DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/544,127 filed on 12/18/2023. The amendment presented on 3/16/2026, which amends claims 4 and 11-13, amends claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 16, and adds new claims 21-24, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 14-24 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The amendment to the Title "DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPRATUS FOR QoS GURANTEEN” has been considered and is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 14-24 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 because the amended limitation excluding the data flow requires new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 14, 18, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘910)(US 2016/0294910).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Jeong teaches as follows:
An apparatus (interpreted as the computer system 1500 in figure 15 and system 900 in figure 9) of data transmission, comprising:
a processor (1504 in figure 15), configured to determine a first object to which a to-be-transmitted packet belongs, the first object comprising a frame (Classifier 902 stores an incoming packet in a respective queue 904 based on the DSCP field in the packet that indicates the type of video frame in the packet. For example, classifier 902 stores packets marked with an “x” in streaming video queue 904-2, packets marked with a “y” in streaming video queue 904-3, and packets marked with a “z” in streaming video queue 904-4, see, ¶ [0063] and figure 9); and
a transceiver (interpreted as the communication interface 1524 in figure 15), configured to transmit the packet based on QoS parameters for the first object (each queue 904-2-4 is configured according to the QoS parameters specific to the type of frame that they are storing… Scheduler 906 and shaper 908 determine which packets to select for transmission based on the minimum, maximum, and average bitrate associated with a queue 904, see, ¶ [0063] and figure 9),
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the first object to which the packet belongs according to an identifier for the packet, wherein packets belonging to a same first object have a same identifier. (packets are received with markers identifying whether the packets include I, P, or B frames. For example, a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) field in each of the received packets indicates whether a packet includes an I, P, or B frame, see, ¶ [0069])(Classifier 902 stores an incoming packet in a respective queue 904 based on the DSCP field in the packet that indicates the type of video frame in the packet. For example, classifier 902 stores packets marked with an “x” in streaming video queue 904-2, packets marked with a “y” in streaming video queue 904-3, and packets marked with a “z” in streaming video queue 904-4, see, ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Li ‘910 teaches as follows:
Wherein the identifier is carried in the packet (Classifier 902 stores an incoming packet in a respective queue 904 based on the DSCP field in the packet that indicates the type of video frame in the packet, see, ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Li ‘910 teaches as follows:
Wherein the QoS parameters is sent to the access network device or the terminal device together with other QoS parameters, wherein the other QoS parameters comprise a bit rate (the QoS parameters may be minimum, average, and maximum bitrate for each queue, see, ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘910 teaches as follows:
Wherein the identifier is carried in the packet (Classifier 902 stores an incoming packet in a respective queue 904 based on the DSCP field in the packet that indicates the type of video frame in the packet, see, ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 24, Li ‘910 teaches as follows:
Wherein the identifier is carried in a header of the packet (a DSCP field in the header of each packet that has an I frame with a different marker, see, ¶ [0073] and figure 12).
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.
Claims 2, 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘910)(US 2016/0294910) in view of Hande et al. (hereinafter Hande)(US 2020/0389813).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Li ‘910 teaches all limitations as presented above except for claimed specific QoS parameters.
Hande teaches as follows:
The traffic requirements for a service may be summarized via a set of target metrics (e.g., QoS parameters) and associated with the traffic flow that supports that service. The parameters may include a file error rate (FER) or a packet error rate (PER), a file delay budget (FDB) or a packet delay budget (PDB), and/or a guaranteed bit rate (GBR)(see, ¶ [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 with Hande to include the well-known QoS parameters as taught by Hande in order to efficiently monitor transmission resource.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Li ‘910 teaches all limitations as presented above except for the core network device.
Hande teaches as follows:
The core network (CN) 200 may host core network functions. As shown in FIG. 2, the example CN 200 may be implemented by one or more network entities that perform network functions (NF) including network slice selection function (NSSF) 204, network exposure function (NEF) 206, NF repository function (NRF) 208, policy control function (PCF) 210, unified data management (UDM) 212, application function (AF) 214, authentication server function (AUSF) 216, access and mobility management function (AMF) 218, session management function (SMF) 220; user plane function (UPF) 226, and various other functions (not shown) such as unstructured data storage function (UDSF); unified data repository (UDR); 5G-equipment identity register (5G-EIR); and/or security edge protection proxy (SEPP)(see, ¶ [0042] and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 with Hande to include the well-known core network as taught by Hande in order to efficiently communicate with a wireless communication network.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (hereinafter Jeong)(US 2020/0322845) in view of You et al. (hereinafter You)(US 2021/0176610).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Li ‘910 teaches all limitations as presented above except for the QoS flow.
You teaches as follows:
The quality of service flow identifier (QFI) is used to identify a QoS flow. The QoS flow may be a fine-grained QoS differentiation mechanism. One QoS flow represents one type of flow having a same QoS parameter (see, ¶ [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 with You to include the well-known QoS flow as taught by You in order to efficiently apply the same QoS parameter for each data flow (traffic or service flow).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘910)(US 2016/0294910) in view of Gobriel et al. (hereinafter Gobriel)(US 2018/0083866).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Li ‘910 does not teach of adding a label to the packet.
Gobriel teaches as follows:
The flow ID is added to a packet header field for packets that are received without an explicit flow ID, or, alternatively, a flow ID tag (equivalent to applicant’s label) is attached to or the packet is encapsulated in a “wrapper” that includes a field for the flow ID (see, ¶ [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 with Gobriel to include adding a flow ID tag to a packet header field as taught by Gobriel in order to efficiently identify the flow ID for each packet belonging to.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘910)(US 2016/0294910) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘522)(US 2024/0171522).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Li ‘910 teaches all limitations as presented above except for allocating transmission resource based on the association information from a terminal device.
Li ‘522 teaches as follows:
In step S801, the UE generates association information for a first data transmission. In step S802, the UE (equivalent to applicant’s terminal device) sends the association information together with QoS parameters of a QoS flow carrying the first data transmission to gNB (equivalent to applicant’s access network device). In step S803, gNB allocates resources for the UE based on the association information (see, ¶ [0189] and figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 with Li ‘522 to include UE sending the association information to gNB as taught by Li ‘522 in order for gNB to efficiently allocate resources based on the association information from UE.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘910)(US 2016/0294910).
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘910 teaches as follows:
A method of data transmission comprising:
in a first situation, performing transmission processing on a packet belonging to a first object by using a transmission processing mechanism corresponding to the first situation, wherein the first object comprises a frame (each queue 904-2-4 is configured according to the QoS parameters specific to the type of frame that they are storing… Scheduler 906 and shaper 908 determine which packets to select for transmission based on the minimum, maximum, and average bitrate associated with a queue 904, see, ¶ [0063] and figure 9),
wherein the first situation comprises:
existence of a packet which is unable to be transmitted or successfully transmitted within the QoS requirements corresponding to the first object (Classifier 900 determines which queue 904 to send an incoming packet (equivalent to applicant’s successfully transmitted) to and which incoming packets to drop (equivalent to applicant’s unable to be transmitted). Scheduler 906 determines a sequence in which packets are transmitted from queues 904. Shaper 908 determines a rate at which packets are transmitted from queues 904, see, ¶ [0062] and figure 9),
wherein performing the transmission processing on the packet belonging to the first object by using the transmission processing mechanism corresponding to the first situation comprises:
deleting (interpreted as the dropping) all packets of the first object, or stopping transmission of the packet belonging to the first object (the mark probability can be set lower for streaming video queue 904-2 than for streaming video queue 904-3 and streaming video queue 904-4. This allows different frame types to have different drop thresholds during congestion, with I frames having least probability of being dropped, and P and B frames having a higher probability of being dropped. In an example, P frames have a lower probability of being dropped than B frames, see, ¶ [0064]).
Li ‘910 further teaches as follows:
System 900 for packet classification, queuing, dropping, and scheduling according to an embodiment of the disclosure. System may be part of each of Ethernet switch, source edge router, destination edge router, and CMTS (see, ¶ [0062] and figure 9).
Li ‘910 does not explicitly teach performed by an access network or a terminal device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 to include the well-known base station or terminal device in order to efficiently perform the data transmission by the frame type based QoS parameters.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter Li ‘910)(US 2016/0294910) in view of Abraham et al. (hereinafter Abraham)(US 2020/0068528).
Regarding claim 22, Li ‘910 teaches all limitations as presented above except for the serial number of frame used as the identifier.
Abraham teaches as follows:
Multicast UPF 510 may transmit an indication of sequence numbers to be used for mapping frames to sequence numbers. Base stations 105-d and 105-e may receive the indication of the sequence numbers (equivalent to applicant’s serial number) and utilize the UPF-provided sequence numbers when multicasting frames to the UEs 115 served by each base station 105 (see, ¶ [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li ‘910 with Abraham to include using sequence numbers as taught by Abraham in order to efficiently identify large number of different frames.
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘910 teaches all limitations as presented above except for the frame identifier is transmitted by the UPF.
Abraham teaches as follows:
Multicast UPF 510 may transmit an indication of sequence numbers to be used for mapping frames to sequence numbers. Base stations 105-d and 105-e may receive the indication of the sequence numbers and utilize the UPF-provided sequence numbers when multicasting frames to the UEs 115 served by each base station 105 (see, ¶ [0130]).
Therefore, it is rejected for similar reason as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
May 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights