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
1. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in part.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 48 have been considered and resolve the previous 112 issues, and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant argues that Examiner has collapsed the idea of QoS and an associated bit rate as being the same concept, rather than separate concepts.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Laitila clearly references Quality of Service profile, “(first) message comprising a requested QoS profile and one or more alternative QoS profiles.” (Laitila, ¶0043)
Clearly, a “profile” is not the same as a “bit rate.” Applicant is the one who has compressed concepts in order present their arguments, i.e. they compress the idea of a Quality of Service parameter and/or characteristic included within a Quality of Service profile, “Quality of Service.” However, this is a contrivance entirely of the Applicant’s own doing. The claims clearly distinguish between a profile and parameters and/or characteristics. (Laitila, ¶0037, A QoS profile may comprise QoS parameters, such as 5QI (5G QoS Identifier) and/or allocation and retention priority (ARP). For guaranteed bit rate (GBR) QoS flow the parameters may comprise e.g., GFBR (Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate), MFBR (Maximum Flow Bit Rate) and/or a maximum packet loss rate for both uplink and downlink.) Emphasis added.
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.
2. Claims 39-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laitila et al. (US 20210136620 A1).
Claim 39 Laitila teaches a computer-implemented method, performed by a first node, for handling provision of a service to a device, the first node and the device operating in a communications system, the method comprising:
receiving a first request from a second node operating in the communications system, (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043, receiving from a second network node a request) the first request requesting an authorization for the provision of the service with a first quality of service (QoS) and for provision of the service with one or more alternative qualities of service (QoSs), (¶0043, the request comprising a requested QoS profile, i.e. a provision of a service with a first QoS and one or more alternate QoS profiles) wherein the first request further requests a bit rate associated to each of the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs; (¶0037, wherein a bit rate is associated with each of the given QoS profiles)
determining one or more allowed QoSs, amongst the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs, (FIG. 3, step 304, ¶0044, determining a QoS profile that can be provided from among the first and alternate quality of service profiles) and, for each allowed QoS, an associated bit rate; (¶0037, wherein there is an associated bit rate for each QoS) and
sending, to the second node, a first response to the received first request, the first response indicating the one or more allowed QoSs (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0045, transmitting an indication of the allowed QoS profile) and the respectively associated bit rate. (FIG. 3, step 308, ¶0046, transmitting the relevant configuration, i.e. ¶0037, associated bit rate)
Claim 41 Laitila teaches Claim 39 and further teaches wherein the sent first response further indicates a validity of the first response. (¶0045, wherein the first response indicates its validity, i.e. that the responded QoS profile is allowed)
Claim 42 Laitila teaches Claim 39 and further teaches wherein
at least one of:
the first request originates from a third node operating in the communications system, (FIG. 3, ¶0043, wherein the first request originates from UE 120 operating in the communication system) the third node being a provider of the service; and the first response is sent towards the third node, via the second node.
Claim 43 Laitila teaches a computer-implemented method, performed by a second node, for handling provision of a service to a device, the second node and the device operating in a communications system, the method comprising:
sending a first request to a first node operating in the communications system, (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043,sending to a first network node a request) the first request requesting an authorization for the provision of the service with a first quality of service (QoS) and for provision of the service with one or more alternative qualities of service (QoSs), (¶0043, the request comprising a requested QoS profile, i.e. a provision of a service with a first QoS and one or more alternate QoS profiles) wherein the first request further requests a bit rate associated to each of the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs, (¶0037, wherein a bit rate is associated with each of the given QoS profiles)
receiving, from the first node, a first response to the sent first request, the first response indicating one or more allowed QoSs, amongst the first Q0S and the one or more alternative QoSs, (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0045, receiving an indication of the allowed QoS profile) and, for each allowed QoS, a respectively associated bit rate. (FIG. 3, step 308, ¶0046, receiving the relevant configuration, i.e. ¶0037, associated bit rate)
Claims 45 are taught by Laitila as described for Claims 41.
Claim 46 Laitila teaches Claim 43, and further teaches receiving a previous request from a third node operating in the communications system, (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043, receiving from a third network node a request, Examiner notes that there may be a plurality of control nodes following the disclosure, ¶0026) the third node being a provider of the service, the previous request requesting the authorization for the provision of the service with the first QoS, and for provision of the service with the one or more alternative QoSs, (¶0043, the request comprising a requested QoS profile, i.e. a provision of a service with a first QoS and one or more alternate QoS profiles) wherein the previous request further requests the bit rate associated to each of the first QOS and the one or more alternative QoSs; (¶0037, wherein a bit rate is associated with each of the QoS profiles) and
sending a second response to the third node to the received previous request, the second response indicating the one or more allowed QoSs, amongst the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs, (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0045, transmitting an indication of the allowed QoS profile) and, for each allowed QoS, the respectively associated bit rate. (FIG. 3, step 308, ¶0046, transmitting the relevant configuration, i.e. ¶0037, associated bit rate)
Claim 47 Laitila teaches Claim 45 and further teaches wherein the sent second response further indicates the validity of the sent second response. (¶0045, wherein the response indicates its validity, i.e. that the responded QoS profile is allowed)
Claim 48 Laitila teaches a computer-implemented method, performed by a third node, for handling provision of a service to a device, the third node and the device operating in a communications system, the third node being a provider of the service, the method comprising:
sending a second request to a second node operating in the communications system, (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043,sending to a first network node a request) the second request requesting an authorization for the provision of the service with a first quality of service (QoS) and for provision of the service with one or more alternative qualities of service (QoSs), (¶0043, the request comprising a requested QoS profile, i.e. a provision of a service with a first QoS and one or more alternate QoS profiles) wherein the second request further requests a bit rate associated to each of the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs; (¶0037, wherein a bit rate is associated with each given QoS profiles) and
receiving, from the second node, a second response to the sent second request, the second response indicating one or more allowed QoSs, amongst the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs, (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0045, receiving an indication of the allowed QoS profile) and, for each allowed QoS, a respectively associated bit rate. (FIG. 3, step 308, ¶0046, receiving the relevant configuration, i.e. ¶0037, associated bit rate)
Claim 50 is taught by Laitila as described for Claim 47.
Claim 51 Laitila teaches Claim 48, and further teaches sending, based on the received second response, a message to the device, (FIG. 3, step 310, ¶0048, sending a communication to the device, i.e. UE) the message requesting a selection of a QoS to provide the service to the device, the message indicating the one or more allowed QoSs and, for each allowed QoS, the respectively associated bit rate; (¶0049, the communication requesting selection of the QoS profile and its associated bit rate) and
receiving a third response to the message from the device, the third response indicating the selected QoS by the device. (¶0052, informing the core network, i.e. receiving a response from the UE, indicating the selected QoS profile)
Claims 52, and 54-55 are taught by Laitila as described for Claims 39, and 41-42
Claim 60 Laitila teaches Claim 39, and further teaches the first request indicates the first QoS as a first qualitative service level and indicates the one or more alternative QoSs as one or more alternative qualitative service levels, (¶0043, the request comprising a requested QoS profile, i.e. a provision of a service with a first QoS and one or more alternate QoS profiles) wherein the first request further requests a quantitative bit rate value associated with each of the qualitative service levels, (¶0037, wherein there is an associated bit rate for each QoS) and wherein the first response explicitly indicates one or more allowed qualitative service levels (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0045, transmitting an indication of the allowed QoS profile) and explicitly indicates the respective quantitative bit rate values associated therewith. (FIG. 3, step 308, ¶0046, transmitting the relevant configuration, i.e. ¶0037, associated bit rate)
Claims 61-63 are taught by Laitila as described for Claim 60.
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.
3. Claims 56-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laitila et al. (US 20210136620 A1) in view of Tamura et al. (US 20220295363 A1).
Claim 56 Laitila teaches Claim 39, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF), wherein said receiving, determining, and sending is performed by the PCF, and wherein the second node implemented as Network Exposure Function (NEF).
From a related technology, Tamura teaches a first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF), (FIG. 1, PCF 34) wherein said receiving, determining, and sending is performed by the PCF, (¶0061, PCF receives, determines, and sends) and wherein the second node implemented as Network Exposure Function (NEF). (FIG. 1, NEF 35)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Laitila to incorporate the techniques utilized in Tamura in order to more effectively utilize network data and resources.
Claim 57 Laitila teaches Claim 43, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF), wherein the second node implemented as Network Exposure Function (NEF), and wherein said sending and receiving is performed by the NEF.
From a related technology, Tamura teaches a first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF), wherein the second node implemented as Network Exposure Function (NEF), (FIG. 1, NEF 35) and wherein said sending and receiving is performed by the NEF. (¶0044, wherein the NEF sends and receives)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Laitila to incorporate the techniques utilized in Tamura in order to more effectively utilize network data and resources.
Claim 58 Laitila teaches Claim 48, but does not explicitly teach wherein the third node implements an Application Function (AF) for provision of the service, wherein the second node implemented as Network Exposure Function (NEF), and wherein said sending and receiving is performed by the AF.
From a related technology, Tamura teaches a third node implements an Application Function (AF) for provision of the service, (FIG. 1, AF 41) wherein the second node implemented as Network Exposure Function (NEF), (FIG. 1, NEF 35) and wherein said sending and receiving is performed by the AF. (¶0052, wherein the AF sends and receives)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Laitila to incorporate the techniques utilized in Tamura in order to more effectively utilize network data and resources.
Claim 59 Laitila teaches Claim 52, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF).
From a related technology, Tamura teaches a first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF). (FIG. 1, PCF 34)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Laitila to incorporate the techniques utilized in Tamura in order to more effectively utilize network data and resources.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights