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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 11/30/23 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis, US 2021/0410010, (“Salkintzis”), in view of More et al., US 2021/0160954, (“More”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Salkintzis teaches “A method for using Wi-Fi as backup for a CBRS private 5G network, the method comprising:
using Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) to map a first portion of traffic between User Equipment (UE) to a 3GPP 5G access, and to map a second portion of traffic between UE to a non-3GPP Wi-Fi access (Fig. 1; paragraph no. 0038, “the remote units 105 communicate with a remote host 155 via a network connection with the mobile core network 140. For example, a remote unit 105 may establish a PDU session (or other data connection) with the mobile core network 140 using a 3GPP access network 120 and/or a non-3GPP access network 130”; paragraph no. 0050, “To steer traffic on a multi-access data connection, a remote unit 105 is configured, e.g., by the mobile core network 140, with a set of traffic steering rules, forming a steering policy 110 for the multi-access data connection. In one embodiment, the steering policy 110 (also referred to as an Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (“ATSSS”) policy) is received during establishment of the multi-access data connection, for example in a PDU establishment accept message”; see also, paragraph no. 0062 which discloses that, e.g., 30% of traffic is via 3GPP access and 70% of traffic is via non-3GPP access (i.e., WiFi); see also, paragraph no. 0036 which discloses that the 3GPP access is via a 5G system);
creating a Multi-Access Protocol Data Unit (MA-PDU) session using ATSSS between the UE and a User Plane Function (UPF) through the 3GPP 5G access and between the UE and the UPF through the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access (see Fig. 1 and paragraph no. 0050, “To steer traffic on a multi-access data connection, a remote unit 105 is configured, e.g., by the mobile core network 140, with a set of traffic steering rules, forming a steering policy 110 for the multi-access data connection. In one embodiment, the steering policy 110 (also referred to as an Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (“ATSSS”) policy) is received during establishment of the multi-access data connection”; Fig. 1 clearly shows the UPF(s) in the mobile core network 140 which receives/sends traffic from/to Non-3GPP Access Network 130 and 3GPP Access Network 120; see also, paragraph no. 0081 which discloses that the UE establishes a Multi-Access PDU session);
implementing ATSSS load balancing between the 3GPP 5G access and the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access to control traffic congestion (paragraph no. 0062, “In a first example, if the operator has deployed a video streaming server at address 10.10.0.2, then the streaming traffic between the UE and this server could be load-balanced across 3GPP and non-3GPP access with the following ATSSS rule: (ATSSS rule (priority x): [Traffic filter: UDP traffic to IP address 10.10.0.2; Steering mode: Load-balanced steering; 3GPP access: 30%, non-3GPP access: 70%])”); and
initiating one of a plurality of ATSSS steering modes to define a primary access network and a backup access network, wherein in response to the primary access network becoming unavailable, traffic automatically switches to the backup access network to maintain operation, and wherein in response to the primary access network becoming available again, the traffic maps back to the primary access network (paragraph no. 0061, “The first ATSSS rule steers the traffic of App-X to 3GPP access, if available; if not available, it steers the traffic to non-3GPP access”; paragraph no. 0093, “For the “Active-Standby” steering strategy (second steering mode 530), all traffic of the MA-PDU session 505 is sent to one access only, which is called the “active” access. The other access serves as a “standby” access and takes traffic (e.g., all the traffic) only when the active access becomes unavailable. When the active access becomes available again, all traffic is transferred to the active access”),
wherein the primary access network is one of the 3GPP 5G access and the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access, and the backup access network is the other of the 3GPP 5G access and the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access” (paragraph no. 0061, “The first ATSSS rule steers the traffic of App-X to 3GPP access, if available; if not available, it steers the traffic to non-3GPP access”; the claimed “primary access network” reads on the, e.g., 3GPP access, and the ”backup access network” reads on the, e.g., non-3GPP access).
While Salkintzis discloses that the 3GPP Network Access 120 is 5G, it does not disclose that the 5G system is a Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) as required by claim 1. However, 5G CBRS is well known, infra.
More discloses a 3GPP local private network such as a CBRS 5G network in an enterprise environment, see paragraph no. 0017.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Salkintzis by incorporating a 5G CBRS network as taught by More to implement a 5G local private CBRS Enterprise network, as suggested by More in paragraph no. 0017. In addition, the modification would enable the use of the known 5G CBRS frequency range defined by the 3GPP CBRS system.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, these independent claims are corresponding apparatus and computer readable medium claims of the method claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 8, see Salkintzis, Fig. 3, for the claimed structural elements of the claim. Note that the claimed structural elements (i.e., the memory and processor) may also read on the mobile core network (e.g., the AMP 145, see Fig. 4, step 415 which sends ATSSS rules) which inherently includes a memory and processor.
Regarding further independent claim 15, see Salkintzis, Fig. 3, for the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Note that the claimed non-transitory computer readable storage medium may also read on an inherent memory residing in the mobile core network (e.g., the AMP 145, see Fig. 4, step 415 which sends ATSSS rules).
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Salkintzis teaches “wherein ATSSS steering mode is used to load balance for traffic for congestion control between the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access” (paragraph no. 0062, “In a first example, if the operator has deployed a video streaming server at address 10.10.0.2, then the streaming traffic between the UE and this server could be load-balanced across 3GPP and non-3GPP access with the following ATSSS rule: (ATSSS rule (priority x): [Traffic filter: UDP traffic to IP address 10.10.0.2; Steering mode: Load-balanced steering; 3GPP access: 30%, non-3GPP access: 70%])”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Salkintzis teaches “wherein the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access connects via a Non-3GPP InterWorking Function (N3IWF) that acts as a secure gateway with support for N2 and N3 interfaces” (see Fig. 1 and paragraph no. 0042).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Salkintzis teaches “wherein the primary access network is one of the 3GPP CBRS 5G access and the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access, and the backup access network is the other of the 3GPP CBRS 5G access and the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access” (paragraph no. 0061, “The first ATSSS rule steers the traffic of App-X to 3GPP access, if available; if not available, it steers the traffic to non-3GPP access”; the claimed “primary access network” reads on the, e.g., 3GPP access, and the ”backup access network” reads on the, e.g., non-3GPP access).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and More as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 above, and further in view of Smyth et al., US 2019/0280763, (“Smyth”), Moreno et al., US 2023/0171662, (“Moreno”), and Zhao et al., US 2019/0068587, (“Zhao”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Salkintzis does not teach “wherein traffic for Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC) and Internet of Things (IoT) is mapped to 3GPP CBRS 5G access, and wherein the traffic for voice communications and Short Message Service (SMS) is mapped to non-3GPP access.”
Smyth teaches “wherein traffic for Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC) is mapped to 3GPP CBRS 5G access” (see paragraph nos. 0493, 0511). Moreno teaches “wherein traffic for Internet of Things (IoT) is mapped to 3GPP CBRS 5G access” (see paragraph no. 0020).
Zhao teaches “wherein the traffic for voice communications and Short Message Service (SMS) is mapped to non-3GPP access” (see paragraph no. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Salkintzis and More by incorporating the teachings of Smyth, Moreno, and Zhao to enable the 5G CBRS network to support URLLC and IoT communications and to enable the WiFi network to support voice and SMS communications, thereby efficiently allowing different type of data to be transmitted between the UE and the 3GPP access network and/or the non-3GPP access network.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and More as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 above, and further in view of Amend, US 2025/0112870, (“Amend”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Salkintzis and More teach “wherein the MA-PDU session is created using ATSSS between a UPF and UE through the 3GPP CBRS 5G access and the non-3GPP Wi-Fi access” (see Fig. 1) but not “with a Multipath Transmission Control Protocol (MP-TCP), a Multipath Quick User Datagram Protocol (MP-QUIC), or Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting lower layer (ATSSS-LL) functionalities” as required by claims 3, 10, and 17.
Amend teaches that a reordering mode is based on an ATSSS steering function, e.g., ATSSS-LL, MPTCP, or MP-QUIC, see paragraph no. 0023.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Salkintzis and More by incorporating the teachings of Amend to enable the network to use any one of these known protocols to take advantage of their known benefits such as, e.g., in the case of MP-QUIC, to achieve increased throughput.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Salkintzis teaches “wherein the plurality of ATSSS steering modes include active-standby and priority based” (see paragraph no. 0052).
Salkintzis does not teach but Amend teaches the “smallest delay” ATSSS steering mode, see paragraph no. 0023.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Salkintzis and More by incorporating the teachings of Amend to reduce the latency of transmitted data, as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis and More as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salkintzis, US 2025/0202801, (“Lenovo”), and Morin et al., US 2020/0007449, (“Morin”).
Regarding claim 4, Salkintzis does not teach but Lenovo teaches “wherein Multipath QUIC multiplexes application streams on a single UDP flow” (see paragraph nos. 0114 and 0117) and Morin teaches “MP-TCP splits a single stream on multiple TCP subflows” (see paragraph no. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Salkintzis and More by incorporating the teachings of Lenovo and Morin to enable the network to efficiently transmit data, via Multipath QUIC and MP-TCP protocols, as is known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414