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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/4/2024, 10/10/2024 and 6/15/2026 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 § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0035976 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0250788 A1) and further in view of Liao (US. Pub. No. 2021/0075631 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Prakash discloses a method performed by a policy and control function (PCF) in a wireless communications system (See Par. [40]-[42] of Prakash for a reference to the network system 100, which includes an SMF 130, data networks 150, packet handling and QoS requirements for Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions, PCF 160, a Unified Data Repository (UDR) 170 that stores the device group policy 175), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a united data repository (UDR), a subscribe request message for a group maximum bit rate (MBR) for the UE group (See Par. [43]-[45], [48] of Prakash for a reference to a mobile device may be provisioned in the UDR 170 to be part of one or more QoS groups. The group identifiers corresponding to a mobile device may be provided to the PCF 160 by the UDR 170. The UDR 170 stores the new device profile 215 and notifies the PCF 160 of the device profile with a notification 230, including the MBR of the UE);
receiving, from the UDR, a notification message including a remaining group MBR for the UE group (See Par. [47]-[48] of Prakash for a reference to the UDR 170 stores the new device profile 215 and notifies the PCF 160 of the device profile with a notification 230, including the MBR and the remaining group MBR of the UE);
updating the remaining group MBR based on a determination that at least one of whether the remaining group MBR is higher than the MBR or whether the remaining group MBR is higher than the authorized sessions AMBR; and transmitting, to the UDR, an update message including the updated remaining group MBR (See Par. [48]-[49] of Prakash for a reference to the UDR 170 stores the new device profile 215 based on the comparison, and notifies the PCF 160 of the device’s new profile with a notification 230. The PCF 160 makes a policy decision, and sends a session management (SM) policy request 240 to the SMF 130, which sends a session management policy response 245 to the PCF 160).
Prakash does not explicitly disclose receiving, from a session management function (SMF), a session management (SM) policy association request message for establishing a packet data unit (PDU) session, wherein the SM policy association request message includes a data network name (DNN) and single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) for a user equipment (UE) group; determining whether the remaining group MBR is higher than an MBR of the PDU session in case that the PDU session is associated with a guaranteed bit rate (GBR);
determining whether the remaining group MBR is higher than an authorized sessions aggregated maximum bit rate (AMBR) of the PDU session in case that the PDU session is not associated with the GBR.
However, Kim discloses receiving, from a session management function (SMF), a session management (SM) policy association request message for establishing a packet data unit (PDU) session, wherein the SM policy association request message includes a data network name (DNN) and single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) for a user equipment (UE) group (See Par. [293]-[297] of Kim for a reference to that by invoking Npcf_SMPolicyControl_Create operation, the SMF #1 provides the PCF, and tries to retrieve the Session Management Subscription data using Nudm_SDM_Get... DNN, S-NSSAI. UDM may get this information from UDR by Nudr_DM_Query, and subscribes to notifications from UDR [Associating a DNN and S-NSSAI with a UE group and providing that group data to core-network]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim to Prakash. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving data rate, latency, user density, mobile broadband access capacity, and coverage. (Kim; Par. [477])
The combination of Prakash and Kim does not explicitly disclose determining whether the remaining group MBR is higher than an MBR of the PDU session in case that the PDU session is associated with a guaranteed bit rate (GBR);
determining whether the remaining group MBR is higher than an authorized sessions aggregated maximum bit rate (AMBR) of the PDU session in case that the PDU session is not associated with the GBR.
However, Liao discloses determining whether the remaining group MBR is higher than an MBR of the PDU session in case that the PDU session is associated with a guaranteed bit rate (GBR) (See Par. [107]-[108] of Liao for a reference to a QoS Flow may either be ‘GBR’ or ‘Non-GBR’ depending on its QoS profile. For each GBR QoS Flow, the QoS profile also includes: Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR)-UL and DL, and Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)-UL and DL. The QoS parameters may include: Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), Maximum Bit Rate (MBR), and Aggregate MBR (AMBR));
determining whether the remaining group MBR is higher than an authorized sessions aggregated maximum bit rate (AMBR) of the PDU session in case that the PDU session is not associated with the GBR (See Par. [107]-[108] of Liao for a reference to a QoS Flow may either be ‘GBR’ or ‘Non-GBR’ depending on its QoS profile. For each GBR QoS Flow, the QoS profile also includes: Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR)-UL and DL, and Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)-UL and DL. The QoS parameters may include: Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), Maximum Bit Rate (MBR), and Aggregate MBR (AMBR). The non-GBR QoS and Aggregate MBR/AMBR are compared to remaining group MBR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao to the combination of Prakash and Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving the QoS for a QoS flow of the MBS session by collecting the QoS report/parameters. (Liao; Par. [109])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Prakash, Kim and Liao, specifically Prakash discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the SMF, an SM policy association response message including the updated remaining group MBR in case that the remaining group MBR is higher than the MBR or the AMBR of the PDU session (See Par. [48]-[49] of Prakash for a reference to the PCF 160 makes a policy decision, based on the comparison between MBR and the remaining group MBR, and sends a session management (SM) policy request 240 to the SMF 130. The SMF 130 acknowledges by sending a session management policy response 245 to the PCF 160).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Prakash and Kim does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the SMF, an SM policy association response message indicating a rejection of a PDU session establishment in case that the remaining group MBR is lower than the MBR or the AMBR of the PDU session.
However, Liao discloses transmitting, to the SMF, an SM policy association response message indicating a rejection of a PDU session establishment in case that the remaining group MBR is lower than the MBR or the AMBR of the PDU session (See Par. [144]-[146] of Liao for a reference to MBS session establishment request (MBS group ID(s), QoS parameters per group). Here, the PCF 626 provides MBS group ID and corresponding QoS policies of each MBS group to the SMF 624. PCF returns a response indicating the request is rejected/denied when policy conditions (e.g., available budget) are not satisfied).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao to the combination of Prakash and Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving the QoS for a QoS flow of the MBS session by collecting the QoS report/parameters. (Liao; Par. [109])
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1, including a policy and control function (PCF) in a wireless communications system (See Prakash; Fig. 1; PCF 160), the PCF comprising: a transceiver (See Prakash; Fig. 6; I/O interface 614); and at least one processor operably coupled to the transceiver (See Prakash; Fig. 6; Processor 602).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
6. Claims 2, 5, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. in view of Kim et al. and further in view of Liao and further in view of Karlsson et al. (US. Pat. No. 9,215,291 B2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Prakash, Kim and Liao does not explicitly disclose wherein updating the remaining group MBR comprises: deducting a value of the MBR from the remaining group MBR in case that the remaining group MBR is higher than the MBR of the PDU session and the PDU sessions is associated with the GBR; or deducting a value of the AMBR from the remaining group MBR in case that the remaining group MBR is higher than the AMBR of the PDU session and the PDU session is not associated with the GBR.
However, Karlsson discloses wherein updating the remaining group MBR comprises: deducting a value of the MBR from the remaining group MBR in case that the remaining group MBR is higher than the MBR of the PDU session and the PDU sessions is associated with the GBR; or deducting a value of the AMBR from the remaining group MBR in case that the remaining group MBR is higher than the AMBR of the PDU session and the PDU session is not associated with the GBR (See Col. 5.; Lines 30-55, Col. 6; Lines 21-50 of Karlsson for a reference to Bit rate values subtracted [deducted] from a running aggregate budget as each new bearer or connection is authorized. deducting an authorized bit-rate value from a running aggregate/remaining rate budget [Remaining Group MBR]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Karlsson to the combination of Prakash, Kim and Liao. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by increasing flexibility in setting the upper limit for the UE-AMBR, and avoiding conflicts between different PCN nodes which want to set this value for the UE's UE-AMBR by requiring the PCN node to query the SPR/UDR for permission to set the upper limit of the UE-AMBR. (Karlsson; Col. 1; Lines 54-61)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Prakash, Kim and Liao does not explicitly disclose wherein the remaining group MBR is configured for an uplink and a downlink, respectively.
However, Karlsson discloses wherein the remaining group MBR is configured for an uplink and a downlink, respectively (See Col. 2.; Lines 50-65 of Karlsson for a reference to UE-AMBR maintained as “the upper limit” applicable to uplink and downlink data rates for the UE [The aggregate/maximum bit-rate parameter being maintained separately for the uplink and the downlink]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Karlsson to the combination of Prakash, Kim and Liao. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by increasing flexibility in setting the upper limit for the UE-AMBR, and avoiding conflicts between different PCN nodes which want to set this value for the UE's UE-AMBR by requiring the PCN node to query the SPR/UDR for permission to set the upper limit of the UE-AMBR. (Karlsson; Col. 1; Lines 54-61)
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
7. Claims 6-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. in view of Liao.
Regarding claim 6, Prakash discloses a method performed by a united data management (UDM) in a wireless communication system (See Par. [21], [40]-[42] of Prakash for a reference to the network system 100, which includes an SMF 130, data networks 150, packet handling and QoS requirements for Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions, Application Function (AF) 185, PCF 160, a Unified Data Management (UDM), a Unified Data Repository (UDR) 170 that stores the device group policy 175), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a united data repository (UDR), a request message for group data of the UE group (See Par. [43]-[45], [48] of Prakash for a reference to a mobile device may be provisioned in the UDR 170 to be part of one or more QoS groups. The group identifiers corresponding to a mobile device may be provided to the PCF 160 by the UDR 170. The UDR 170 stores the new device profile 215 and notifies the PCF 160 of the device profile with a notification 230, including the MBR of the UE);
receiving, from the UDR, the group data of the UE group including an updated group MBR; and transmitting, to the AF, a parameter update response message including the updated group MBR (See Par. [48]-[49] of Prakash for a reference to the UDR 170 stores the new device profile 215 based on the comparison, and notifies the PCF 160 of the device’s new profile with a notification 230. The PCF 160 makes a policy decision, and sends a session management (SM) policy request 240 to the SMF 130, which sends a session management policy response 245 to the PCF 160).
Prakash does not explicitly disclose receiving, from an application function (AF), a parameter update request message including a group maximum bit rate (MBR) for a user equipment (UE) group;
However Liao discloses receiving, from an application function (AF), a parameter update request message including a group maximum bit rate (MBR) for a user equipment (UE) group (See Par. [107]-[108] of Liao for a reference to a QoS Flow may either be ‘GBR’ or ‘Non-GBR’ depending on its QoS profile. For each GBR QoS Flow, the QoS profile also includes: Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR)-UL and DL, and Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)-UL and DL. The QoS parameters may include: Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR), Maximum Bit Rate (MBR), and Aggregate MBR (AMBR). The non-GBR QoS and Aggregate MBR/AMBR are compared to remaining group MBR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao to the combination of Prakash and Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving the QoS for a QoS flow of the MBS session by collecting the QoS report/parameters. (Liao; Par. [109])
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Prakash and Liao, specifically Prakash discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: configuring the group MBR before receiving the parameter update request message from the AF (See Par. [43]-[45], [47] of Prakash for a reference to a network operator may define device groups to include QoS groups. A mobile device may be provisioned to be part of one or more QoS groups The group identifiers corresponding to a mobile device may be provided to the PCF 160 by the AF 185).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 6, including a united data management (UDM) in a wireless communication system (See Par. [21] and Fig. 1 of Prakash for a reference to Unified Data Management (UDM) element may also be included in network system 100), the UDM comprising: a transceiver (See Prakash; Fig. 6; I/O interface 614); and at least one processor operably coupled to the transceiver (See Prakash; Fig. 6; Processor 602).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 7.
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. in view of Liao and further in view of Karlsson et al..
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Velev et al. (US 2023/0036993 Al) teaches a method and apparatus for monitoring a slice attribute of a network slice.
Liu et al. (US 2022/0394566 A1) teaches systems and methods for registering with accessibility and mobility management function (AMF) re-allocation based on a network slice selection function (NSSF).
Qiao et al. (U.S. 2021/0184875 Al) teaches charging control for non-public network (e.g. for 5G or future communication system).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights