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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 7, 9-15, 17-21, 23-25 and 27-30 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-6, 8, 16, 22 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.
3. Claim(s) 7, 9-10, 12, 15,17, 19, 21, 23-24 and 27 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 of one or more of a service identifier or a service type (i.e., the service type may be identified, page 2 4th paragraph from bottom up and page 6); and
performing, by the network node, a quality of service (QoS) decision based on one or more of the service identifier or 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 of a service identifier; and performing QoS decision based on the service 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 a network communication (seen in abstract). He teaches receiving indication of a service identifier (i.e., sending an emergency service identifier together with the emergency service to a network side, page 1 paragraph [0014]); and performing QoS decision based on the service identifier (i.e., determine whether the current session is an emergency service …through a service identifier…upon determination of an emergency service, 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 of a service identifier and perform QoS decision based on the service 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 in the network to be handled reliably (i.e., He, page 2 paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Si teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the service type indicates 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 associated with a non-terrestrial telecommunication network (i.e., the identified services may include one or more of video, webpage access, email, IP phone, and instant message, page 5 3rd paragraph).
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, 17 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 23-24, those claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instruction, when executed by one or more processor 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 instruction, when executed by one or more processor 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 indication comprise unique identifier that 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 indication comprise unique identifier that 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 that 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 in the network to be handled reliably (i.e., He, page 2 paragraph [0036]).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 27.
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 of 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.
7. Claim(s) 29 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 27.
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 to teachings of Si to incorporate MPS service, as taught by Chun, into Si’s system. One would be motivated to do to enable emergency preparedness subscribers to make priority call.
8. 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 27 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 27.
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
9. Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that
(A) Prior art does not 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 to point (A), He does disclose 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., an emergency service identifier, page 2 paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
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 6:00am-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) 272-41704170. 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