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 2023-12-12 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9-10, 13, 17, 18, 19
The claims still recite numerical citation to figure elements. It is unclear to the Examiner as to why the preliminary amendments deleted the numerical citations to some claims, but not others.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2-16
The claim is directed to the statutory category of a machine. A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
However, the claim’s body is not directed to the parts of subcomponents of the machine, but rather recites a list of functionalities as if claim was a method claim. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what the claimed machine consistent of (i.e., parts of the claimed machine).
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim(s) 17 and 18, 19
The claim is directed to the statutory category of a machine. A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
However, the claim’s body is not directed to the parts of subcomponents of the machine, but rather recites a list of functionalities as if claim was a method claim. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what the claimed machine consistent of (i.e., parts of the claimed machine).
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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.
(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) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over SACHS_896 (US20200259896)
Claim(s) 1, 20
SACHS_896 teaches
receive a management request from a Time Sensitive Network (TSN) management entity, 5G entity such as VEP, receives a request for TSN stream from a TSN endpoint via CUC. <FIG(s). 199; para. 1950-1954>.
wherein the management request is usable to indicate
one or more TSN management operations and The 5G entity will then map user plane packets from the TSN stream to the corresponding PDU session and QoS Flow, as well as performing required actions defined by the TSN features used in the TSN network. <para. 1955, 1978>.
one or more TSN parameters; and 5G entity will also receive the QoS for the TSN stream and map it to 5G QoS. <para. 1953-1954>.
send an instruction based on the management request to one or more other mobile-network entities, wherein the instruction is usable to indicate one or more mobile-network operations and one or more mobile-network parameters. Based on the QoS settings/TSN configuration, the 5G device will either establish a new PDU session or use an existing PDU session or modify an existing PDU session to meet the requested QoS. This operation includes sending, to an SMF, forwarding rules and a packet filter set <para. 1936, 1954, 2244-2245, 2257, 2385>.
Claim(s) 2
wherein the instruction is usable to further indicate at least one of the TSN parameters of the one or more TSN parameters. This limitation is option due to the intended use language and therefore does not need to be anticipated by art as it is not explicitly required by the claim. See Examiner’s Notes for more details.
Claim(s) 3
SACHS_896 teaches
determine at least one of the one or more mobile-network operations or the one or more mobile-network parameters based on at least one of the one or more TSN management operations or the one or more TSN parameters. Based on the QoS settings/TSN configuration, the 5G device will either establish a new PDU session or use an existing PDU session or modify an existing PDU session to meet the requested QoS. This operation includes sending, to an SMF, forwarding rules and a packet filter set <para. 1936, 1954, 2244-2245, 2257, 2385>.
Claim(s) 4
SACHS_896 teaches
identify the one or more other mobile-network entities based on at least one of the one or more mobile-network operations or the one or more mobile-network parameters. A new PDU session or use an existing PDU session or modify an existing PDU session to meet the requested QoS includes sending, to an SMF, forwarding rules and a packet filter set. In this case the “one or more other mobile-network entities” is simply the SMF and the SMF is the device that by protocol receives the forwarding rules and filter set to establish the PDU session <para. 1936, 1954, 2244-2245, 2257, 2385>.
Claim(s) 5
SACHS_896 teaches
wherein the instruction is useable to trigger the one or more other mobile-network entities to perform the one or more mobile-network operations according to the one or more mobile-network parameters. This limitation is option due to the intended use language and therefore does not need to be anticipated by art as it is not explicitly required by the claim. See Examiner’s Notes for more details.
Claim(s) 6
SACHS_896 teaches
maintain a mapping relationship between a set of TSN parameters of the one or more TSN parameters and a set of mobile-network parameters of the one or more mobile-network parameters; and The 5G entity will then map user plane packets from the TSN stream to the corresponding PDU session and QoS Flow, as well as performing required actions defined by the TSN features used in the TSN network. <para. 1323, 1953-1966, 1978>.
determine the one or more mobile-network operations or the one or more mobile-network parameters based on the management request and the mapping relationship. Based on the QoS settings/TSN configuration and mapping, the 5G device will either establish a new PDU session or use an existing PDU session or modify an existing PDU session to meet the requested QoS. This operation includes sending, to an SMF, forwarding rules and a packet filter set . <para. 1936, 1953-1966, 2244-2245>.
Claim(s) 7
SACHS_896 teaches
wherein the set of TSN parameters of the one or more TSN parameters comprises at least one of:
one or more TSN domain identifications (IDs); TSN domain number <FIG(s). 109; para. 2314-2315; Claim(s) 194, 225>.
Claim(s) 10
SACHS_896 teaches
further configured to:
provide the one or more mobile-network parameters to the one or more other mobile-network entities (220) to trigger them to execute the one or more mobile-network operations comprising at least one of: modifying the PDU session. Based on the QoS settings/TSN configuration, the 5G device will either establish a new PDU session or use an existing PDU session or modify an existing PDU session to meet the requested QoS. This operation includes sending, to an SMF, forwarding rules and a packet filter set . <para. 1936, 1954, 2244-2245, 2257, 2385>.
Claim(s) 17
SACHS_896 teaches
receive an instruction from another mobile-network entity, wherein the instruction is usable to indicate a mobile-network operation, a mobile-network parameter, and a TSN parameter; and perform the mobile-network operation according to the mobile-network parameter and the TSN parameter. Based on the QoS settings/TSN configuration, the 5G device will either establish a new PDU session or use an existing PDU session or modify an existing PDU session to meet the requested QoS. This operation includes an SMF receiving, from the 5G device, the PDU modification request, and in response establish forwarding rules and a packet filter set for the PDU session in accordance with the request such that the PDU session is compliant with the QoS and TSN configurations. <para. 1936, 1954, 2244-2245, 2257, 2385>.
Claim(s) 18
SACHS_896 teaches
wherein the TSN-aware mobile-network entity (220) is configured with at least one of a User Plane Function (UPF) or a User Equipment (UE). In one embodiment, the SMF receives the PDU request from a UPF both of which are within the 5G network and therefore is considered configured with a UPF. <FIG(s). 198, 199, 200; para. 1923-1929, 1936>.
Claim(s) 19
SACHS_896 teaches
operate according to at least one policy of a TSN domain (300). SMF controls UEs to function in accordance with the TSN domain when in the PDU session. <FIG(s). 111; para. 2298-2299, 2345, 2351>.
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 SACHS_896 (US20200259896)
Claim(s) 8
In the embodiments discussed herein, SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
wherein the set of mobile-network parameters comprises at least one of:
one or more User Equipment (UE) IDs;
one or more User Plane Function (UPF) IDs;
one or more Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session IDs; or
one or more Data Network Access Identifier (DNAI).
However, implicitly SACHS_896 teaches
wherein the set of mobile-network parameters comprises at least one of:
one or more Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session IDs; or PDU session ID is mapped to TSN stream/domains. Accordingly sending a PDU modification request or establishment request would implicitly require the PDU session, which is by way of a PDU session ID. <para. 1933, 2244-2245>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified embodiments of SACHS_896, as discussed herein, with other embodiment(s) disclosed by SACHS_896. In other words, it would have been obvious that the PDU modify request to the other 5G network entity would include a PDU session ID in order to proper enable the other entity to identify which PDU session was being referred to, other wise the receiver would not know which PDU session is being requested to be estalibshed/modified.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACHS_896 (US20200259896) in view of SACHS_175 (US20230239175)
Claim(s) 9
SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more TSN management operations comprise at least one of:
attaching a TSN domain (300) to a mobile-network bridge (301);
detaching a TSN domain (300) from a mobile-network bridge (301);
merging of two or more TSN domains (300);
splitting one or more TSN domains (300);
updating the domain identification (ID) or a Grand Master (GM) ID of one or more TSN domains (300) and/or mobile-network bridges (301); or
adding one or more ports to a mobile-network bridge (301).
However in a similar endeavor, SACHS_175 teaches
wherein the one or more TSN management operations comprise at least one of:
splitting one or more TSN domains (300); TSN network may be split into multiple domains <FIG(s). 2; para. 0010-0011, 0016-0017>.
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 SACHS_896 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SACHS_175. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide techniques to enable 5GS to interact with multiple TSN domains and multiple non-3GPP network controllers. <para. 0016>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACHS_896 (US20200259896) in view of ROST_172 (US20210204172)
Claim(s) 11
SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more TSN operations comprise removing or adding a User Equipment (UE), respectively, from or to a mobile-network bridge of a TSN domain.
However in a similar endeavor, ROST_172 teaches
wherein the one or more TSN operations comprise removing or adding a User Equipment (UE), respectively, from or to a mobile-network bridge of a TSN domain. Changes in 3GPP bridge include additional UEs <para. 0118-0119>.
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 SACHS_896 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by ROST_172. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved handling the interaction between these two domains in 3GPP and TSN communications <para. 0093>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACHS_896 (US20200259896) in view of ROST_172 (US20210204172), and further view of SEO_672 (US20140192672)
Claim(s) 12
SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more mobile-network operations comprise a reconfiguration to bind the UE to another mobile-network entity.
However in a similar endeavor, SEO_672 teaches
wherein the one or more mobile-network operations comprise a reconfiguration to bind the UE to another mobile-network entity. Network entity (target enB) sends another network entity (serving enB) a reconfiguration message to including handover command UE from serving to target. <para. 0103-0104>.
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 SACHS_896 and ROST_172 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SEO_672. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable measurement reporting and its related procedures can be efficiently performed. <para. 0016>.
Claim(s) 13
SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
further configured to
provide the one or more mobile-network parameters to the one or more other mobile-network entities (220) to trigger them to perform the reconfiguration,
wherein the reconfiguration comprises at least one of:
modifying a configuration of the UE;
modifying a routing profile of the UE for the PDU session;
modifying a Data Network Access Identifier (DNAI) of an active PDU session;
configuring an Uplink Classifier (UL CL) in the PDU session.
However in a similar endeavor, SEO_672 teaches
provide the one or more mobile-network parameters to the one or more other mobile-network entities (220) to trigger them to perform the reconfiguration, wherein the reconfiguration comprises at least one of: modifying a configuration of the UE; RRC Connection Reconfiguration message that reconfigures the UE's RRC connection, for example security configuration or C-RNTI parameters <para. 0104>.
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 SACHS_896 and ROST_172 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SEO_672. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable measurement reporting and its related procedures can be efficiently performed. <para. 0016>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACHS_896 (US20200259896) in view of FLETCHER_010 (US20140090010)
Claim(s) 14
SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
further configured to:
receive one or more confirmations from the one or more other mobile-network entities,
wherein each confirmation of the one or more confirmations is useable to indicate that at least one mobile-network operation according to at least one TSN management operation of the one or more TSN management operations has been executed; and
acknowledge the management request based on a received confirmation of the one or more confirmations.
However in a similar endeavor, FLETCHER_010 teaches
receive one or more confirmations from the one or more other mobile-network entities, acknowledge the management request based on a received confirmation of the one or more confirmations. A request causes a first network device to send an authorization request to another network device and receive an authorization result (confirmation). In response the first device processing the request (acknowledge) including sending messages accommodate the request. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0044-0053; Claim 1>.
wherein each confirmation of the one or more confirmations is useable to indicate that at least one mobile-network operation according to at least one TSN management operation of the one or more TSN management operations has been executed; and This limitation is option due to the intended use language and therefore does not need to be anticipated by art as it is not explicitly required by the claim. See Examiner’s Notes for more details.
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 SACHS_896 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by FLETCHER_010. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase or decrease the level of quality of service (to be referred to as "QoS") to an application. <para. 0009>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SACHS_896 (US20200259896) in view of MAS ROSIQUE_366 (US20210058366)
Claim(s) 16
SACHS_896 does not explicitly teach
further configured to:
initiate a policy control process to authorize the management request.
However in a similar endeavor, MAS ROSIQUE_366 teaches
initiate a policy control process to authorize the management request. Policy control entity can authorize the request, can create the policy session and determine the session policies, the PCC rules and policy control request triggers including the request for information about a network address translation <FIG(s). 6; para. 0077-0079, 0131>.
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 SACHS_896 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by MAS ROSIQUE_366. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to overcome the known problems in 5G and to avoid errors occurring in the handling of user data packet sessions in which a network address translation is carried out in the user plane. <para. 0070>.
Examiner’s Notes
Intended Use
The claim(s) includes intended use language, primarily the phrase “usable.”
Said language that causes corresponding limitations to be suggested or optional (i.e., does not require steps to be performed and/or does not further limit a structure/configuration). Consequently, the claim does not necessarily require the corresponding limitation to be carried out, or be configured to be carried out (i.e., does not limit the scope of a claim), and is therefore not given any patentable weight.
Note: In the interest in expediting prosecution, the Examiner prior art rejections to the independent claims herein by way of SACHS_896 (US20200259896) uses mapping that effectively assumes the “usable” is actually invoked. For example, using claim 1, “the management request is usable to indicate...operations and parameters” is mapped such that the request does indicate operations and parameters in SACHS_896 (US20200259896). The rejections herein using a narrower interpretation of the claim (i.e., effectively pretending the “usable” language is not there) is a courtesy extended to the Applicant since if the Examiner simply took a broadest reasonable interpretation that “usable” language was option, a broad range of prior art could have been used.
In other words, using claim 1 as an example again, the Examiner could have used art that simply taught a ‘management request’ and an asserted that a broadest reasonable interpretation of “usable” is intended use and that effectively any data structure can be usable to indicate certain types of data. This is effectively what the Examiner does to some dependent claims. The Examiner asserted interpretations this in some dependent claims.
The Examiner highly recommends amending the claim(s) to remove the intended use language (“usable”) such that the limitation(s) is explicitly required.
Conclusion
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415