DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2025-11-06 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-15 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §112(f) - Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim(s) and corresponding limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 13
means language: means
non-structural language: for carrying out the steps...
Claim(s) 15
means language: means
non-structural language: adapted to execute the steps of
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The identified claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 13
a data processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out
generic holder: a data processing apparatus
functional language: comprising means for carrying out...’
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174)
Claim(s) 1, 15
ADJAKPLE_753 teaches
assigning downlink data packets to be transmitted between nodes in a network
transmitting the data packets between nodes in a network
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
nodes in a network are particularly a server and a base station
However in a similar endeavor, LIU_174 teaches
nodes in a network are particularly a server and a base station Source/Target base station receives a multicast QoS flow from a service server forwarded by the source base station, where the multicast QoS flow includes data of the first service. <para. 0089-0090, 0092>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LIU_174. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved continuity of service when handover occurs <Background, Summary>
Claim(s) 2
ADJAKPLE_753 teaches
wherein the information included within the downlink data packets is data added to a header of the data packet. Each QoS profile may be associated and identified by a mark. QoS mark included in the received packet header. <FIG(s). 10, 26, 27, 34, 35; para. 0075-0086, 0091, 0134, 0154-0158, 0168, 0177-0178, 0190>.
Claim(s) 5
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
further comprising the step of
establishing one or more Quality of Service flows between the base station and the server according to requirements of the transmission quality parameters.
However in a similar endeavor, LIU_174 teaches
establishing one or more Quality of Service flows between the base station and the server according to requirements of the transmission quality parameters. Source/Target base station receives a multicast QoS flow from a service server forwarded by the source base station in accordance with the QoS parameter/profile. <para. 0089-0092>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LIU_174. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved continuity of service when handover occurs <Background, Summary>
Claim(s) 12
ADJAKPLE_753 teaches
A non-transitory computer program product comprising computer executable instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, causes the computer to carry out the method of claim 1. Disclosed embodiments can be carried out by executable instructions <para. 0133>.
Claim(s) 13
ADJAKPLE_753 teaches
one or more base stations; and <FIG(s). 4A, 52A; para. 0347-0356>.
a data processing apparatus comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer storage device having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the data processing apparatus to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1. Packets of a flow may be assigned one or more QoS parameters. In one embodiment, a packet mark (or marker) is used to uniquely associate data packets characterized by a given Traffic Flow Filter (TFF) or Traffic Flow filter Template (TFT) with predefined matching QoS profile(s). Each QoS profile may be associated and identified by a mark. QoS mark included in the received packet header (FEP header) to identify the upper layer Service Access Point (SAP) for the delivery of the received packet. In another embodiment the packet is marked with a packet flow identifier. Embodiments are applicable to downlink, uplink or both <FIG(s). 10, 26, 27, 34, 35; para. 0075-0086, 0091, 0134, 0154-0158, 0168, 0177-0178, 0190>.
Claim(s) 14
ADJAKPLE_753 teaches
further comprising a plurality of UEs. UEs. For example 102a-d. <FIG(s). 10, 26, 27, 34, 35, 52A, 52B; para. 0075-0086, 0091, 0134, 0154-0158, 0168, 0177-0178, 0190, 0361-0368>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of NAM_147 (US20100329147)
Claim(s) 3
As discussed in the rejections herein, ADJAKPLE_753 teaches a packet that is particularly a downlink packet.
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the information included within the data packets is a packet type of the data packet.
However in a similar endeavor, NAM_147 teaches
wherein the information included within the data packets is a packet type of the data packet. Packet header information include packet type <para. 0051>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by NAM_147. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide link aggregation that provides redundant communication paths while at the same time increasing transmission bandwidth <para. 0001>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), in view of NAM_147 (US20100329147), and further view of PUENTE PESTAÑA_984 (US20220393984)
Claim(s) 4
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the packet type is included within a GTP-U header.
However in a similar endeavor, PUENTE PESTAÑA_984 teaches
wherein the packet type is included within a GTP-U header. GTP-U header includes information indicating a type, such as class indicator <para. 0126>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753, LIU_174 and NAM_147 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by PUENTE PESTAÑA_984. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved user plane traffic classification in a communications system. <para. 0029>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of WANG_297 (US20210127297)
Claim(s) 6
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the transmission quality parameters for each downlink data packet are determined by the base station.
However in a similar endeavor, WANG_297 teaches
wherein the transmission quality parameters for each downlink data packet are determined by the base station. QoS parameter is determined by primary base station. <para. 0165-0169>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by WANG_297. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to support the network evolution from 4G to 5G <para. 0007, Solution to Problem>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of ZHANG_420 (US20240155420)
Claim(s) 6
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the transmission quality parameters for each downlink data packet are determined by the base station.
However in a similar endeavor, ZHANG_420 teaches
wherein the transmission quality parameters for each downlink data packet are determined by the base station. One or more other QoS characteristics for a respective QoS flow may be determined by the base station. <para. 0098>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by ZHANG_420. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improved methods, systems, devices, and apparatuses that support configuration for asymmetric quality of service (QoS) flows <Summary>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), in view of ZHANG_420 (US20240155420), and further view of LUO_215 (US20220104215)
Claim(s) 7
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the base station determines the transmission quality parameters for each downlink data packet by receiving information from a control plane node.
However in a similar endeavor, LUO_215 teaches
wherein the base station determines the transmission quality parameters for each downlink data packet by receiving information from a control plane node. The assistance information may include transmission quality parameters such as periodicity, burst, direction, etc. Assistance information is received by base station by SMF and/or AMF. <para. 0162>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753, LIU_174 and ZHANG_420 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LUO_215. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce latency associated with communications in backhaul network, such an IAB network. <para. 0042>.
Claim(s) 8
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the control plane node is an access and mobility management function, AMF.
However in a similar endeavor, LUO_215 teaches
wherein the control plane node is an access and mobility management function, AMF. Assistance information is received by base station by AMF. <para. 0162>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753, LIU_174 and ZHANG_420 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LUO_215. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce latency associated with communications in backhaul network, such an IAB network. <para. 0042>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of SUN_848 (US20220150848)
Claim(s) 9
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the transmission quality parameters comprise any one or more of:
5QI value,
priority level,
packet error rate,
maximum data burst volume,
averaging window,
bit rate,
resource type,
frame rate,
periodicity,
compression characteristic, and
packet delay budget.
However in a similar endeavor, SUN_848 teaches
wherein the transmission quality parameters comprise any one or more of:
priority level, QoS parameter is a priority level value. <FIG(s). 3; para. 0048-0051; Claim(s) 7>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SUN_848. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved method of controlling transmission power o <para. 0001>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of MARGOLIN_258 (US20180139258)
Claim(s) 9
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the transmission quality parameters comprise any one or more of:
5QI value,
priority level,
packet error rate,
maximum data burst volume,
averaging window,
bit rate,
resource type,
frame rate,
periodicity,
compression characteristic, and
packet delay budget.
However in a similar endeavor, MARGOLIN_258 teaches
wherein the transmission quality parameters comprise any one or more of:
frame rate, quality parameter may include at least one of a bitrate, a resolution, a frame rate, or a compression parameter for the content. <para. 0005>.
compression characteristic, and quality parameter may include at least one of a bitrate, a resolution, a frame rate, or a compression parameter for the content. <para. 0005>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by MARGOLIN_258. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to leverage aggregated network statistics for enhancing quality and user experience for live video streaming from mobile devices. <para. 0001>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of KWOK_998 (US20210409998)
Claim(s) 10
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the information included within the data packets is attributes of the data packet,
the method further comprising the step of the base station
determining the transmission quality parameters for each data packet based on the attributes of the data packet.
However in a similar endeavor, KWOK_998 teaches
wherein the information included within the data packets is attributes of the data packet, the method further comprising the step of the base station determining the transmission quality parameters for each data packet based on the attributes of the data packet. QoE goals/requirements can be determined based on packet attributes. <FIG(s). 1, 2, 5; para. 0027-0036, 0039-0041>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by KWOK_998. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to to determine whether to route individual data packets to a UE over an LTE connection and/or a 5G connection, based on which connections are most likely to achieve QoE goals associated with the individual data packets. <para. 0018>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of MIJATOVIC_346 (US20070155346)
Claim(s) 11
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the server is a user plane function, UPF.
However in a similar endeavor, MIJATOVIC_346 teaches
wherein the server is a user plane function, UPF. PoC server comprises control-plane functions and user-plane functions providing <FIG(s). 1; para. 0019>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by MIJATOVIC_346. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide enhanced communications services to a user in a mobile communications system<para. 0001-0006>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADJAKPLE_753 (US20200267753) in view of LIU_174 (WO2021179174), and further view of PARK_346 (US20200221346)
Claim(s) 11
ADJAKPLE_753 does not explicitly teach
wherein the server is a user plane function, UPF.
However in a similar endeavor, PARK_346 teaches
wherein the server is a user plane function, UPF. a server including a user plane function (UPF). <FIG(s). 19C; para. 0221-0223; Claim(s) 6>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by ADJAKPLE_753 and LIU_174 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by PARK_346. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a method of configuring a network slice for each radio access technology (RAT) and for setting and operating a policy for each network slice. <para. 0012>.
Response to Arguments
The following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
ADJAKPLE_753 teaches the embodiments being applicable to downlink packets as discussed in the rejections herein. ADJAKPLE_753 disclosed techniques for packet flow mapping to DRB using QOS for a UE and packet data network (See Summary). The embodiments regarding packets of a flow and marking associated packets and corresponding QoS profile for communications between a network and UE would be readily understood to be applicable to uplink and downlink – there is nothing in ADJAKPLE_753 to suggest that the implementations are exclusive to a particular direction or is unidirectionally. This is supported at least at para. 0091: “This can also be referred to herein as a traffic flow filter (TFF), and can be classified as a flow descriptor which can be specified for DL, UL, or both.”
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights