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 .
Response to Amendment and Argument
1. This communication is in response to applicant's 06/22/2026 communications in the application of Fan et al. for the "DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS" filed 03/06/2024. 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 amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of cited references fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not necessary that a “prima facie” case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for “a substantial new question of patentability” to be present as to the claim. Thus, “a substantial new question of patentability” as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications. As to the importance of the difference between “a substantial new question of patentability” and a “prima facie” case of unpatentability see generally In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.5, 225 USPQ 1, 4 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102. 904.02. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 and In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
5. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Chen et al. (US#11,991,694) in view of Shi (US#12,477,381) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
6. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claims that the cited reference fail to teach or suggest “the first indication information indicates that a first QoS flow of a first terminal device has an association relationship with a second QoS flow of a second terminal device” (page 10, second paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, the reference of Chen et al. (US#11,991,694) in view of Shi (US#12,477,381) are applied herein for the teaching of a system and method for servicing QoS flow in a wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claims. Applicant’s attention is directed to Fig. 2 of Chen et al (US#11,991,694) for handling data packets between the UE3 and UPF11, in which Reflective QoS enables the UE 3 to map uplink user-plane traffic to the appropriate QoS flows without obtaining explicit QoS rules from the network. Reflective QoS flow to DRB mapping enables the UE 3 to map an uplink QoS flow to the appropriate DRB without obtaining explicit flow to DRB mapping rules from the network (the base station 5). Beneficially, in this example, the UE 3 is able to determine the correct DRB mapping even before receipt of any user-plane data on the downlink and without requiring explicit signaling of the DRB mapping rules from the network via the control-plane (e.g. RRC)(Col. 6, lines 31-59 & see also Fig. 7; Col. 9, line 44 to Col. 10, line 65).
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
8. 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 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
9. 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).
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 in response to detecting a data packet loss or a transmission failure in the first QoS flow (Fig. 7; Col. 3, line 50 to Col. 4, line 4 & Col. 9, line 44 to Col. 10, line 65: packets to QoS flow mapping for mapping a QoS Flow (data packets) to the appropriate DRB for that QoS Flow), scheduling, based on the first indication information, data transmission of the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the first access network device schedules data transmission in the second QoS flow based on the association relationship (see Figs. 7-9, Col. 2, lines 48-65 - step 7 & Col. 9, line 44 to Col. 10, line 65: 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).
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: Service Data Adaptation Protocol (SDAP) Protocol Data Unit (PDU) with a Quality of Service (QoS) data flow), 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. 6, lines 35-43, Col. 7, lines 7-18 & Col. 8, line 30 to Col. 9, line).
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.
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).
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)).
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)).
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).
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).
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).
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
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
13. 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) 07find 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. "
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION 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 mailing date of this final action.
15. 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.
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.
16. 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
July 27, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights