DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the amendment filed 06/17/2026. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 75, and 77. A substitute specification submitted on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged and entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 14, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 75 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "wherein triggering conditions comprise at least one of:" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of what function the “triggering conditions” is performing in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 27, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0155420 to ZHANG et al. (hereafter Zhang) in view of US 2020/0358551 to Kuratani et al (hereafter Kuratani).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a quality of service (QoS) flow scheduling method, performed by a first network device (see Zhang, ¶ 0005: improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that -support configuration for asymmetric quality of service (QoS) flows), comprising:
determining a candidate configuration set for a QoS flow (see Zhang, ¶ 0006: establishing a connection with a base station, where the connection corresponds to a QoS flow for communications between the UE and the base station, receiving control signaling including a configuration for the QoS flow in response to establishing the connection; ¶ 0090: The core network 130-a may signal the configuration for the QoS flow 210 to the base station 105-a (e.g., the RAN) via the communication link 215 (e.g., an N2 link). The base station 105-a may transmit control signaling via the communication link 205 to forward the QoS flow configuration 220 to the UE 115-a; ¶ 0098: The flow direction characteristic, and one or more other QoS characteristics for a respective QoS flow 210, may be determined by the base station 105-a, the UE 115-a, or both based on a mapping (e.g., a one-to-one mapping) between a QoS ID (e.g., a 5G QoS ID (5QI)) and the QoS characteristics),
wherein the candidate configuration set comprises a plurality of parameter configurations for the QoS flow (see Zhang, ¶ 0006: where the configuration includes a set of one or more parameters specific to a direction of the QoS flow, and communicating data in the direction of the QoS flow in accordance with the set of one or more parameters; ¶ 0091: The QoS flow configuration 220 may configure each QoS flow 210 with a QoS ID, a set of QoS parameters, a set of QoS characteristics, or any combination thereof; ¶ 0098: a set of one or more QoS parameters indicated via the QoS flow configuration 220 may include the QoS ID, and each QoS ID value may correspond to a set of QoS characteristics, one or more of which may be configured to indicate a QoS flow direction); wherein the candidate configuration set comprises at least one of:
one or more collaborative parameter configurations, which are one or more parameter configurations for multi-QoS-flow collaborative scheduling; or one or more non-collaborative parameter configurations, which are one or more parameter configurations for independently scheduling the QoS flow (see Zhang, ¶ 0100: the core network 130-a may configure a downlink direction for the QoS flow 210-a. The core network 130-a may signal a set of one or more parameters for the flow direction to the base station 105-a (e.g., the RAN). The set of one or more parameters may include a QoS ID for the QoS flow 210-a. The base station 105-a may forward the QoS flow configuration 220 including the set of one or more parameters to the UE 115-a. The base station 105-a and the UE 115-a may determine that the flow direction of the QoS flow 210-a is downlink based on a mapping, such as the mapping illustrated in Table 1, between the QoS ID and a flow direction characteristic configured to indicate the direction; ¶ 0101: the core network 130-a may configure an asymmetric QoS flow 210. That is, the core network 130-a may configure parameters or characteristics specific to an uplink direction in a bidirectional QoS flow 210 that are different from parameters or characteristics specific to a downlink direction in the QoS flow 210. For example, one or more bit rate parameters, such as a GFBR, an MFBR, or both may be configured specifically for uplink or downlink. In some examples, the SMF of the core network 130-a may receive an indication of policy and charging control (PCC) rules for data packets in the wireless communications system 200. The SMF may determine different GFBR values, MFBR values, or both for uplink and downlink data in a QoS flow 210 based on the PCC rules);
wherein the one or more configurations without collaboration requirement comprise a plurality of parameter configurations for non-collaborative scheduling the QoS flow in different scenarios (see Zhang, ¶ 0103: By setting the GFBR, the MFBR, or both to zero, the core network 130-a (e.g., the SMF) may indicate that a direction of the QoS flow 210 is unidirectional (e.g., an implicit indication of the QoS flow direction). The base station 105-a may allocate resources for the unidirectional QoS flow 210 accordingly; ¶ 0106: The core network 130-a may additionally or alternatively configure separate communication parameters for uplink and downlink directions in the QoS flow 210, to provide support for asymmetric data traffic in a QoS flow 210; ¶ 0120: By supporting a QoS configuration that includes parameters specific to a direction of the QoS flow, the processor of the device 405 may support communication of asymmetric data traffic. Communicating asymmetric data traffic via a same QoS flow instead of different QoS flows may reduce processing and provide for more efficient utilization of communication resources);
wherein the method further comprises:
adjusting or change, based on a trigger condition in an none-collaborative scheduling scenario and according to the one or more parameter configurations without collaborative requirement, the one or more parameter configuration without collaborative requirement being adopted for independently scheduling the QoS flow (see Zhang, ¶ 0045: The base station may receive the indication of the direction and allocate radio resources for the QoS flow in the indicated direction. The direction may be unidirectional (e.g., uplink or downlink) or bidirectional (e.g., uplink and downlink). The base station may transmit a configuration for the QoS flow to a UE when the UE establishes a connection with the network, when a QoS flow is modified, when a new QoS flow is established, or any combination thereof; ¶ 0129: to support receiving the control signaling, the connection establishment component 625 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for receiving the control signaling based on establishing the connection with the base station, an establishment of the QoS flow, a modification of the QoS flow, or any combination thereof);
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the triggering conditions comprise at least one of: detecting the changes of radio condition or the load conditions in network device; the QoS establishment or modification request from the Core network; or the current QoS requirement cannot be fulfilled.
However, Kuratani discloses wherein the triggering conditions comprise at least one of: detecting the changes of radio condition or the load conditions in network device; the QoS establishment or modification request from the Core network; or the current QoS requirement cannot be fulfilled (see Kuratani, ¶ 0138: If the schedule is changed as a result of a relatively small number of successes in communications, the schedule may be changed with temporary or instantaneous changes in radio conditions, and this can result in an increase in the frequency of changes in schedule and unstable operations of the communication device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Kuratani and incorporate it into the system of Zhang to stabilized by suppressing the occurrence of changes in the schedule resulting from a relatively small number of successes in communications (see Kuratani, ¶ 0017).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Kuratani discloses the QoS flow scheduling method according to claim 2,further comprising: collaboratively scheduling, based on determining that there is a QoS flow collaborative scheduling requirement, at least two QoS flows to be collaboratively scheduled according to the one or more collaborative parameter configurations, wherein the at least two QoS flows to be collaboratively scheduled comprise the QoS flow (see Zhang, ¶ 0088: By indicating a direction of a QoS flow and setting QoS parameters that are specific to flow direction, the network may reduce overhead and improve utilization of communication resources for QoS flows, particularly when one direction of traffic has higher or lower QoS requirements than another direction of traffic; ¶ 0093: the core network 130-a may configure a first bidirectional QoS flow 210 according to a first set of QoS characteristics for the uplink data and a second bidirectional QoS flow 210 according to a second set of QoS characteristics for the downlink data. That is, the core network 130-a may allocate different QoS flows 210 separately for uplink and downlink traffic (e.g., to efficiently utilize radio resources); ¶ 0110: The control signaling may include a configuration for the QoS flow. The configuration may include a set of one or more parameters specific to a direction of the QoS flow. In some examples, the configuration may indicate direction-specific parameters for multiple QoS flows. The parameters may include a QoS ID, a flow direction parameter, one or more GFBR parameters, one or more MFBR parameters, other QoS parameters, or any combination thereof. A value of the QoS ID may be mapped to one or more QoS characteristics).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Kuratani discloses the QoS flow scheduling method according to claim 2,further comprising: restoring, based on receiving non-collaboration control information, to independently schedule at least two QoS flows that is being collaboratively scheduled; wherein he at least two QoS flows that is being collaboratively scheduled comprises the QoS flow (see Zhang, ¶ 0088: By indicating a direction of a QoS flow and setting QoS parameters that are specific to flow direction, the network may reduce overhead and improve utilization of communication resources for QoS flows, particularly when one direction of traffic has higher or lower QoS requirements than another direction of traffic; ¶ 0093: the core network 130-a may configure a first bidirectional QoS flow 210 according to a first set of QoS characteristics for the uplink data and a second bidirectional QoS flow 210 according to a second set of QoS characteristics for the downlink data. That is, the core network 130-a may allocate different QoS flows 210 separately for uplink and downlink traffic (e.g., to efficiently utilize radio resources); ¶ 0110: The control signaling may include a configuration for the QoS flow. The configuration may include a set of one or more parameters specific to a direction of the QoS flow. In some examples, the configuration may indicate direction-specific parameters for multiple QoS flows. The parameters may include a QoS ID, a flow direction parameter, one or more GFBR parameters, one or more MFBR parameters, other QoS parameters, or any combination thereof. A value of the QoS ID may be mapped to one or more QoS characteristics).
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 75, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kuratani and further in view of US 2022/0386179 to Dhammawat et al. (hereafter Dhammawat).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Kuratani discloses the QoS flow scheduling method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the candidate configuration set for the QoS flow comprises: receiving a QoS request message, wherein the QoS request message comprises configuration information on the candidate configuration set for the QoS flow, and wherein the QoS request message comprises at least one of a QoS setup request message or a QoS modify request message; or determining the candidate configuration set based on a protocol.
However, Dhammawat discloses wherein determining the candidate configuration set for the QoS flow comprises: receiving a QoS request message, wherein the QoS request message comprises configuration information on the candidate configuration set for the QoS flow, and wherein the QoS request message comprises at least one of a QoS setup request message or a QoS modify request message; or determining the candidate configuration set based on a protocol (see Dhammawat, ¶ 0130: UPF 106 may send, to SMF 126 based on the detecting, a message which indicates a request for QoS Flow handling due to flow degradation; ¶ 0131: SMF 126 may select a lower-priority QoS Flow that has a lower priority than the dedicated QoS Flow and/or other QoS Flows routed via UPF 106. SMF 126 may send, to UPF 106, a message which indicates a session modification request, for deleting the selected QoS Flow or for modifying (downgrading or lowering) a QoS of the selected QoS Flow; ¶ 0133: In response to the detection of the traffic, UPF 106 may send, to SMF 126, a message which indicates a request for creating a dedicated QoS Flow for traffic for the application for UE 102).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Dhammawat and incorporate it into the system of Zhang for efficient resource utilization in the communication system (see Dhammawat, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 13, 16, 20, 24, 28, 31, and 32 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0082363 to Hosein discloses the exemplary RBS 32 includes a resource scheduler 50 that schedules service for current users of a shared packet data channel provided by RBS 32 on the forward radio link 34. Positioning scheduler 50 in the RBS 32 enables it to make scheduling changes in response to rapidly changing radio conditions. In an exemplary implementation, scheduler 50 provides QoS-based scheduling of the shared packet data channels, while an admission controller 52 in BSC 30 provides complementary admission control functions that govern the admission of prospective new users to the shared packet data channel(s) supported by the BSC 30 and RBS 32. Positioning admission controller 52 in BSC 30 enables it to perform admission control based on its more "global" picture of available system resources.
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 RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights