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 .
1. Claims 7, 10-15, 18-21, 24-25 and 27-33 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 26 have been cancelled.
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.
2. Claim(s) 7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 21, 23-24, 27, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si, WO 2010111953 A1, in view of He, US 2007/0280430 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Si teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a network node, an indication for a service type (i.e., Si, page 2 4th paragraph from bottom up and page 6, discloses the service type may be identified. Si, in page 2, also discloses the IP packet identifies the service type), wherein the service type is one of: a voice service, a data service, a video service, a messaging service, an over-the-top (OTT) media service, an Internet of Things (IoT) service, or a satellite service (i.e., the service type… may be identified as a video broadcast service, page 2 4th paragraph from bottom up and page 5 3rd paragraph); and
performing, by the network node, a quality of service (QoS) decision for the service type (i.e., according to the identified service type, the QoS can by dynamically adjusted, page 3 2nd paragraph)
Si does not explicitly teach receiving indication comprising a unique identifier for a combination of a service identifier and a service type; and performing QoS decision for a session associated the unique identifier, wherein the service identifier is one of a multimedia priority service (MPS) identifier, a government emergency telecommunications service (GETS) identifier, an emergency service identifier, a mission critical service (MCS) identifier, a national security or emergency preparedness (NS/EP) service identifier, or an enterprise service identifier.
He teaches a method for handling an emergency service in network communication (seen in abstract). He teaches receiving indication comprising a unique identifier for a combination of a service identifier and a service type (i.e., sending an emergency service identifier together with the emergency (type) service to a network side, page 1 paragraph [0014]); and performing QoS decision for a session associated the unique identifier (i.e., determine whether the current session is an emergency service …through a service analysis or a number analysis…upon determination of an emergency service, the AF element may request ..for a QoS resource, pages 2-3 paragraph [0042]), wherein the service identifier is one of a multimedia priority service (MPS) identifier, a government emergency telecommunications service (GETS) identifier, an emergency service identifier, a mission critical service (MCS) identifier, a national security or emergency preparedness (NS/EP) service identifier, or an enterprise service identifier (i.e., the received service is an emergency service in accordance with the emergency service identifier, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to receive indication comprising a unique identifier for a combination of a service identifier and a service type; and perform QoS decision for a session associated the unique identifier, wherein the service identifier is one of a multimedia priority service (MPS) identifier, a government emergency telecommunications service (GETS) identifier, an emergency service identifier, a mission critical service (MCS) identifier, a national security or emergency preparedness (NS/EP) service identifier, or an enterprise service identifier, as taught by He. One would be motivated to do so to enable an emergency service on the network to be handled reliably (i.e., He, page 2 paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Si teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the indication is received from an Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem (IMS) entity (i.e., IP phone, page 5 3rd paragraph).
Regarding clam 12, Si teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the IMS entity is a telephony application service (TAS) (i.e., page 4 last paragraph).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, those claims recite a network node for performing method claims 7-9 and 12, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 21 and 24, those claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instruction, when executed by one or more processors of a network node, cause the network node to perform method claims 7 and 9-10, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
In addition, Si teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a network node (i.e., page 6).
Regarding claim 27, Si teaches the method of claim 7.
Si does not explicitly teach wherein the unique identifier distinguishes the combination of the service identifier and the service type from different combinations of service identifiers and service types, enabling the network node to apply separate QoS parameters for the combination of the service identifier and the service type and the different combinations of service identifiers and service types.
He teaches wherein the unique identifier distinguishes the combination of the service identifier and the service type from different combinations of service identifiers and service types, enabling the network node to apply separate QoS parameters for the combination of the service identifier and the service type and the different combinations of service identifiers and service types (i.e., He, in pages 2-3 paragraphs [0041]-[0042], disclose an emergency service may be identified among numerous services…carrying an emergency service identifier. He, in page 3 paragraph [0043], discloses indication of a service level type to be extended…so that an emergency service identifier may be carried and transported to the PDF/BCF element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to comprise unique identifier distinguishes the combination of the service identifier and the service type from different combinations of service identifiers and service types, as taught by He. One would be motivated to do so to enable an emergency service on the network to be handled reliably (i.e., He, page 2 paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 32, Si teaches the network node of claim 15.
Si does not explicitly teach wherein the unique identifier is based on a selection prefix or dial string associated with the service identifier.
He teaches wherein the unique identifier is based on a selection prefix or dial string associated with the service identifier (i.e., service number information, page 2 paragraphs [0017]- [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to implement the unique identifier based on a selection prefix or dial string associated with the service identifier, as taught by He. One would be motivated to do so to enable an emergency service on the network to be handled reliably (i.e., He, page 2 paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 33, Si teaches the network node of claim 32.
Si does not explicitly teach wherein the selection prefix or dial string is received from a home subscriber service, unified data management (UDM), or unified data repository (UDR) and used by an Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem entity to identify a particular service.
He teaches Regarding claim 33, Si teaches the network node of claim 32, wherein the selection prefix or dial string is received from a home subscriber service, unified data management (UDM), or unified data repository (UDR) (i.e., sending, by an emergency service initiating site, an emergency service identifier (110/string (police call), 120 ( ambulance call)) together with the emergency service to a network side, page 1 paragraph [1100] and [0014]), and used by an Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem entity to identify a particular service (i.e., allocating, by the network side, resource to a receive service firstly when determining that the received service is an emergency service in accordance with the emergency service identifier, page 1 paragraph {0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to receive the selection prefix or dial string from a home subscriber service, unified data management (UDM), or unified data repository (UDR) and used by an Internet Protocol multimedia subsystem entity to identify a particular service, as taught by He. One would be motivated to do so to enable an emergency service on the network to be handled reliably (i.e., He, page 2 paragraph [0036]).
3. Claim(s) 11, 14, 18, 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si, in view of He as applied to claims 7, 15 and /or 21 above, and further in view of Xu, CN 116250360 A.
Regarding claim 11, Si teaches the method of claim 10.
The combination of teachings of Si and He does not explicitly teach wherein the IMS entity is a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF), an interrogating call session control function (I-CSCF), or a serving call session control function (S- CSCF).
Xu teaches wherein the IMS entity is a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF), an interrogating call session control function (I-CSCF), or a serving call session control function (S- CSCF) (i.e., an IP Multimedia System (IMS) is required to trigger the establishment of a Quality of Service (QoS) stream to the core network…the P-CSCF of the IMS triggers the establishment of the QoS flow of the voice service to the Policy Control Function (PCF) of the respective Policy Control Function (PCF), page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Si and He to include a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF), an interrogating call session control function (I-CSCF), or a serving call session control function (S- CSCF), as taught by Xu. One would be motivated to do so to satisfy requirement of the service.
Regarding claim 14, Si teaches the method of claim 7.
The combination of teachings of Si and He does not explicitly teach wherein the network node is a policy control function (PCF) or a session management function (SMF) in a Fifth Generation (5G) wireless network.
Xu teaches wherein the network node is a policy control function (PCF) or a session management function (SMF) in a Fifth Generation (5G) wireless network (i.e., page 5, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Si and He to implement the network node as a policy control function (PCF) or a session management function (SMF) in a Fifth Generation (5G) wireless network, as taught by Xu because it was conventionally employed in the art for enabling efficient policy control and management.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, those claims recite limitations that are similar to claims 11 and 14, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 25, this claim recites limitation that similar to claim 11, same rationale of rejections is applied.
4. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si, in view of He as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Foti et al. (hereafter, “Foti”), US 2021/0084524 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Si teaches the method of claim 7.
The combination of teachings of Si and He does not explicitly teach wherein the network node is a policy and charging rules function (PCRF) in a Fourth Generation (4G) wireless network.
Foti teaches the network node is a policy and charging rules function (PCRF) in a Fourth Generation (4G) wireless network (i.e., page 8 paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Si and He to implement the network node as a policy and charging rules function (PCRF) in a Fourth Generation (4G) wireless network, as taught by Foti because it was conventionally employed in the art for defining quality policy rules and ensuring the competent application of real-time charging for user data.
5. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si, in view of He as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Aghadavoodi Jolfaei et al., (hereafter, “Aghadavoodi Jolfaei”), US 2023/0396687 A1.
Regarding claim 28, Si teaches the method of claim 7.
The combination of teachings of Si and He does not explicitly teach wherein the indication comprises an attribute value pair (AVP) value that is assigned uniquely for each combination of service identifier and service type.
Aghadavoodi Jolfaei teaches an attribute value pair (AVP) value that is assigned uniquely for each combination of service identifier and service type (i.e., a combination of the service type data and the service identification data is stored as a key-value pair, page 2 paragraph [00022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Si and He to comprise an attribute value pair (AVP) value that is assigned uniquely for each combination of service identifier and service type, as taught by Aghadavoodi Jolfaei, in order to enable efficient retrieval of information.
6. Claim(s) 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si, in view of He as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Chun, WO 2019139315 A1.
Regarding claim 29, Si teaches the method of claim 7.
Si does not explicitly teach wherein the unique identifier is unique identifier for an MPS text service or an MPS video service.
He teaches the unique identifier is for a service (i.e., determine…service…through a service identifier, page 2 paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to implement the unique identifier for a service, as taught by He. One would be motivated to do so to allow numerous services to be identified.
Chun teaches a service is an MPS text service or an MPS video service (i.e., Access identifier number configuration 1…is set up for MPS (Multimedia Priority Service, page 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to incorporate MPS service, as taught by Chun, into Si’s system. One would be motivated to do so to enable emergency preparedness subscribers to make priority call.
Regarding claim 31, Si teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the QoS decision is based on an MPS subscription defined in a home subscriber service (HSS), unified data management (UDM), or unified data repository (UDR) (i.e., according to the operator’s policy, the identified service type is combined with the user’s subscription information…to determine other information related to the service type such as priority…Send information related to the service type to the device that can perform QoS control, page 5 lines 6-19).
7. Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si, in view of He as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Luka et al. (herein, “Luka”), “Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)-Based Alternate Carrier Routing “ACR” for NS/EP Telecommunications.”
Regarding claim 30, Si teaches the method of claim 7.
Si does not explicitly teach wherein the unique identifier is for a GETS voice service.
He teaches the unique identifier is for a service (i.e., determine…service…through a service identifier, page 2 paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Si to implement the unique identifier for a service, as taught by He. One would be motivated to do so to allow numerous services to be identified.
Luka teaches the service is GETs voice service (i.e., Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS), page 502). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Si to implement the GETs voice service as taught by Luka, in order to provide communication service during periods of national emergency.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) the applied references do not disclose or suggest “receiving, by a network node, an indication comprising a unique identifier for a combination of a service identifier and a service type, wherein the service identifier is one of: a multimedia priority service (MPS) identifier, a government emergency telecommunications service (GETS) identifier, an emergency service identifier, a mission critical service (MCS) identifier, a national security or emergency preparedness (NS/EP) service identifier, or an enterprise service identifier, and wherein the service type is one of: a voice service, a data service, a video service, a messaging service, an over-the-top (OTT) media service, an Internet of Things (IoT) service, or a satellite service; and performing, by the network node, a quality of service (QoS) decision for a session associated with the unique identifier” as recited in claim(s) 7, 15, and 21.
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully submits that Si and He teach do teach limitations of claims 7, 15, and 2 (see rejections above).
Please note: Applicant should submit an argument pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi-flex Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-74934170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights