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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Fan et al. for the "DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS" filed 03/06/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/116618, filed 09/01/2022, and claims foreign priority to 202111045932.4, filed 09/07/2021 in China. The preliminary amendment filed 04/18/2024 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 11 are objected to because it is unclear how “a specific request (SRQ) related to frequency shift keying (FSK)”. There is no clearly indication in the claims that the method is actually using FSK communication, and it is unclear if the claims are directed to any “FSK” communication. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 recite limitation "…indication information…" (in claims 1-20) and “…configuration information…” (in claims 2, 4-6, 8-10 & 12, 14-16, 18-20) throughout the claims. It is not unambiguously evident throughout the entire claim set, how "indication information" differ from "configuration information", i.e. it is not clear how an indication information cannot be considered as configuration information, and vice-versa. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-10 & 19-20 recite the expression “index value comprised in the configuration information”. This expression is considered broad and unclear since it is not unambiguously evident to which technical aspects of the configuration is refers, i.e. it is not clear what is represented/indicated by such index value. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
8. Claims 1-8, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US#11,991,694) in view of Shi (US#12,477,381).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 11, the references disclose a system and method for servicing QoS flow in a wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claims. Chen et al. (US#11,991,694) discloses a communication apparatus, wherein the apparatus is configured as a first access network device or a chip in the first access network device (see Fig. 1; mobile network includes AN/gNB node 5), and the apparatus comprises: at least one processor, and a memory coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 5 for AN node 5 includes processor 57 and memory 59) and configured to store executable instructions for execution by the at least one processor to instruct the at least one processor to: receive first indication information from a core network device (see Fig. 7; Col. 2, lines 48-65: step 1 - gNB as an access node receives PDU mod. Request from AMF as a first core network device), wherein the first indication information indicates that a first quality of service (QoS) flow of a first terminal device has an association relationship with a second QoS flow of a second terminal device (see Fig. 2; Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 12: in order to support such diverse QoS requirements, each data packet is classified based on associated QoS parameters and associated with an appropriate data radio bearer (DRB) that meets the QoS requirements for that type of traffic; See steps 1 & 2 Fig.7 and Col. 2, lines 13-26: QoS parameter and QFI (QoS Flow Identifier)), the first access network device is configured to serve the first terminal device and the second terminal device (See Fig.7, Col. 2, lines 48-65: step 7- gNB receives PDU data packet from UPF as a second core network device via PDU data tunnel according to QFI; communicating user plane data, i.e. each data packet, on the DRB associated with that QFI (in step 7); See Fig. 8, Col. 2, lines 54-65: step 5 - PDU data tunnel between gNB and UPF; See Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 12 - UPF performs the classification of downlink (DL) user plane traffic based on appropriate QoS rules. The applicable QoS rules may be either explicitly provided to the UE (e.g. during session establishment or modification), pre-configured in the UE, or implicitly derived by the UE by applying Reflective QoS); and wherein scheduling, based on the first indication information, data transmission of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (see Fig. 7, Col. 2, lines 48-65 - step 7: gNB sends downlink user plane data over DRB (QFI) to UE; and Col. 1, line 63 to Col. 2, line 12: in order to support such diverse QoS requirements, user-plane traffic (each data packet) is classified based on associated QoS parameters and associated with an appropriate data radio bearer (DRB) that meets the QoS requirements for that type of traffic. Specifically, the so-called user plane function (UPF) performs the classification of downlink (DL) user-plane traffic based on appropriate QoS rules. The applicable QoS rules may be either explicitly provided to the UE (e.g. during session establishment or modification), pre-configured in the UE, or implicitly derived by the UE by applying Reflective QoS. Further details of the packets to QoS flow mapping may be found in 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 23.501 v15.2.0, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference (See further Fig.7-9 and Col. 2, lines 48-65: DRB mapping scheduling for downlink to the UE).
Chen discloses the method of receiving the configuration information of the first QoS flow comprises QoS parameters of the first QoS flow (See Fig.7, step 1), but does not explicitly disclose the first QoS flow belongs to a first PDU session, and the second QoS flow belongs to a second PDU session. In the same field of endeavor, Shi (US#12,477,381) discloses the distinguish service data flows through information (such as time information) related to QoS types of the packets, which can distinguish packets in a service data flow at a finer level, so as to provide different QoS guarantees for packets according to the information (such as time information) related to QoS types of the packets (Fig. 3; Col. para. 40, 45 and para [57]).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently determining servicing QoS flow in a wireless communication system, and would have applied “the first QoS flow belongs to a first PDU session, and the second QoS flow belongs to a second PDU session” as taught by Shi’s into the system of Chen’s data flow mapping in the so-called ‘5G’ systems, so that it provides a way for a base station as an access network device to be able to control according to the QFI and the corresponding quality control parameter received from the SMF entity (Shi: Col. 8, line 30 to Col. 9, line 16). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shi’s terminal device and network device into Chen’s communication system with the motivation being to provide a method and system for reliability of data transmission utilizing QFI.
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Chen et al. further teaches wherein the first/second indication information comprises identification information of the first/second QoS flow, and further comprises: receiving, from the core network device, configuration information of the first/second QoS flow (Figs. 7-8; Col. 9, lines 44-56: the applicable QoS Flow to DRB mapping rules are obtained by the UE 3 from explicit control signaling from the BS 5).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Chen et al. further teach wherein the identification information of the first/second QoS flow is a quality of service flow identifier (QFI)(Col. 2, lines 13-26: Reflective QoS is controlled on a per-packet basis using a so-called Reflective QoS Indication (RQI) in the header of the data packets together with an identifier (a QoS Flow Identifier, QFI)).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 14, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Chen et al. further teach wherein the first indication information comprises configuration information of the first QoS flow and a quality of service flow identifier (QFI) of the second QoS flow (Fig. 7; Col. 2, lines 48-65: the DRB mapping information, including a new QFI, is transmitted to the UE (in step 3) prior to communicating user-plane data on the DRB associated with that QFI (in step 7)).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 15, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Shi further teaches receiving, from the core network device, configuration information of the first QoS flow and configuration information of the second QoS flow, wherein a quality of service flow identifier (QFI) of the first QoS flow is the same as a QFI of the second QoS flow (Fig. 3; Col. 8, lines 57-67: The base station can control according to the QFI and the corresponding transmission-quality-control parameter received from the SMF entity).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 16, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Shi further teaches wherein the first indication information comprises configuration information of the first PDU session and an identifier of the second PDU session, and a quality of service flow identifier (QFI) of the first QoS flow is the same as a QFI of the second QoS flow (Fig. 8; Col. 17, lines 19-30: the processing unit is configured to assign a same QFI to all packets belonging to a same session).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 17, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Chen et al. further teaches wherein the first indication information comprises an identifier of the first terminal device and an identifier of the second terminal device (Col. 2, lines 13-39: Reflective QoS functionality enables the UE to map uplink user-plane traffic to the appropriate QoS flows).
In sofar, as understood, Regarding claim 18, Chen et al. in view of Shi teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above, Chen et al. further teach wherein receiving, from the core network device, configuration information of the first QoS flow and configuration information of the second QoS flow, wherein a quality of service flow identifier (QFI) of the first QoS flow is the same as a QFI of the second QoS flow, and an identifier of the first PDU session is the same as an identifier of the second PDU session (Fig. 2; Col. 6, lines 31-59: letter ‘C’, packets marked with the same QFI form a QoS Flow for the PDU session).
Regarding claims 1-8, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 11-14, 16-19 discussed above. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-9 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 11-14, 16-19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 9-10, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112 para. as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving, from the core network device, configuration information of the first QoS flow and configuration information of the second QoS flow, wherein an index value comprised in the configuration information of the first QoS flow is the same as an index value comprised in the configuration information of the second QoS flow; wherein receiving, from the core network device, configuration information of the first PDU session and configuration information of the second PDU session, wherein an index value comprised in the configuration information of the first PDU session is the same as an index value comprised in the configuration information of the second PDU session, and a quality of service flow identifier (QFI) of the first QoS flow is the same as a QFI of the second QoS flow, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Jheng et al. (US#2018/0324631) is cited to show using SDAP headers for handling of AS/NAS reflective QoS and to ensure in sequence packet delivery during remapping in 5G communication systems.
The Velev et al. (US#11,997,513) monitoring QoS parameters of a data connection.
The Agiwal et al. (US#10,911,977) shows method and apparatus for managing data communication in wireless communication network.
The Pan (US#11,825,333) shows method and apparatus for servicing QoS flow in a wireless communication system.
The Youn et al. (US#10,856,173) shows method and SMF for supporting QoS.
The Pan (US#12,328,717) shows method and apparatus for remapping QoS flow with PDU set consideration in a wireless communication system.
The Pan et al. (US#2019/0029057) shows method and apparatus for serving QoS flow in a wireless communication system.
The Youn (US#2025/0184831) shows method for measuring performance for QoS.
The Guo (US#2024/0137802) shows transmission method, apparatus, device and storage.
The Talebi Fard et al. (US#11,166,325) shows control plane based configuration for time sensitive networking.
The Wang et al. (US#2021/0258385) shows configuring QoS.
12. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
03/04/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477