoS forwarding treatment (e.g. scheduling weights, admission thresholds, queue management thresholds, link layer protocol configuration, and/or the like; See ¶.152, the 5G core network may select a UPF to route the user traffic to the local data network, traffic steering where the 5G core network may select the traffic to be routed to the applications in the local data network, session and service continuity to enable UE and application mobility, user plane selection and reselection, e.g. based on input from application function, network capability exposure where 5G core network and application function may provide information to each other via NEf, QoS and charging where PCF may provide rules for QoS control and charging for the traffic routed to the local data network, support of local area data network where 5G core network may provide support to connect to the LADN in a certain area where the applications are deployed, and/or the like; See ¶.336, the SMF function may provide reporting trigger events to the UPF for when to report usage information. The reporting trigger events (e.g. triggers, threshold information etc.) may be supported for the MA PDU session level, PDU session level, child session level reporting, and/or on rule level basis as determined by the SMF. The triggers may be provided as a volume, time or event to cater for the different charging/usage monitoring models that are supported for usage monitoring and for offline and online charging. The SMF may decide on the thresholds value(s) based on allowance received from PCF, OCS or based on local configuration; See ¶.337, the reporting of usage information message may be an N4 report message. In an example, the N4 report message may comprise an N4 session identifier associated with the MA PDU session, access information associated with the child session, a list of reporting trigger, measurement information and/or the like. In an example, the reporting trigger parameter may comprise a name of the event which triggered the report. The measurement information parameter may comprise the information that the SMF requested to be informed about. In an example, the SMF may identify the N4 session context based on the received N4 session ID and may apply the reported information for the corresponding MA PDU session); and
- determining a target transmission path from at least two transmission paths based on the steering information, wherein the at least two transmission paths comprise a first transmission path using associated with a first access technology and a second transmission path using associated with a second access technology (See N9 interface Fig.20, determining a path between 3GPP access path and non-3GPP access path; See ¶.116, the AMF may support non-3GPP access networks through N2interface with N3IWF, NAS signaling with a UE over N3IWF, authentication of UEs connected over N3IWF, management of mobility, authentication, and separate security context state(s) of a UE connected via non-3GPP access or connected via 3GPP access and non-3GPP access simultaneously, support of a coordinated RM context valid over 3GPP access and non 3GPP access, support of CM management contexts for the UE 100 for connectivity over non-3GPP access, and/or the like; See ¶.295, the ATSSS policy may include a prioritized list of ATSSS rules and each ATSSS rule may include a steering mode that may be applied to the traffic matching this rule. In the example FIG. 18, the first ATSSS rule may steers the traffic of App-X to 3GPP access, if available; if not available, it may steer the traffic to non-3GPP access).
Fard discloses “wherein the determining a target transmission path from at least two transmission paths based on the steering information comprises (Fard, See Fig.20, 3GPP access & non-3GPP access; Kavoussi, See Fig.2, accessing cellular network 213, i.e. 3GPP and/or WLAN 230, non-3GPP),
but does not explicitly disclose what Kavoussi discloses,
- in response to determining that neither of the first transmission path or the second transmission path meets the threshold condition, determining a default transmission path as the target transmission path, where the default transmission path is at least one of the first transmission path and the second transmission path (Kavoussi, See ¶.89, user device may determine that a signal quality value of WLAN is less than the signal quality value threshold, and automatically switch connectivity from WLAN to cellular network. In some implementations, user device may determine that both WLAN and cellular network are associated with signal quality values that are less than the signal quality value threshold, and remain connected to WLAN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “in response to determining that neither of the first transmission path or the second transmission path meets the threshold condition, determining a default transmission path as the target transmission path, where the default transmission path is at least one of the first transmission path and the second transmission path” as taught by Kavoussi into the system of Fard, so that it provides a way for user device to automatically provide optimum connectivity to an access network that is associated with particular network metric values (Kavoussi, See ¶.12).
Regarding claim 10, it is a communication apparatus claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, it is a claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitation “a control plane network element and a user plane network element (See Fig.20, SMF as a control plane network element and UP-AT3SF and/or UPF as a user plane network element; See Fig.21, UPF connected to 3GPP path and non-3GPP path)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fard in view of Kavoussi and further in view of Ly et al. (US 2023/04131114, “Ly”, Provisional’ 63/108,957, hereinafter “Prov’957”).
Regarding claim 2, Fard discloses “the application rule comprises: attribute information corresponding to the threshold condition (Fard, See ¶.151, a 5G QoS indicator may be a scalar that may be employed as a reference to a specific QoS forwarding behavior (e.g. packet loss rate, packet delay budget) to be provided to a 5G QoS flow. In an example, the 5G QoS indicator may be implemented in the access network by the 5QI referencing node specific parameters that may control the QoS forwarding treatment (e.g. scheduling weights, admission thresholds, queue management thresholds, link layer protocol configuration, and/or the like; See ¶.167, a slice differentiator may be optional information that may complement the slice/service type(s) to allow further differentiation for selecting a network slice instance from potentially multiple network slice instances that comply with the indicated slice/service type; See ¶.246, the old PDU session ID may be an optional parameter which may be included),”
but Fard and Kavoussi do not explicitly disclose what Ly discloses “wherein the attribute information comprises a mandatory condition or an optional condition, and the attribute information indicates that the threshold condition is a mandatory condition or an optional condition” (Prov’957, pg.38-39, Table 1;
PNG
media_image3.png
532
892
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
397
883
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the attribute information comprises a mandatory condition or an optional condition, and the attribute information indicates that the threshold condition is a mandatory condition or an optional condition” as taught by Ly into the system of Fard and Kavoussi, so that it provides a way of indicating how the UE is to steer traffic as optional or not within the ATSSS rules are steering modes (Prov’957, See ¶.26).
Regarding claim 3, Fard and Ly disclose “the attribute information is an optional condition, the determining a target transmission path from at least two transmission paths based on the steering information comprises: determining that the first transmission path does not satisfy the threshold condition and the second transmission path satisfies the threshold condition; and reducing a steering proportion of data in the first transmission path; and increasing a steering proportion of data in the second transmission path (Fard, See ¶.300, in load-balance steering mode, each access may receive a percentage of the data flows transmitted via the MA-PDU session. Each access may be assigned a weight factor (e.g. 50%, 80%, and/or the like) and may receive a percentage of the MA-PDU session traffic corresponding to this factor. As an example, in a 50/50 (50%) load-balancing, the overall traffic of the MA-PDU session is equally split across the two accesses. In an 80/20 load-balancing, about 80% of the overall traffic may be sent on one access and 20% on the other access; Prov’957, See ¶.26, percentage of traffic for load-balancing; See ¶.34, the network may want the UE to adapt UL traffic onto 3GPP access due to overloading conditions on the non-3GPP access path or to have the UE mirror UL traffic to that of DL traffic; See ¶.47, Figure 4 shows an example enhancement to the ATSSS rule found in 3GPP TS 24.193, Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS); Stage 3, V16.1.0 (2020-09). In this example, the UL Steering adaptation percentages, DL Steering adaptation percentages, and Adaptation period fields have been added to incorporate the adaptation rules into the ATSSS rules; See further ¶.48, ¶.51, and ¶.53 adapting the splitting percentages; See ¶.50, if the specified measurement value exceeds the specified threshold, traffic adaptation is triggered. When analytics is selected to enable traffic steering adaptation, the UE and/or UPF may utilize analytics generated by the NWDAF to make traffic adaptation decisions. If NWDAF analytics are not available, e.g. to the UE, the UE may use local analytics functionality and make the determination for adaptive traffic steering based on the results of the local analytics function).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Fard and Kavoussi do not explicitly disclose what Ly discloses “determining that the first transmission path does not satisfy the threshold condition and the second transmission path satisfies the threshold condition; and determining the second transmission path as the target transmission path (Prov’957, See ¶.53, without the ability to adapt traffic steering, the UE would be forced to use the 3GPP access network as the higher priority access until congestion on the 3GPP access network forces the UE to split and/or switch traffic to the non-3GPP access network; See ¶.50, if the specified measurement value exceeds the specified threshold, traffic adaptation is triggered. When analytics is selected to enable traffic steering adaptation, the UE and/or UPF may utilize analytics generated by the NWDAF to make traffic adaptation decisions. If NWDAF analytics are not available, e.g. to the UE, the UE may use local analytics functionality and make the determination for adaptive traffic steering based on the results of the local analytics function).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Fard and Ly disclose “the application rule comprises priority information corresponding to the threshold condition, and the priority information indicates indicating a priority of the threshold condition (Fard, See ¶.297, a priority-based steering may be employed. The two accesses may be assigned a priority, e.g. during the establishment of the MA-PDU session. All traffic (or some) of the MA-PDU session may be sent to the high priority access. When congestion arises on the high priority access, new data flows (e.g., the overflow traffic) may be sent to the low priority access. When the high priority access becomes unavailable, traffic may be switched to the low priority access. It may be possible to change the priorities of the accesses during the lifetime of the MA-PDU session; Prov’957, See ¶.26, Priority-based: It is used to steer all the traffic of an SDF to the high priority access, until this access is determined to be congested. In this case, the traffic of the SDI is sent also to the low priority access, i.e. the SDF traffic is split over the two accesses. In addition, when the high priority access becomes unavailable, all SDF traffic is switched to the low priority access. How UE and UPF determine when a congestion occurs on an access is implementation dependent; See ¶.49, the UE would be able to adaptively steer traffic while using Priority based steering mode. The adaptation in both cases may be triggered based on communication, performance measurement exceeding certain thresholds, or triggered by analytics, as proposed in the Steering mode information octet; See further ¶.53).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Fard and Ly disclose “the target transmission path comprises the first transmission path, and wherein a priority of a threshold condition satisfied by the first transmission path is higher than a priority of a threshold condition satisfied by the second transmission path (Fard, See ¶.297, a priority-based steering may be employed. The two accesses may be assigned a priority, e.g. during the establishment of the MA-PDU session. All traffic (or some) of the MA-PDU session may be sent to the high priority access. When congestion arises on the high priority access, new data flows (e.g., the overflow traffic) may be sent to the low priority access. When the high priority access becomes unavailable, traffic may be switched to the low priority access. It may be possible to change the priorities of the accesses during the lifetime of the MA-PDU session; Prov’957, See ¶.26, Priority-based: It is used to steer all the traffic of an SDF to the high priority access, until this access is determined to be congested. In this case, the traffic of the SDI is sent also to the low priority access, i.e. the SDF traffic is split over the two accesses. In addition, when the high priority access becomes unavailable, all SDF traffic is switched to the low priority access. How UE and UPF determine when a congestion occurs on an access is implementation dependent; See ¶.49, the UE would be able to adaptively steer traffic while using Priority based steering mode. The adaptation in both cases may be triggered based on communication, performance measurement exceeding certain thresholds, or triggered by analytics, as proposed in the Steering mode information octet; See further ¶.53).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Fard discloses “the application rule comprises level information corresponding to the threshold condition (See ¶.300, in load-balance steering mode, each access may receive a percentage of the data flows transmitted via the MA-PDU session. Each access may be assigned a weight factor (e.g. 50%, 80%, and/or the like) and may receive a percentage of the MA-PDU session traffic corresponding to this factor. As an example, in a 50/50 (50%) load-balancing, the overall traffic of the MA-PDU session is equally split across the two accesses. In an 80/20 load-balancing, about 80% of the overall traffic may be sent on one access and 20% on the other access; See ¶.336, the SMF function may provide reporting trigger events to the UPF for when to report usage information. The reporting trigger events (e.g. triggers, threshold information etc.) may be supported for the MA PDU session level, PDU session level, child session level reporting, and/or on rule level basis as determined by the SMF. The triggers may be provided as a volume, time or event to cater for the different charging/usage monitoring models that are supported for usage monitoring and for offline and online charging. The SMF may decide on the thresholds value(s) based on allowance received from PCF, OCS or based on local configuration; See further ¶.337-338).”
Regarding claim 9, Fard and Ly disclose “the threshold condition comprises a plurality of threshold conditions, and the application rule comprises determining the target transmission path based on a quantity of the plurality of threshold conditions satisfied by the first transmission path and the second transmission path (Fard, See ¶.298, The high priority access may be the one that may provide the best performance, e.g. the one with the smallest round trip time (RTT). In this case, the high priority access may not be pre-defined; Prov’957, See ¶.26, Smallest Delay: It is used to steer a SDI to the access that is determined to have the smallest Round-Trip Time (RTT). As defined in clause 5.32.5, measurements may be obtained by the UE and UPF to determine the RTT over 3GPP access and over non3GPP access. In addition, if one access becomes unavailable, all SDF traffic is switched to the other available access, if allowed by the PCC rules (as specified in clause 5.32.4)).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claims 11-16, 18, and 20, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-5, 5, 7, 9, & 2, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the 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 and a new prior art by Kavoussi for the newly added claim limitations. The previous 102 rejection by Fard has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Fard in view of Kavoussi.
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