DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner has considered A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 and 20 recite the limitation "the core network node" in line 1. The dependency of claim 13 should be changed to claim 12 from claim 8 and the dependency of claim 20 should be changed to claim 19 from claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the first network comprises an overlay network, and the second network comprises an underlay network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lyazidi et al. US 20230388848.
Regarding claim 8, a wireless device (a method and system for second network node for handling one or more Quality of Service, QoS, parameters for respective first and second radio resources to be provided to a User Equipment, UE, in Multi Radio access technology—Dual Connectivity-MR-DC, the second network node operates in the MR-DC with a first network node in a wireless communications network, para. 0059, network nodes, Figure 4, elements 111, 112) comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to receive, from a first network via a second network (network nodes, Figure 4, elements 111, 112, in different cells, Cell1 and Cell2), a first message comprising a first quality of service (QoS) parameter for a first protocol data unit (PDU) session of the wireless device with the first network; and an alternative QoS parameter for the first PDU session, wherein the alternative QoS parameter is to be used by the wireless device when the QoS parameter cannot be fulfilled (the network node decides to request the target secondary node to allocate resources for one or more specific PDU Sessions/QoS Flows, indicating QoS Flows characteristics such as QoS Flow Level QoS parameters, para. 0027, the second network node receives a first indication from the first network node, indicating the first set of downgraded QoS levels and their respective one or more QoS parameters currently supported in the first network node, the first indication enables the second network node to decide one or more QoS parameters for the second radio resources to be provided to the UE, Figure 4, element 120, from the second network node, the decision of the one or more QoS parameters is based on the first set of downgraded QoS levels and their respective one or more QoS parameters currently supported in the first network node and a second set of downgraded QoS levels and their respective one or more QoS parameters currently supported in the second network node, the downgraded QoS levels and their respective one or more QoS parameters may be referred to as alternative QoS profiles and parameters or degraded QoS profiles and parameters, para. 0104) and send, to the second network and based on the first message, a second message comprising at least one of a second QoS parameter for the second PDU session based on the first QoS parameter; and the alternative QoS parameter (the network node decides to request the target secondary node to allocate resources for one or more specific PDU Sessions/QoS Flows, indicating QoS Flows characteristics such as QoS Flow Level QoS parameters, para. 0027, the first network node receives a second indication from the second network node, the second indication indicates the second set of downgraded QoS levels and their respective one or more QoS parameters currently supported in the second network node, the first network node decides QoS parameters for radio resources to be provided to the UE, para. 0109-0110).
Regarding claim 10, The wireless device of claim 8, wherein the first message comprises at least one of: a notification control information element to request notification for an accepted QoS parameter; or a request to create an internet protocol security (IPsec) child security association (SA) for a tunnel between the wireless device and a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) of the first network (a network node, such as a master node, may communicate in a secondary node addition request message, the current supported QoS level and the list of downgraded QoS levels with their respective QoS parameters that should be supported, examples being Level1 with higher QoS parameters close to the QoS profile, Level2 with moderate QoS parameters quite far from the QoS profile, Level3 with lesser values of QoS parameters very far from the QoS profile, the secondary node may select, in an Xn accept message, an appropriate level, which may not necessarily be the highest level, and communicate it to the master node in the SN Acknowledge message, para 0088).
Regarding claim 14, The wireless device of claim 8, wherein the second message comprises an indication that requested QoS resources are for the second PDU session of the wireless device with the second network (the network node decides to request the target secondary node to allocate resources for one or more specific PDU Sessions/QoS Flows, indicating QoS Flows characteristics such as QoS Flow Level QoS parameters, para. 0027, the first network node receives a second indication from the second network node, the second indication indicates the second set of downgraded QoS levels and their respective one or more QoS parameters currently supported in the second network node, the first network node decides QoS parameters for radio resources to be provided to the UE, para. 0109-0110).
Claims 1, 3, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyazidi et al. US 20230388848 in view of Velev et al. US 20230292399.
Regarding claim 9, The wireless device of claim 8, Lyazidi does not disclose wherein the first network comprises an overlay network, and the second network comprises an underlay network. Velev discloses the RAN, Figure 1, element 120, and the mobile core network, element 140, form a mobile communication network, any number of remote units, element 105, base units, element 121, wireless communication links, element 123, RANs, element 120, and mobile core networks, element 140, can be included in the wireless communication system, element 100, para. 0043. Velev discloses the RAN can include non-3GPP RAT, para. 0044, which is an underlay network. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Lyazidi to include Velev’s network. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for non-homogeneous coverage of a network slice, para. 0002.
Claims 2, 16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, The wireless device of claim 8, Lyazidi does not disclose wherein the first message is received from a non- 3GPP interworking function (N3IWF) of the first network. Velev discloses a Radio Access Network (“RAN”) node includes determining an unavailability of radio resources corresponding to a first data connection that uses a first network slice and sending a notification message to a core network function, said message comprising an indication of the unavailability of the radio resources corresponding to the first data connection to a SMF, para. 0005-0006. Velev discloses a notification control procedure from RAN, Figure 3, element 310, to a core network node SMF-2, element 330, for QoS Parameter Notification control for GBR QoS flows, para. 0180, if notification control is configured for a Guaranteed Bit Rate (“GBR”) QoS Flow, the RAN sends a N2 message with PDU Session ID, N2 SM information to SMF when the RAN decides the QoS targets of the QoS Flow cannot be fulfilled or can be fulfilled again, the N2 SM information includes the QFI and an indication that the QoS targets for that QoS Flow cannot be fulfilled or can be fulfilled again, para. 0088, the RAN node can be gNB, eNB, NG-eNB, N3IWF or any other type of access network node, para. 0083. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Lyazidi to include Velev’s quality parameter notification for GBR QoS flows using an N3IWF RAN node. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to enhance the notification control procedure between the RAN and SMF to allow the monitoring of the radio resources for a PDU Session associated with a network slice and to report to the SMF if the resources are available again, para. 0180.
Claims 4, 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights