DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2025-11-24 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-11, 21-29 are pending for consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Election to Group I, claims 1-11 and 21 without traverse is acknowledged. Applicant has canceled claims directed to the non-elected invention. New claims 22-29 were reviewed and determined to correspond to Group 1’s invention.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 22, 25, 27
“the performance measurement function message”
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 25, 26
“the target QoS flow”
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 26, 28
“the first performance parameter”
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN_861 (US20220182861) in view of ZHOU_368 (US20230189368)
Claim(s) 1, 11, 21
YOUN_861 teaches
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: <FIG(s). 20, 23; para. 0470-0478>.
send a request message containing a first capability indicating that the UE supports measurements per quality of service (QoS) flow; UE sends a PDU session establishment request message to establish a Multi Access (MA) Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session. <FIG(s). 10; para. 0171-0172, 0442>.
receive a response message containing a first indicator, wherein the first indicator is received in response to the request message, wherein the response message establishes a multi-access data connection for communication over a first access network and a second access network, and In response to the PDU session establishment request message, establishing the MA PDU session includes sending, to a UE, a PDU session establishment accept message that includes Measurement Assistance Information (MAI). MAI indicates the QoS flow for measurement to the UE and the UPF. In one embodiment, the QoS flow is indicated by way of a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) for measurement. MA PDU session can be over two networks such as a 3GPP and non-3GPP network (N3IWF) <FIG(s). 1, 8A, 10; para. 0013-0016, 0075, 0304-0308, 0318-0319, 0377-0380, 0415, 0448>.
wherein the multi-access data connection supports a plurality of QoS flows including a default QoS flow; and MA PDU session includes a default QoS flow according to a default rule. <FIG(s). 10; para. 0303, 0308, 0375-0377, 0418-0419>.
send a message for performance measurement for a first service data flow, wherein the first service data flow is associated with a QoS flow from the plurality of QoS flows, wherein the performance measurement is on the QoS flow in response to the first indicator containing a first value, and MAI indicates the QoS flow for measurement to the UE and the UPF. In one embodiment, the QoS flow is indicated by way of a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) for measurement and/or PMF address information for each QoS flow. UE performs PMF for QoS flows with UPF in accordance with MAI, including sending measurements <FIG(s). 15; para. 0075, 0304-0308, 0318-0319, 0336-0337, 0400-0407, 0415>.
wherein the performance measurement is on the default QoS flow in response to the first indicator containing a second value. If a measurement report is performed only for a default QoS flow (i.e., a QoS flow related to a default QoS rule), the SMF may include only the QFI for the default QoS flow or may not provide information on the QoS flow at all. Accordingly, the MAI would include a QFI corresponding to the default QoS flow. <para. 0308>.
YOUN_861 does not explicitly teach
send a request message containing a first capability indicating that the UE supports measurements per quality of service (QoS) flow;
However in a similar endeavor, ZHOU_368 teaches
send a request message containing a first capability indicating that the UE supports measurements per quality of service (QoS) flow; UE sends the PDU session establishment request including an indication that the UE is able to perform RTT measurement per QoS flow with enhanced PMFP <FIG(s). 11; para. 0099>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by YOUN_861 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by ZHOU_368. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enabling Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting functionality at lower layers and allowing accurate measurements of Round-Trip Time for all traffic on a session. <para. 0004>.
Claim(s) 2, 22
The independent claims require:
receive a response message containing a first indicator
Consequently, the response message must contain the first indicator. Claims 2, 22 recite:
wherein the performance measurement function message is transmitted on the default QoS flow of the multi-access data connection if the first indicator is not present in the response message.
Since the independent claims always require that the first indicator is present in the response message, the if condition of the wherein clause of claims 2, 22 will never trigger and therefore is given no patentable weight. Consequently claims 2, 22 are rejected for the same reasons given as the independent claims.
Claim(s) 4, 24
YOUN_861 teaches
wherein the response message is a protocol data unit session establishment accept message containing measurement assistance information and the first indicator is part of the measurement assistance information. In response to the PDU session establishment request message, establishing the MA PDU session includes sending, to a UE, a PDU session establishment accept message that includes Measurement Assistance Information (MAI). MAI indicates the QoS flow for measurement to the UE and the UPF. In one embodiment, the QoS flow is indicated by way of a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI) for measurement. <FIG(s). 10; para. 0075, 0304-0308, 0318-0319, 0415>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN_861 (US20220182861) in view of ZHOU_368 (US20230189368), and further view of LY_381 (US20240397381)
Claim(s) 3, 23
YOUN_861 teaches
wherein the request message is a protocol data unit session establishment request message containing a multi-access protocol data unit indication and UE sends a PDU session establishment request message to establish a Multi Access (MA) Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session. <FIG(s). 10; para. 0171-0172, 0442>.
YOUN_861 does not explicitly teach
a first capability in a fifth generation session management capability element.
However in a similar endeavor, LY_381 teaches
a first capability in a fifth generation session management capability element. Request may take the form of a MA PDU session establishment including indication to assist in traffic steering. For example, indications may be made using an enhanced 5G session management capability information clement and/or management cause information element. <para. 0120-0129>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by YOUN_861 and ZHOU_368 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LY_381. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to dynamically adapt the steering of traffic over both 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses for uplink, downlink, or both. <para. 0012>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 9, 29
The claim(s) is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Closest art is LY - US20230413114 which teaches the UE is not required to perform per QoS flow measurement unless the UE has traffic on the QFI. But “not required” is not the same as the claimed “UE must not perform access measurements per QoS flow.”
YOUN - US20240015562 teaches “the terminal may determine that per QoS flow measurement is not required. When the terminal receives a PMF message for a QoS flow that determines that per QoS flow measurement is not required, while transmitting a response to this, the UE may perform an operation notifying that measurement of the corresponding QoS flow is not required.’ But “not required” is not the same as the claimed “UE must not perform access measurements per QoS flow.”
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Examiner’s Notes
Some rejections presented herein may or may not include prior art rejections. In the case where the only substantive rejections are U.S.C. 112 rejections, this is not an implication that the case is allowable if said rejections are overcome by amendments that change the scope of the claim (by a practical matter amendment will need to change the scope to address the rejections).
More particularly, the amendments made in the Reply made significant changes to independent claims 1, 11. However, these changes were not compensated for in dependent claims 2-10, as apparent that claims 2-10 were not amended at all. New dependent claims 22-29 under independent claim 11 appear to be near-identical copies (copy and pasted) of claims 2-10, where no compensation was made to account for the changes in claim 11. Consequently, many dependent claims refer to multiple elements and actions that no longer exist in the independent claims, triggering indefinite rejections and making the claims unclear for prior examination against prior art.
To expedite prosecution, the Examiner has performed a prior art search on subject matter corresponding to anticipated amendments likely to be made in the next response to overcome the U.S.C. 112 rejections. The Examiner has included the results of said prior art search, if any, with this action and encourages the applicant to review the references.
Relevant Cited References
LY - US20230413114
LY - US63108957 (11-03-20) Provisional Application
LIU - US20190116517
YOUN - US20240015562
HANDE - US20220038955
SALKINTZIS - US20200336940 which appears to shares inventorship is published 2020-10-22 with effective filing date of 2018-05-22.
SALKINTZIS - US12082048 a patent corresponding to US20200336940, which discloses similar subject manner and has been checked for double patenting consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415