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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose (1) communication between core-network nodes, (2) a node that enables interaction of an AF with the core network and (3) a response sent from a core-network node to an AF via another code-network node.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
(1) Laitila (¶0015) plainly describes the gNB’s as being core-network nodes that communication between themselves.
(2) Applicant appears to adopts a narrow interpretation of “enables interaction” that is inappropriate. Unless otherwise specified, enabling interaction must be given a broad interpretation as Applicant has declined to specify any particular means of enabling interaction. As such, merely passive non-interference is sufficient to show a node that “enables interaction.”
(3) See (1), the nodes cited in Laitila are core nodes and so teach the requisite response to towards an AF via core nodes.
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.
2. Claims 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 39 recites “receiving… from a second node… a first request that originates from the third node implementing the AF.” The claim is unclear as to the meaning of the first request being “from” the second node, yet “originates” from the third node.
Claim 39 recites “sending, from the first node towards the third node, via the second node, a first response….” The claim is unclear what is meant by being sent “towards” the third node, namely the degree upon which the first node is controlling and dictating where and how the response is sent. For example, it is unclear if sending the node anywhere (as this logically moves it “toward” the third node, even if the path is sub-optimal) would suffice to meet the claims, and furthermore which node is directing the response to the third node, i.e. does the first node merely send it to the second node, and the second node independently sends it to the third, or does this first node control the second node to send it to the third node.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the first node as merely logically moving the response towards the third node by sending it to the second node.
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.
3. Claims 39, 41, 43. 45, 47-48, 50, 52, 54, and 64-66 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, (Examiner notes that as the claimed invention is a method performed by the first node, this would exclude the non-first node elements, such as the device and the third node, from the method claims) operating in a core network of a communications system, for handling provision of resources in the communication system for a service to a device by a third node, the device operating in the communications system, the third node implementing an application function (AF) for the service, (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the preamble recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.) the method comprising:
receiving, by the first node operating in the core network, (FIG. 3, ¶0043, gNB 112 called the first network node) from a second node that operates in the core network (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043, receiving from a second network node a request) and that enables interaction of the AF with the core network, (Examiner interprets “enabling” as covering passively non-prohibition) a first request that originates from the third node implementing the AF, (See 112b; Examiner notes that origins of a request are outside the scope of the claim, and that method merely need to show that the method is capable of receiving a first request that originates from a third node, such as via general transceivers)
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, from the first node towards the third node, via the second node, (See 112b rejection, Examiner interprets “towards the third node” as moving from the first node 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 43 Laitila teaches a computer-implemented method, performed by a second node (Examiner notes that as the claimed invention is a method performed by the second node, this would exclude the non-second node elements, such as the device, the first node, and the third node, from the method claims) that operates in a core network of a communications system and that enables interaction of an application function (AF) with the core network, for handling provision of a service to a device, the second node and the device operating in a communications system, (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the preamble recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.) the method comprising:
receiving, by the second node (FIG. 1, gNB 110) operating in the core network, a second request from a third node that implements the AF for the service, (FIG. 1, 5GC 116, ¶0028, a core network 116 of the cellular communication system; which provides QoS information to gNB110) 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), wherein the second request further requests a bit rate associated to each of the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs; (¶0043, wherein by providing QoS information to the gNB 110, the information provides an authorization request for QoS consistent with the QoS information and associated guaranteed bit rate associated with each of the QoSs)
based on the second request, sending a first request to a first node (FIG. 1, gNB 112) operating in the core network, (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043, sending to a first network node a request) the first 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 first 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 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) and
after receiving the first response, sending, to the third node, a second response to the second request, the second response indicating the one or more allowed QoSs, amongst the first QoS and the one or more alternative QoSs, and, for each allowed QoS, the respectively associated bit rate, as indicated by the first response. (FIG. 4. Step 414, ¶0063, notifying the 5GC 116 of the current GBR, i.e. the allowed QoS and bit rate)
Claims 45 are taught by Laitila as described for Claims 41.
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, (Examiner notes that as the claimed invention is a method performed by the third node, this would exclude the non-third node elements, such as the device, the first node, and the second node, from the method claims) that implements an application function (AF) for a service to be provided to a device, for handling provision of a service to a device, the third node and the device operating in a communications system, (When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the preamble recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.) the method comprising:
sending a second request from the third node to a second node that operates in a core network of the communications system (FIG. 3, step 300, ¶0043,sending to a first network node a request) and that enables interaction of the AF with the core network,
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)
sending, based on the received second response, a message from the third node to the device, the message requesting a user of the device to select 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; (FIG. 3, step 310, ¶0048, sending a message to the UE 120 indicating the allowed quality of service profile and bitrate) and
receiving a third response to the message from the device, the third response indicating the selected QoS as selected by the user of the device. (FIG. 3, step 312, ¶0049, communicating with the UE wherein the communication indicates the selection of the selected QoS)
Claim 50 is taught by Laitila as described for Claim 47.
Claims 52, and 54 are taught by Laitila as described for Claims 39, and 41.
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 64 Laitila teaches Claim 61, and further teaches wherein the first response includes, for each of the one or more allowed qualitative service levels:
a first parameter that explicitly indicates the allowed qualitative service level; (¶0037, wherein there is an associated bit rate for each QoS) and a second parameter that explicitly indicates the respective quantitative bit rate value associated with that allowed qualitative service level. (¶0037, wherein there is an associated bit rate for each QoS)
Claim 65 Laitila teaches Claim 48, and further teaches further comprising calculating, for each allowed QoS, a data consumption estimated to be consumed by the service if provided with that allowed QoS and at the respectively associated bit rate, and
wherein the message sent to the device indicates to the user of the device the estimated data consumption calculated for each allowed QoS, for use by the user in selecting the QoS to provide the service. (¶0046, determining resources utilized and for use)
Claim 66 Laitila teaches Claim 48, and further teaches further comprising sending a request from the third node to the second node requesting the service to be provided with the selected QoS as selected by the user of the device. (FIG. 3, step 312, ¶0049, communicating with the UE wherein the communication indicates the selection of the selected QoS)
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.
4. 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 implements a Network Exposure Function (NEF) configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks.
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) configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks. (Examiner interprets “configured to enable interaction” as including passive permission, i.e. so long as the node not actively prohibiting interaction of the AF with the core networks)
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 implements a 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) configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks. (Examiner interprets “configured to enable interaction” as including passive permission, i.e. so long as the node not actively prohibiting interaction of the AF with the core networks)
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) configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks, 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) configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks. (Examiner interprets “configured to enable interaction” as including passive permission, i.e. so long as the node not actively prohibiting interaction of the AF with the core networks) 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) and wherein the second node implements a NEF configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks.
From a related technology, Tamura teaches a first node implements a Policy Control Function (PCF) (FIG. 1, PCF 34) and wherein the second node implements a NEF configured to enable interaction of the AF with the core networks. (Examiner interprets “configured to enable interaction” as including passive permission, i.e. so long as the node not actively prohibiting interaction of the AF with the core networks)
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
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