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 2026-06-30 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) of U.S. Patent No. US11943653 in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-20
The claims are unpatentable over claim(s) of U.S. Patent No. US11943653 in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364).
The claims submitted 2026-06-30 amended the independent claims 1, 9, 16 to include the feature of:
wherein the notification triggers Quality of Service authorization by a Policy Control Function before triggering allocation of the additional network resources.
where prior to this amendments the claims were rejected under double patenting in action 2026-03-30 for the reasoning of “The claim(s) is/are unpatentable over the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim(s) is/are a broader version of identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Hence, the claims are not patentably because the instant claim(s) is/are anticipated by the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application.”
Accordingly KIM_364 (US20220053364) is presented to address the amended feature identified above to demonstrate this feature was well known in the art such that the it would have been obvious to combine the independent claims of US11943653 (claims 1, 8, 15) with KIM_364:
The instant independent claims include the additional feature which is not present in the independent claims of US11943653 (claims 1, 8, 15).
However KIM_364 teaches
wherein a notification triggers Quality of Service authorization by a Policy Control Function before triggering allocation of the additional network resources. In response to request, from an AF, to set/modify QoS (e.g., a QoS influence request) a PCF performs authentication/authorization on the QoS influence request of the AF prior to changing the QoS level which implicitly includes the scenario in which the QoS level is raised, which is considered allocating additional resources. <FIG(s). 1, 5; para. 0091-0098>.
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 independent claims of US11943653 (claims 1, 8, 15) with the embodiment(s) disclosed by KIM_364. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for monitoring and changing information about quality of service (QoS) allowed to be provided for a user equipment in a wireless communication system. <para. 0002>.
With regards to other minor differences: Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the claim(s) at issue only differ by small grammatical nuances, sentence structure arrangement, use of patentably indistinguishable synonyms, and/or a combination thereof. The differences do not change the claim scope such that the claim(s) at issue are patentably distinct.
Dependent claims were not amended/change and therefore the mapping from action 2026-03-30 are still applicable, now in view of Kim_364 which addresses change to the independent claims. Consequently, double patent rejection are applied as follows:
Instant Claim
Claim in patent US11943653 in view of Kim_364
1 (Method)
1 (Method)
2
3
3
NONE
4
2
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
NONE
9 (System)
8 (System)
10
9
11
10
12
11
13
12
14
13
15
14
16 (CRM)
15 (CRM)
17
16
18
17
19
18
20
19
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) 6, 13
With regards to the element(s)
a Policy Control Function (PCF)
The claims recite at least two citations of “a(n) [element]” - either within the claim(s) itself or in a claim in which the claim(s) depend from. In other words, the claimed element is introduced twice. Consequently, when subsequent citation(s) of “a [element]” is used, it is unclear if said subsequent citations are referring to a previous introduced element or is attempting to introduce a new, distinct element (but fails to describe it in such a manner that distinguishes it from the first citation).
Furthermore, when subsequent citations of "the [element]" are recited, it is unclear which particular “a [element]” (since there at least two previously introduced similarly named elements) is being referring to.
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 SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), and further view of KIM_364 (US20220053364)
Claim(s) 1, 9, 16
SHARIAT_450 teaches
determining, by Application Function (AF) of a content provider, a network congestion on a network, Application Function (AF) forwards QNC status information to the PCF so that the PCF can utilize the QNC status information in updating a rule in the policy for one or more UEs. <FIG(s). 3, 6; para. 0024-0028, 0076, 0096-0104>.
transmitting a notification by the AF to a core network of a network provider to request additional network resources to be allocated for servicing the user device, Wherein the trigger is Application Function, AF, assisted, an Application Function (AF) forwards QNC status information to a PCF, which is part of a core network. This trigger causes the PCF to utilize the notification information in updating the UE policy rules including adjusting path selection and parameters. In this sense the trigger notification functions like a request as it triggers allocation in resources to compensate for the unfulfilled QoS. <FIG(s). 2, 3, 4, 6; para. 0024-0028, 0096-0104>.
transmitting a notification by the AF to a core network of a network provider to request additional network resources to be allocated for servicing the user device, Wherein the trigger is Application Function, AF, assisted, an Application Function (AF) forwards QNC status information to a PCF, which is part of a core network. This trigger causes the PCF to utilize the notification information in updating the UE policy rules including adjusting path selection and parameters. In this sense the trigger notification functions like a request as it triggers allocation in resources to compensate for the unfulfilled QoS. <FIG(s). 2, 3, 4, 6; para. 0024-0028, 0096-0104>.
the network provider providing network connectivity for the user device to receive the services provided by the service provider. Network provider enables UE connectivity to the AMF and other core network devices. <FIG(s). 2, 3; para. 0066-0068, 0076-0080>.
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
a notification by the AF to a core network of a network provider to request additional network resources
and
the additional network resources being within a spectrum managed by the network provider,
In other words, while it would be implicitly known and or obvious to one skilled in that art SHARIAT_450 is likely applied to existing resources such that the features could be considered for additional resources, it’s not explicitly disclosed. The Examiner offers a secondary reference below to show an explicit teaching of additional resources.
However in a similar endeavor, TAMURA_363 teaches
transmitting a notification by the AF to a core network of a network provider to request additional network resources to be allocated for servicing the user device, An AF sends an AF request to a PCF that requests a modification of resources for a UE being serviced by one or more RAN. In one embodiment, the AF request causes network to add addition resources such as adding a secondary cell for the UE. In another embodiment the AF includes an ARPI, which is considered a request for additional resources for the UE. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0052-0061>.
the additional network resources being within a spectrum managed by the network provider, The additional cell, being part of the RAN's cell group, would implicitly operate within a spectrum (i.e., carrier, frequency band, etc.) of the RAN/5G network provider. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0052-0061>.
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 SHARIAT_450 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by TAMURA_363. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable a radio communication network to provide a UP path including a radio connection in a specific cell to a UE based on a request from an application function (AF). <para. 0008-0017>.
However in a similar endeavor, KIM_364 teaches
wherein the notification triggers Quality of Service authorization by a Policy Control Function before triggering allocation of the additional network resources. In response to request, from an AF, to set/modify QoS (e.g., a QoS influence request) a PCF performs authentication/authorization on the QoS influence request of the AF prior to changing the QoS level which implicitly includes the scenario in which the QoS level is raised, which is considered allocating additional resources. <FIG(s). 1, 5; para. 0091-0098>.
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 SHARIAT_450 and TAMURA_363 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by KIM_364. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for monitoring and changing information about quality of service (QoS) allowed to be provided for a user equipment in a wireless communication system. <para. 0002>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364), and further view of SIVA_035 (WO2022248035)
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19
SHARIAT_450 teaches
wherein the network congestion is determined based on a Quality of Service Notification Control (QNC) notification sent by a node
SHARIAT_450 discloses that a node of a NG-RAN sends a QNC notification as discussed herein. While it’s likely the case that the disclosed “NG-RAN” implicitly or would obviously to one skilled in the art that the “NG-RAN” would be a base station, SHARIAT_450 fails to explicitly disclose a base station. That is, SHARIAT_450 fails to disclose that specifically that the node is a base.
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
a Quality of Service Notification Control (QNC) notification sent by a base station of the network provider
However in a similar endeavor, SIVA_035 teaches
a Quality of Service Notification Control (QNC) notification sent by a base station of the network provider A gNB generates a QoS Notification Control (QNC) for a particular GBR QoS flow as specified in clause 5.7.2.4 of 3GPP TS 23.501 V16.7.0. Although such a notification can include a relative location of a UE provided by the gNB 3GPP TS 38.413 V16.4.0, the intention is to get absolute location of a UE with an assistance of the Location Management Function. <page 35, Ln 08-24>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SIVA_035. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a closed loop solution for time sensitive communication between a controller and associated terminal devices, particularly in TSN environments <Background, para. 0005-0016> and/or enable an AF to control data traffic within a given data traffic limit per identified service area by coordinate client devices <para. 0041>
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364), and further view of Foti_472 (US20210274472)
Claim(s) 4, 10, 17
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
wherein the notification is an N5 notification.
However in a similar endeavor, Foti_472 teaches
wherein the notification is an N5 notification. AF 212 sends a request for network resources to the PCF 210 via the Rx or N5 interface. <FIG(s). 5; para. 0091>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Foti_472. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved setup procedure that enables dynamic selection of UE allocated resources <para. 0032-0034, 0071-0072>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364), and further view of PARK_028 (WO2018231028)
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20
SHARIAT_450 teaches
wherein the transmitting the notification includes transmitting the notification from the AF to a Policy Control Function (PCF) of the core network of the network provider, Wherein the trigger is Application Function, AF, assisted, an Application Function (AF) forwards QNC status information to a PCF, which is part of a core network. This trigger causes the PCF to utilize the notification information in updating the UE policy rules including adjusting path selection and parameters. In this sense the trigger notification functions like a request as it triggers allocation in resources to compensate for the unfulfilled QoS. <FIG(s). 2, 3, 4, 6; para. 0024-0028, 0096-0104>.
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
the PCF forwarding the notification to at least one of a Session Management Function (SMF) and an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) of the core network of the network provider.
However in a similar endeavor, PARK_028 teaches
the PCF forwarding the notification to at least one of a Session Management Function (SMF) and an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) of the core network of the network provider. policy update request (notification) is sent from PCF to an AMF. <para. 0009-0019, 0021-0022>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by PARK_028. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved methods for updating a policy of a terminal in a wireless, thereby preventing service usage constraint situation of the terminal that may occur and provide service to the terminal more efficiently <para. 0009, 0023>
Claim(s) 7, 14
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
wherein, in response to receiving the notification, a Radio Access Network (RAN) of the network provider adds more network resources for servicing the user device.
However in a similar endeavor, TAMURA_363 teaches
wherein, in response to receiving the notification, a Radio Access Network (RAN) of the network provider adds more network resources for servicing the user device. RAN node receives the request for modifying resources and provides resources for the UE in accordance with the request. For example, adding a cell for the UE. <FIG(s). 3A; para. 0061-0063, 0065-0069>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by PARK_028. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved methods for updating a policy of a terminal in a wireless, thereby preventing service usage constraint situation of the terminal that may occur and provide service to the terminal more efficiently <para. 0009, 0023>
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364), and further view of Radpour_500 (US20160006500)
Claim(s) 15
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
wherein the additional network resources are allocated to a spectrum operated by the service provider.
However in a similar endeavor, Radpour_500 teaches
wherein the additional network resources are allocated to a spectrum operated by the service provider. More resources are allocated to a wireless access point that is determined to be transmitting/receiving greater amount of data. Wireless access point would be implicitly operated by at least one entity which would function and act in accordance with the claimed service provider. <para. 0032, 0040>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Radpour_500. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide backhaul solutions that mitigate high installation and operation costs to provide services in low density, rural, and hard-to-reach areas <para. 0002>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364), and further view of SONG_646 (US20080192646)
Claim(s) 2, 11, 18
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
determining, based on a multimedia protocol, that more network resources are required to meet the corresponding QoS requirements.
However in a similar endeavor, SONG_646 teaches
determining, based on a multimedia protocol, that more network resources are required to meet the corresponding QoS requirements. RTCP is primarily used for QoS monitoring and for congestion control and traffic control based on the QoS monitoring. <para. 0022-0025, 0091, 0114>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SONG_646. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provides a method for monitoring the quality of service of H.264 multimedia communications, thereby achieving in-band implementation of QoS monitoring of H.264 multimedia communications while reducing an extra overhead due to QoS monitoring. <para. 0054>.
Claim(s) 3
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
wherein the multimedia protocol is one of
a Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) or
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) adaptive streaming protocol.
However in a similar endeavor, SONG_646 teaches
wherein the multimedia protocol is one of a Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) or RTCP is primarily used for QoS monitoring and for congestion control and traffic control based on the QoS monitoring. <para. 0022-0025, 0091, 0114>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SONG_646. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provides a method for monitoring the quality of service of H.264 multimedia communications, thereby achieving in-band implementation of QoS monitoring of H.264 multimedia communications while reducing an extra overhead due to QoS monitoring. <para. 0054>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARIAT_450 (US20220232450) in view of TAMURA_363 (US20220295363), in view of KIM_364 (US20220053364), and further view of LIU_183 (US20240276183)
Claim(s) 8
SHARIAT_450 does not explicitly teach
wherein the content provider is a multimedia service provider.
However in a similar endeavor, LIU_183 teaches
wherein the content provider is a multimedia service provider. AF may support IP-based multimedia services for the UE <FIG(s). 2; para. 0009-0010>.
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 SHARIAT_450, TAMURA_363 and KIM_364 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LIU_183. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obviate some of the problems related to handling NPLI and services, or at least reduce the impact of them. <para. 0044>.
Relevant Cited References
ALAKOSKI - US20040073928 teaches a BM-SC or GGSN initiating a policy request to PCF which causes the PCF to provide QoS authorization and access control for an MBMS session (para. 0030-0032). However the reference does not teach an Application Function determining network congestion and transmitting a notification.
Response to Arguments
The Reply’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights