DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been previously cancelled
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 6-10) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner no longer relies upon Trivisonno and has introduced Wu to disclose the limitations “receiving at least one group of QoS configuration information of a data flow and at least one trigger condition from a core network device, wherein each of the at least one trigger condition corresponds to a respective one of the at least one group of QoS configuration information” and “wherein the trigger condition comprises at least one of: time information; location information; access information; and capability information”, as shown in the rejection below.
Further, the applicant states the same arguments regarding claim 1 apply to independent claims 19 and 20 (see applicant’s remarks; page 10). As such, the arguments are moot for the same reason discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 19 and 20 the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or” and “at least one of”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (U.S. 2023/0095067 A1) in view of Wu et al. (U.S. 2020/0404534 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a Quality of Service (QoS) control method, performed by an access network device (see Peng; paragraph 0049; Peng discloses a network device, such as, a base station), comprising:
determining QoS configuration information corresponding to a trigger condition which meets a state parameter, based on the at least one trigger condition, corresponding to the at least one group of QoS configuration information of the data flow (see Peng; paragraphs 0066, 0070, 0085 and 0094; Peng discloses a base station may select, from a plurality of sets of QoS profiles, i.e. “determining QoS configuration information”, based on a network status, i.e. “based on at the least one trigger condition”, an optimal QoS profile for a QoS flow, i.e. “data flow”, that can meet a current network status, i.e. “which meets a state parameter”. The network status corresponds to the set of QoS profiles, i.e. “at least one trigger condition, each of which corresponds to one group of QoS configuration information”. And The plurality of QoS profiles correspond to one QoS flow. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, the trigger condition includes network information and the state parameter includes current network information; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraphs 0070, 0074, 0096 and 0099); and
performing QoS control on the data flow based on the QoS configuration information (see Peng; paragraphs 0085 and 0146; Peng discloses determining the optimal QoS profile based on the plurality of sets of QoS profiles, i.e. “based on the QoS configuration information”, and performing an adaptive adjustment for the QoS flow, i.e. “performing QoS control on the data flow”. For example, adapting to a current communication environment).
While Peng discloses a network device in a core network (see Peng; paragraph 0050), as well as, a plurality of sets of QoS profiles and sending information on the QoS profiles and selecting a QoS profile to optimize network communication based on network status (see Peng; paragraphs 0139 and 0146), Peng does not explicitly disclose receiving at least one group of QoS configuration information of a data flow and at least one trigger condition from a core network device, wherein each of the at least one trigger condition corresponds to a respective one of the at least one group of QoS configuration information; and wherein the trigger condition comprises at least one of: time information; location information; access information; and capability information.
In analogous art, Wu discloses receiving at least one group of QoS configuration information of a data flow and at least one trigger condition from a core network device (see Wu; paragraphs 0088, 0112 and 0121; Wu discloses if the QoS flow is a guaranteed bit rate, GBR, i.e. “at least one trigger condition”, QoS flow, a QoS parameter may include a 5G QoS indicator, 5QI, i.e. “at least one group of QoS configuration information”, and a notification, e.g. a notification the flow is a GBR. The SMF entity, i.e. “a core network device”, may send to an access network device the QoS parameter which also includes the notification, i.e. “receiving at least one group of QoS configuration information…and at least one trigger condition”. The examiner notes that according to the applicant’s specification, the QoS configuration information includes a 5QI, see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0033), wherein each of the at least one trigger condition corresponds to a respective one of the at least one group of QoS configuration information (see Wu; paragraphs 0088, 0112 and 0121; Wu discloses when the QoS flow is a GBR QoS flow a notification is sent with the 5QI, i.e. “trigger condition corresponds to…the QoS configuration information”); and
wherein the trigger condition comprises at least one of: time information; location information; access information (see Wu; paragraphs 0088 and 0112; Wu discloses determining if the QoS flow is a guaranteed bit rate, GBR, i.e. “access information”, and sending a notification. In other words, the GBR is a state of the network. The examiner notes that as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, GBR defines the minimum data rate a network commits to providing for a specific service or traffic flow. And further, according to the applicant’s specification, access information indicates a state of the network; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraphs 0076 and 0077); and capability information. (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “access information” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peng and Wu because they both disclose features of QoS information, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a QoS parameter as taught by Wu into the system of Peng in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the access network device to establish, delete or bind to a corresponding air interface resource based on the QoS parameter information (see Wu; paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 3, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further, the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses receiving indication information (see Peng; paragraphs 0081, 0094 and 0115; Peng discloses the core network sends, through the base station, indication information. Therefore, the base station receives the indication information);
wherein the indication information is configured to indicate the data flow (see Peng; paragraphs 0081 and 0094; Peng discloses the indication information includes a QoS indication which may be a 5G quality of service flow identifier, i.e. “indicate the data flow”).
Regarding claim 4, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and further, the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses wherein the indication information comprises an identifier of the data flow (see Peng; paragraphs 0081 and 0094; Peng discloses the indication information includes a QoS indication which may be a 5G quality of service flow identifier, i.e. “an identifier of the data flow”), or the indication information comprises a feature of the data flow.
(The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “an identifier of the data flow” alternative).
Regarding claim 5, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further, the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses wherein the QoS configuration information comprises at least one of: a QoS index identifier; a scheduling priority (see Peng; paragraph 0081; Peng discloses the QoS profile, i.e. “QoS configuration information”, is used to perform a scheduling policy, i.e. “scheduling priority”); allocation and retention priority (see Peng; paragraph 0081; Peng discloses the QoS profile, i.e. “QoS configuration information”, may include an allocation and reservation priority); a code rate requirement; a transmission delay requirement (see Peng; paragraph 0081; Peng discloses the QoS profile, i.e. “QoS configuration information”, may include a packet delay budget, i.e. “transmission delay requirement”); and a BER requirement (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “scheduling priority”, “allocation and retention priority”, and “transmission delay requirement” alternatives);
wherein the state parameter comprises at least one of: current time information; current location information of a terminal device to which the data flow belongs; current network information of the terminal device (see Peng; paragraphs 0085 and 0146; Peng discloses a current live network status, i.e. “current network information”); current access information of the terminal device; current load information of the access network device; and current capability information of the terminal device (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “current network information of the terminal device” alternative);
wherein the trigger condition further comprises at least one of: network information (see Peng; paragraphs 0085 and 0146; Peng discloses a current live network status, i.e. “network information”); or load information (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “network information” alternative).
Regarding claim 6, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 6 recites “wherein the current time information is a current time point”. However, claim 5 lists “current time information…” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 6 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “current network information…” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “current time information…” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 7 recites “wherein the current location information of the terminal device is a current cell of the terminal device, or a current tracking area of the terminal device, or a current latitude and longitude of the terminal device”. However, claim 5 lists “current location information…” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “current network information…” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “current location information…” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and further the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses wherein the current network information of the terminal device is PLMN or a network slice of the terminal device (see Peng; paragraph 0080; Peng discloses the QoS flow information may include slicing information, i.e. “a network slice of the terminal device”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “a network slice of the terminal device” alternative).
Regarding claim 9, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 9 recites “wherein the current access information of the terminal device is a network type of a network to which the terminal device accesses, or a frequency adopted by the terminal device.”. However, claim 5 lists “current access information…” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 9 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “current network information…” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “current access information…” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 10 recites “wherein the current load information of the access network device is a current load capacity of the access network device, or a current load occupancy rate of the access network device”. However, claim 5 lists “current load information…” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “current network information…” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “current load information…” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 11 recites “wherein the current capability information of the terminal device is a current load capacity of the terminal device, or a load occupancy rate of the terminal device, or a computing capability of the terminal device, or a service processing capability of the terminal device”. However, claim 5 lists “current capability information…” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 11 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “current network information…” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “current capability information…” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 12 recites “wherein the time information is a time point or a time duration”. However, claim 5 lists “time information” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “network information” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “time information” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 13 recites “wherein the location information is cell information, or tracking area information, or longitude and latitude information”. However, claim 5 lists “location information” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “network information” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “location information” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and further the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses wherein the network information is PLMN information or network slice information (see Peng; paragraph 0080; Peng discloses the QoS flow information may include slicing information, i.e. “network slice information”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “network slice information” alternative).
Regarding claim 15, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 15 recites “wherein the access information is a network type or a frequency”. However, claim 5 lists “access information” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “network information” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “access information” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 15 recites “wherein the load information is a load capacity of the access network device or a load occupancy rate of the access network device”. However, claim 5 lists “load information” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “network information” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “load information” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further, the examiner notes that claim 15 recites “wherein the capability information is a load capacity, a load occupancy rate, a computing capability, or a service processing capability of a terminal device.”. However, claim 5 lists “capability information” as an alternative, and as such, only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in view of the examiner choosing the “network information” alternative from claim 5 instead of the “capability information” alternative, which is not required to be met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, further the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses receiving the state parameter sent by a terminal device (see Peng; paragraphs 0066, 0067 and 0085; Peng discloses receiving a current network status, i.e. “state parameter”, that may be sent by a UE, i.e. “terminal device”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations are similar to the limitations recited in claim 1, Therefore, the same rationale used to reject claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 19 and 20.
Further, Peng discloses the additional limitations of a processor (see Peng; paragraphs 0026 and 0027; Peng disclose the terminal device and network device include a processor); a transceiver connected to the processor (see Peng; paragraphs 0026 and 0027; Peng disclose the terminal device and network device include a transceiver in communication with the processor); a memory for storing an executable program code of the processor (see Peng; paragraphs 0026 and 0027; Peng disclose the terminal device and network device include a memory for storing instructions); wherein the processor is configured to load and execute the executable program code (see Peng; paragraphs 0026 and 0027; Peng discloses the memory is configured to store instructions, and the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory).
Regarding claim 21, Peng and Wu disclose all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, further the combination of Peng and Wu clearly discloses wherein the data flow comprises at least one data packet which is transmitted between the access network device and a terminal device (see Peng; paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0064; Peng discloses communication, e.g. QoS flows, between a device, such as an access terminal, i.e. “terminal device”, and an access network. The QoS flows includes data flows or data packets, i.e. “data flow comprises at least one data packet”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (U.S. 2022/0256407 A1) discloses an AF provides information on the packet flow to the PCF responsible for policy control in order to support Quality of Service (QoS).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 05/07/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
