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 .
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.
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 recites the limitation "…wherein the capabilities…" in the first line of each of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 1 and 10 from which these currently depend do not claim any “capabilities” or the reporting thereof. Furthermore, claims 6 and 18 recite limitations directed to the capabilities of 5G system bridges while claims 7 and 19 recite limitations directed to capabilities of the UE. None, however, recite “reporting”. Examiner cannot determine which claim if any are the intended parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2018/059043, Chen et al.) in view of Kahn et al. (US 2021/0400524, Khan hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 10, Chen discloses a method and network node network node for handling communication in a communication network, the network node (Pages 7-8, corresponding to page 6 of the attached English translation, discloses a “user plane migration function (UTF) determines that the user path of the terminal needs to be migrated according to a preset policy;” and further discloses “The UTF may be an independent entity in the network, or it may be a function set in an existing network element…”. For ease of locating the proper passages due to the lack of line or paragraph numbering, Examiner had bolded and underlined them in the English translation document) being configured to: set a User Plane Function, UPF, node, to a status of critical, when a condition is fulfilled (Pages 7-8, corresponding to page 6 of the attached English translation, discloses that the UTF may judge a currently accessed User Plane Function (UPF) by a UE may be “overloaded”); with the proviso that the status of the UPF node is set to critical, constrain a User Equipment, UE, to connect to the UPF node (The UTF migrates a UE’s service path from the overloaded UPF to a UPF having a lighter load).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the UPF node is of a 5G system bridge.
However, Khan teaches a UPF node being part of a 5G system bridge (Paragraph 62 teaches “FIG. 4A depicts another example of a portion of a 5G TSC network 400, in accordance with some example embodiments. The example of FIG. 4A is similar to FIGS. 1A-B in some respects but includes the 5G system serve as a bridge between the end station 102A accessing a 5G RAN via a so-called “5G Bridge” comprising the gNB 110A and a co-located UPF 116A. The UPF 116A is further coupled to a traditional TSN including nodes 402A-402D coupled to end stations 102B, C, and D. “)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and network node of Chen with the teachings of Khan to provide for 5G system bridge UPF load management.
RE claims 3 and 15, Chen in view of Khan discloses the method of claim 1 and network node of claim 10 as set forth above. Note that Chen further discloses wherein when the UE is constrained to connect to the UPF node, the UE is directed to another UPF node (Pages 7-8, corresponding to page 6 of the attached English translation, discloses that the UTF may judge a currently accessed User Plane Function (UPF) by a UE may be “overloaded” and when this condition occurs the UTF migrates a UE’s service path from the overloaded UPF to a UPF having a lighter load).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Khan and further in view Li et al. (US 2020/0252813, Li hereafter).
RE claims 2 and 14, Chen in view of Khan discloses the method of claim 1 and network node of claim 10 as set forth above. Chen in view of Khan does not explicitly disclose wherein the condition is fulfilled when one or more of the following conditions are fulfilled: a number of Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN, critical streams that are passing through the UPF node of the 5G system bridge exceeds a threshold value; a number of TSN- and/or Ethernet streams that are passing through the UPF node of the 5G system bridge exceeds a threshold value; and a number of the UE that are connected to the UPF node of the 5G system bridge exceeds a threshold value.
However, Li teaches wherein the condition is fulfilled when a number of the UE that are connected to the UPF node of the 5G system bridge exceeds a threshold value (Paragraphs 3 and 223-237 teaches a network function called Network Data Analytics (NWDA). The NWDA detects conditions related to a number of failed connection attempts or attempts that result in error by subscribing to a plurality of events at a UPF. Paragraph 230 teaches that one event may be a total number of connected UE supported by the UPS crosses a threshold. If this occurs, the AMF is instructed to reject all or selectively allow some new connections).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and network node of Chen in view of Khan with the teachings of Li since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. The teachings of Li establish a known prior art metric of load based by a number of UE connected to a UPF which leads to admission control.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN et al. (WO 2018/086674 A1, AN hereafter).
RE claims 4 and 16, Chen in view of Khan and further in view of Li discloses the method of claim 2 and network node of claim 14 as set forth above. Chen in view of Khan and further in view of Li does not explicitly disclose herein the UE that are connected to the UPF node of the 5G system bridge have demanding Quality-of-Service, QoS, flows.
However, AN teaches wherein the UE that are connected to the UPF node of the 5G system bridge have demanding Quality-of-Service, QoS, flows (Page 12, lines 9-15 teaches “Before the UE 105 receives services from the network 100, it first requests resource allocation from the network 100. In order to enable per-flow based UPFS, the CN CP needs to understand the flow types that can be used by this UE 105. As defined above, a flow is a logical packet transport of the finest granularity of packet forwarding/treatment differentiation within a PDN session between the UE 105 and the PDN 1 10. A number of flows with the same UPF requirements may use the same UPFs 108”. Page 12 lines 34-36 further teaches a UEs flows with high QoS requirements may use different UPFs”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and network node of Chen in view of Khan and further in view of Li with the teachings of AN in order to meet and maintain the QoS needs of a UE’s streaming flows, high or low.
Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Khan and further in view of Talebi Fard et al. (US 2022/0182896, Talebi Fard hereafter).
RE claims 6 and 18, Chen in view of Khan discloses the method of claim 1 and network node of claim 10 as set forth above. Chen in view of Khan does not explicitly disclose wherein the UPF node is defined such that the different 5G system bridges have different capabilities.
However Talebi Fard teaches wherein the UPF node is defined such that the different 5G system bridges have different capabilities (Paragraph 292 teaches a “In an example embodiment as depicted in FIG. 24, a TSN bridge may report bridge capabilities, a TSN bridge configuration parameter, a TSN bridge ID, virtual port ID(s), port ID(s), and/or the like. In an example, identities of 5GS virtual bridge and UPF ports may be pre-configured on UPF based on deployment. The UPF may report its port capabilities and propagation delay as 802.1Qcc defined, the topology information as 802.1AB defined, and the corresponding DNN to SMF using node level singling, and the SMF may forward the received information to the AF directly or via NEF in order to generate or update the 5GS virtual bridge and bridge port.” Examiner interprets this to be a teaching that TSN bridges as well as UPFs each have their own capabilities and as such report them in order to generate or update a given 5GS virtual bridge and bridge port, thus leading to a 5GS virtual bridge and bridge port with its own set of capabilities with which to serve a UE in need of them).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and network node of Chen in view of Khan with the teachings of Talebi Fard since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 7 and 19, Chen in view of Khan and further in view of Talebi Fard discloses the method of claim 6 and network node of claim 18 as set forth above. Note that Talebi Fard further teaches wherein the UE are connected to the UPF node of the 5G system bridge that matches the capabilities of the UE (Paragraph 292 teaches a “In an example embodiment as depicted in FIG. 24, a TSN bridge may report bridge capabilities, a TSN bridge configuration parameter, a TSN bridge ID, virtual port ID(s), port ID(s), and/or the like. In an example, identities of 5GS virtual bridge and UPF ports may be pre-configured on UPF based on deployment. The UPF may report its port capabilities and propagation delay as 802.1Qcc defined, the topology information as 802.1AB defined, and the corresponding DNN to SMF using node level singling, and the SMF may forward the received information to the AF directly or via NEF in order to generate or update the 5GS virtual bridge and bridge port.” Examiner interprets this to be a teaching that TSN bridges as well as UPFs each have their own capabilities and as such report them in order to generate or update a given 5GS virtual bridge and bridge port, thus leading to a 5GS virtual bridge and bridge port with its own set of capabilities with which to serve a UE in need of them).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and network node of Chen in view of Khan with the teachings of Talebi Fard since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claims 5 and 17, prior arts do not explicitly disclose teach or suggest when the UE disconnects from the UPF node of the 5G system bridge, removing a port relating to the UE from a 5G system bridge managed object and a 5G system bridge port managed object that contain a number of ports, a Media Access Control, MAC, address and a port number of each 5G system bridge port.
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claims 8 and 20, prior arts do not explicitly disclose teach or suggest wherein the capabilities, of a UE or 5G system bridge, are reported per port pair, and wherein the 5G system bridge is configured by assigning traffic streams per port pair.
RE claims 9 and 21, prior arts do not explicitly disclose teach or suggest wherein the capabilities, of a UE or 5G system bridge, for a Per-Stream Filtering and Policing, PSFP, are reported per port, and wherein the port operates using PSFP independently from the PSFP capabilities of other ports in the same 5G system bridge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461