DETAILED ACTION
1. The Office Action is in response to Application 18595219 filed on 03/04/2024. Claim 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024, 06/03/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 2, it recites “comparison”, in “generating at least one encapsulated data packet including at least one outer header based on a result of comparison”. However, it is not clear if the comparison refer to “comparing the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value” recited previously, or other kinds of comparison.
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claims 3-10 are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 11-12, 18 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335).
Regarding claim 1, VIGER teaches a device (fig. 11a), comprising:
a processor (fig. 11a, 1101);
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (fig. 11a, 1103);
and a traffic mapping logic (fig. 11a, transmitter 1102 and receiver 1104), configured to:
receive a data flow(Fig. 6, step 610) including at least one data packet (fig. 7);
identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value (fig. 10a, in which, the QoS including background, Best Effort, video, voice) in at least one of the at least one data packet (fig. 4a, 425 is the QoS in a data packet);
determine one or more network policies associated with the data flow (fig. 5, 512 and 514; in which, SCS responses is the one or more network policies associated with the data flow);
and map one of the at least one data packet based on the initial QoS value and the one or more network policies (fig. 5, step 514-516; in which, after received the SCS in 513, it maps one of the at least one data packet based on the initial QoS value and the one or more network policies).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow; identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value in at least one initial header of the at least one data packet.
LU discloses of the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow (page 6, …determining third indication information, the third indication information being used to indicate capability information of the first base station for a low latency, low loss and scalable throughput L4S mechanism);
identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value in at least one initial header of the at least one data packet (page 17, … carries a QoS flow ID (QFI) in the packet header to identify which QoS flow the packet belongs to).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow; identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value in at least one initial header of the at least one data packet as a modification to the device for the benefit of that provide is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow (page 6) and identify which QoS flow the packet belongs to (page 17).
Regarding claim 11, VIGER teaches a device (fig. 11a), comprising:
a processor (fig. 11a, 1101);
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (fig. 11a, 1103);
and a traffic mapping logic (fig. 11a, transmitter 1102 and receiver 1104), configured to:
receive a data flow(Fig. 6, step 610) including at least one data packet (fig. 7);
identify a highest Quality of Service (QOS) level if the data flow is the data flow (fig. 10a, in which, the QoS including background, Best Effort, video, voice in which, the Video has the highest QoS);
and map the data flow to the highest QoS level (as shown in fig. 10a; also in fig. 5, step 514-516; in which, after received the SCS in 513, it the data flow to the highest QoS level).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of determine that the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow.
LU discloses of the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow (page 6, …determining third indication information, the third indication information being used to indicate capability information of the first base station for a low latency, low loss and scalable throughput L4S mechanism).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow as a modification to the device for the benefit of that provide is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow (page 6).
Regarding claim 18, VIGER teaches a method (fig. 6) comprising:
receive a data flow(Fig. 6, step 610) including at least one data packet (fig. 7);
identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value (fig. 10a, in which, the QoS including background, Best Effort, video, voice) in at least one of the at least one data packet (fig. 4a, 425 is the QoS in a data packet);
determine one or more network policies associated with the data flow (fig. 5, 512 and 514; in which, SCS responses is the one or more network policies associated with the data flow);
determining a maximum QoS value (fig. 10a, in which, the QoS including background, Best Effort, video, voice in which, the Video has the maximum QoS value) associated with the one or more network policies (fig. 5, step 514-516; in which, after received the SCS in 513, it determines maximum QoS value associated with the one or more network policies);
and generating at least one encapsulated data packet (fig. 7 is one encapsulated data packet) including at least one outer header (fig. 7, Element ID) based on the initial QoS value and the maximum QoS value (as shown in fig. 7, 425 is the QoS including the initial QoS value and the maximum QoS value, maximum QoS is shown in fig. 2c, the video QoS; fig. 5, step 514-516, in which, the encapsulated data packet is generated based on the initial QoS value and the maximum QoS value).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow; identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value in at least one initial header of the at least one data packet.
LU discloses of the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow (page 6, …determining third indication information, the third indication information being used to indicate capability information of the first base station for a low latency, low loss and scalable throughput L4S mechanism);
identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value in at least one initial header of the at least one data packet (page 17, … carries a QoS flow ID (QFI) in the packet header to identify which QoS flow the packet belongs to).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the data flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow; identify an initial Quality of Service (QOS) value in at least one initial header of the at least one data packet as a modification to the device for the benefit of that provide is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow (page 6) and identify which QoS flow the packet belongs to (page 17).
Regarding claim 12, the combination VIGER and LU teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that enqueue the data flow into a queue associated with the highest QoS level (fig. 2b; the highest QoS is shown in fig. 2c, video). LU further discloses of L4s data (page 6, …determining third indication information, the third indication information being used to indicate capability information of the first base station for a low latency, low loss and scalable throughput L4S mechanism).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 11’s rejection.
9. Claim 2 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20120147767).
Regarding claim 2, the combination VIGER and LU teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that determining a maximum QoS value associated with the one or more network policies (fig. 5, step 514; the maximum QoS value is shown in fig. 10a, Video 1000, 1010); generating at least one encapsulated data packet including at least one outer header based on a result of comparison (fig. 7, the outer header is Element ID); and mapping the data flow to at least one of: a User Priority (UP) value or an Access Category (AC) value based on a result of the comparison (fig. 7, User priority 722).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of comparing the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value.
Yang discloses of comparing the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value (fig. 7, step 47; Abstract, … comparing a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter associated with a source system, a maximum QoS associated with a target system and a Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) or Policy and Changing Rules Function (PCRF) capability).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that comparing the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value as a modification to the device for the benefit of that to know if QoS adjustment is needed (figure 7, step 49).
10. Claims 3, 4, 5 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20120147767) and further in view of YOU et al. (CN 109863733).
Regarding claim 3, the combination VIGER, LU and Yang teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that at least one outer header is indicative of the initial QOS value (fig. 4a, QoS 425).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of indicative of the initial QoS value if the initial QoS value is greater than or equal to the maximum QoS value..
YOU discloses of indicative of the initial QoS value if the initial QoS value is greater than or equal to the maximum QoS value. (fig. 1, step 101; in which, first QFI is the initial QoS; page 8, … if the value of the first QFI is greater than the first threshold, then the first QFI mapped to the spare position of the second QFI is not mapped; which means keeps the first QFI).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that indicative of the initial QoS value if the initial QoS value is greater than or equal to the maximum QoS value as a modification to the device for the benefit of that to have flexible QoS (page 8).
Regarding claim 4, the combination VIGER, LU and Yang teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that at least one outer header is indicative of the initial QOS value (fig. 4a, QoS 425).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of indicative of the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value..
YOU discloses of indicative of the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value. (fig. 1, step 102-103; in which, first QFI is the initial QoS and second OFI is the maximum QoS; page 8, … in the SDAP header carried by the QFI is the second QFI, the size of which is 6, namely, the maximum supported 64 QoS flow. and the first QFI dynamic indication to 5 QI or QI equal to 5… if the value of the first QFI is less than the preset first threshold, the same value is directly mapped to a second QFI).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that indicative of the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to have flexible QoS (page 8).
Regarding claim 5, the combination VIGER, LU and Yang teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that QoS value in the at least one initial header (fig. 7, QoS 425).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of replace the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value.
YOU discloses of replace the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value (fig. 1, step 102-103; in which, first QFI is the initial QoS and second OFI is the maximum QoS; page 8, … in the SDAP header carried by the QFI is the second QFI, the size of which is 6, namely, the maximum supported 64 QoS flow. and the first QFI dynamic indication to 5 QI or QI equal to 5… if the value of the first QFI is less than the preset first threshold, the same value is directly mapped to a second QFI).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that replace the initial QoS value with the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to have flexible QoS (page 8).
10. Claims 8-10 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20120147767) and further in view of LJUNG (WO 2024038301).
Regarding claim 8, the combination VIGER, LU and Yang teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above.
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of detecting an L4S indicator in the at least one data packet; and determining that the data flow is the L4S data flow based on the L4S indicator.
LJUNG discloses of detecting an L4S indicator in the at least one data packet; and determining that the data flow is the L4S data flow based on the L4S indicator (page 2, … Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput Internet Service (L4S) has been developed as a network function which can be used to inform a receiver of application data about congestion in the network and similar solutions. The network may add an indicator/flag (Explicit congestion notification - ECN) indicating Congestion Encountered into internet protocol (IP) packet header).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that detecting an L4S indicator in the at least one data packet; and determining that the data flow is the L4S data flow based on the L4S indicator as a modification to the device for the benefit of that inform the receiver of the L4S service (page 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination VIGER, LU, Yang and LJUNG teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above.. In addition, LJUNG further discloses that the L4S indicator includes an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) indicator (page 2, … Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput Internet Service (L4S) has been developed as a network function which can be used to inform a receiver of application data about congestion in the network and similar solutions. The network may add an indicator/flag (Explicit congestion notification - ECN) indicating Congestion Encountered into internet protocol (IP) packet header).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 8’s rejection.
Regarding claim 10, the combination VIGER, LU, Yang and LJUNG teaches the limitations recited in claim 8 as discussed above.. In addition, VIGER further discloses that enqueue the data flow into a queue (fig. 2b); and LU further discloses of L4s data (page 6, …determining third indication information, the third indication information being used to indicate capability information of the first base station for a low latency, low loss and scalable throughput L4S mechanism).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
12. Claims 13-17 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335) and further in view of LJUNG (WO 2024038301).
Regarding claim 13, the combination VIGER, LU teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that receiving at least one data packet of the data flow (fig. 6, Step 610).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of detecting an L4S indicator in the at least one data packet; and determining that the data flow is the L4S data flow based on the L4S indicator.
LJUNG discloses of detecting an L4S indicator in the at least one data packet; and determining that the data flow is the L4S data flow based on the L4S indicator (page 2, … Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput Internet Service (L4S) has been developed as a network function which can be used to inform a receiver of application data about congestion in the network and similar solutions. The network may add an indicator/flag (Explicit congestion notification - ECN) indicating Congestion Encountered into internet protocol (IP) packet header).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that detecting an L4S indicator in the at least one data packet; and determining that the data flow is the L4S data flow based on the L4S indicator as a modification to the device for the benefit of that inform the receiver of the L4S service (page 2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination VIGER, LU and LJUNG teaches the limitations recited in claim 13 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses generate at least one encapsulated data packet including at least one outer header indicative of the highest QoS level (fig. 3, QoS 425; the highest QoS is shown in fig. 10a, the video).
Regarding claim 15, the combination VIGER, LU and LJUNG teaches the limitations recited in claim 13 as discussed above. In addition, LJUNG further discloses that the LAS indicator includes an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) indicator (page 2, … Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput Internet Service (L4S) has been developed as a network function which can be used to inform a receiver of application data about congestion in the network and similar solutions. The network may add an indicator/flag (Explicit congestion notification - ECN) indicating Congestion Encountered into internet protocol (IP) packet header).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 13’s rejection.
Regarding claim 16, the combination VIGER, LU and LJUNG teaches the limitations recited in claim 13 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses the data flow is an upstream data flow received from a wireless device (page 3, … the AP MLD can then use the target TID to easily trigger uplink communication from a non-AP MLD, that is dedicated to the local SCS stream only; the wireless device is shown in fig. 11a).
Regarding claim 17, the combination VIGER, LU and LJUNG teaches the limitations recited in claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses transmit, to the wireless device (fig. 11a, 11b), a Stream Classification Service (SCS) signal indicative of marking the upstream data flow with the highest QoS level (fig. 2B, classifier 212 is the Stream Classification Service (SCS) signal; the highest QoS is shown in fig. 2c, video).
13. Claims 19, 20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335) and further in view of YOU et al. (CN 109863733).
Regarding claim 19, the combination VIGER and LU teaches the limitations recited in claim 18 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that at least one outer header is indicative of the initial QOS value (fig. 4a, QoS 425).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of indicative of the initial QoS value if the initial QoS value is greater than or equal to the maximum QoS value..
YOU discloses of indicative of the initial QoS value if the initial QoS value is greater than or equal to the maximum QoS value. (fig. 1, step 101; in which, first QFI is the initial QoS; page 8, … if the value of the first QFI is greater than the first threshold, then the first QFI mapped to the spare position of the second QFI is not mapped; which means keeps the first QFI).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that indicative of the initial QoS value if the initial QoS value is greater than or equal to the maximum QoS value. as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to have flexible QoS (page 8).
Regarding claim 20, the combination VIGER and LU teaches the limitations recited in claim 18 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that at least one outer header is indicative of the QoS value (fig. 4a, QoS 425).
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of indicative of the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value..
YOU discloses of indicative of the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value. (fig. 1, step 102-103; in which, first QFI is the initial QoS and second OFI is the maximum QoS; page 8, … in the SDAP header carried by the QFI is the second QFI, the size of which is 6, namely, the maximum supported 64 QoS flow. and the first QFI dynamic indication to 5 QI or QI equal to 5… if the value of the first QFI is less than the preset first threshold, the same value is directly mapped to a second QFI).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that indicative of the maximum QoS value if the initial QoS value is less than the maximum QoS value as a modification to the method for the benefit of that to have flexible QoS (page 8).
14. Claims 6, 7 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2023111310) and in view of LU et al. (WO 2025031335) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20120147767) and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 20230254276).
Regarding claim 6, the combination VIGER, LU and Yang teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above.
It is noticed that VIGER does not disclose explicitly of the initial QoS value and the maximum QoS value are indicative of an initial Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value and a maximum DSCP value respectively.
Taylor discloses of the initial QoS value and the maximum QoS value are indicative of an initial Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value and a maximum DSCP value respectively (paragraph 0021, … Possible QoS parameters include Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), Maximum Bit Rate (MBR), QoS Class Identifier (QCI), Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP), etc; which means that DSCP indicates QoS, including initial and maximum QoS).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the initial QoS value and the maximum QoS value are indicative of an initial Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value and a maximum DSCP value respectively as a modification to the device for the benefit of that to have detailed QoS (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 7, the combination VIGER, LU, Yang and Taylor teaches the limitations recited in claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, VIGER further discloses that the UP value or the AC value is indicative of one or more of: AC Voice (AC_VO), AC Video (AC_VI) or AC Best Effort (AC_BE) (fig. 2C, best effort, video and voice)
Conclusion
15 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
16 Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488