DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In line 8, the claim 9 recites “forwarding, by the policy function to a bearer management system, a response to the request”. The specification and the drawing describe “forwarding, by the policy function to a bearer management system, the request for the dedicated bearer” (see RAR in step 306 in Figure 3 and RAR in step 506 in Figure 5), but not “forwarding, by the policy function to a bearer management system, a response to the request” as recited.
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.
Claims 8-12 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the dedicated bearer response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that there is “dedicated bearer setup response” recited in claim 2 line 3.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "a response to the request" in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the same “response to the request” recited in line 6 or not. The examiner understood it as “the request for the dedicated bearer” for the purpose of examination.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "a default bearer" in line 16 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the same “default bearer” recited in line 12 or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the dedicated bearer response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that there is “dedicated bearer setup success response” recited in claim 9 line 10.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the dedicated bearer response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that there is “dedicated bearer setup response” recited in claim 14 line 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castro Castro et al. (US Pub. 2016/0212668).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Castro Castro teaches a method for handling dedicated bearer setup failure in a wireless communications network for a call comprising: receiving, by a policy function from a call session control function, a request for a dedicated bearer (see step 2 AAR in Figure 18), the dedicated bearer comprising a first communications channel having a first quality of service class identifier associated therewith (“Dedicated bearers are supported by the terminal device and the network, and the QCI for the derived PCC/QoS rules corresponds to a GBR QCI” in [0099]); providing, by the policy function to the call session control function, a response to the request (see step 4 AAA in Figure 18); forwarding, by the policy function to a bearer management system, the request for the dedicated bearer (see step 6 RAR in Figure 18); determining, by the policy function, an indication of a failure to set up the dedicated bearer (see step 7 “dedicated bearers cannot be established” and step 8 CCR in Figure 18); determining, by the policy function, that the call can continue on a default bearer (see step 9 “default bearer” in Figure 18), the default bearer comprising a second communications channel having a second quality of service class identifier associated therewith (“the default bearer QCI (i.e. non-GBR QCI)” in [0095]), the second quality of service class identifier (“the default bearer QCI (i.e. non-GBR QCI)” in [0095]) different from the first quality of service class identifier (“Dedicated bearers are supported by the terminal device and the network, and the QCI for the derived PCC/QoS rules corresponds to a GBR QCI” in [0099]); and in response to the determining, taking no action such that the call continues on the default bearer (see step 9 “default bearer” in Figure 18), wherein the default bearer is established when a user equipment connects to the wireless communications network (“initial connection, or initial attachment, of a terminal device to a network usually involves the provision of a default bearer established” in [0003]), wherein the first quality of service class identifier includes a guaranteed bit rate and a first priority level (“Dedicated bearers are supported by the terminal device and the network, and the QCI for the derived PCC/QoS rules corresponds to a GBR QCI” in [0099]), and wherein the second quality of service class identifier does not include a guaranteed bit rate and includes a second priority level, the second priority level lower than the first priority level (“the default bearer QCI (i.e. non-GBR QCI)” in [0095]).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Castro Castro teaches determining the indication of the failure to setup the dedicated bearer comprises receiving, by the policy function from the bearer management system, a dedicated bearer setup response, wherein the dedicated bearer response indicates the failure to setup the dedicated bearer (see step 7 “dedicated bearers cannot be established” and step 8 CCR in Figure 18).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Castro Castro teaches the wireless communications network implements an evolved packet core (EPC) framework [0070], wherein the request for a dedicated bearer comprises an authorization-authentication-request (AAR) (see step 2 AAR in Figure 15), wherein the response to the request comprises an authorization-authentication-answer (AAA) (see step 6 AAA in Figure 15), wherein forwarding the request for the dedicated bearer comprises transmitting a re-authorization request (RAR) (see step 7 RAR in Figure 15), and wherein the dedicated bearer setup response comprises a re-authorization answer (RAA) (see step 8 RAA in Figure 15).
Regarding claim 9, Castro Castro teaches a method for handling dedicated bearer failure in a wireless communications network during a call comprising: receiving, by a policy control function from a call session control function, a request for a dedicated bearer (see step 2 AAR in Figure 15), the dedicated bearer comprising a first communications channel having a first quality of service class identifier associated therewith (“Dedicated bearers are supported by the terminal device and the network, and the QCI for the derived PCC/QoS rules corresponds to a GBR QCI” in [0099]); providing, by the policy function to the call session control function, a response to the request (see step 6 AAA in Figure 15); forwarding, by the policy function to a bearer management system, a response to the request (see step 7 RAR in Figure 15); receiving, by the policy function from the bearer management system, a dedicated bearer setup success response (see step 8 RAA in Figure 15); transitioning the call from a default bearer to the dedicated bearer (“creating/modifying the required dedicated bearers” in [0110]); receiving, by the policy function from the bearer management system, an indication of a dedicated bearer failure (see step 7 “dedicated bearers cannot be established” and step 8 CCR in Figure 18); determining, by the policy function based on the indication, that the call can continue on a default bearer (see step 9 “default bearer” in Figure 18), the default bearer comprising a second communications channel having a second quality of service class identifier associated therewith (“the default bearer QCI (i.e. non-GBR QCI)” in [0095]), the second quality of service class identifier (“the default bearer QCI (i.e. non-GBR QCI)” in [0095]) different from the first quality of service class identifier (“Dedicated bearers are supported by the terminal device and the network, and the QCI for the derived PCC/QoS rules corresponds to a GBR QCI” in [0099]); and transitioning the call to the default bearer (see step 9 “default bearer” in Figure 18), wherein the default bearer is established when a user equipment connects to the wireless communications network (“initial connection, or initial attachment, of a terminal device to a network usually involves the provision of a default bearer established” in [0003]), wherein the first quality of service class identifier includes a guaranteed bit rate and a first priority level (“Dedicated bearers are supported by the terminal device and the network, and the QCI for the derived PCC/QoS rules corresponds to a GBR QCI” in [0099]), and wherein the second quality of service class identifier does not include a guaranteed bit rate and includes a second priority level, the second priority level lower than the first priority level (“the default bearer QCI (i.e. non-GBR QCI)” in [0095]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro Castro et al. in view of Muthukumar (US Pub. 2023/0379376).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Castro Castro teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 13 as shown above. Castro Castro, however, does not teach determining the indication of the failure to setup the dedicated bearer comprises determining, by the policy function, that a dedicated bearer setup response has not been received for a threshold amount of time. Muthukumar teaches determining the indication of the failure to setup the dedicated bearer comprises determining, by the policy function, that a dedicated bearer setup response has not been received for a threshold amount of time (see “failed to send a Dedicated Bearer Context Setup Response message for the time period (e.g., a few hundred milliseconds, a few seconds, etc.)” and “determine that the dedicated bearer is not operating to establish the communication channel based at least in part on the message not being received for the time period” in [0033]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castro Castro to have determining the indication of the failure to setup the dedicated bearer comprises determining, by the policy function, that a dedicated bearer setup response has not been received for a threshold amount of time as taught by Muthukumar in order to determine one or more messages usable to establish the dedicated bearer [0032].
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro Castro et al. in view of Guo et al. (US Pub. 2022/0386183).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Castro Castro teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 13 as shown above. Castro Castro, however, does not teach determining that the call can continue on the default bearer comprises determining the default bearer is available. Guo teaches determining that the call can continue on the default bearer comprises determining the default bearer is available (“no default bearer is available. The P-CSCF may receive 411 a SIP UPDATE message and hold 411a this signaling message to the UE which may not have any default bearer. … In response to receipt 412 of an IP-CAN change notification (e.g., as described in connection with step 312 of FIG. 3), the P-CSCF can know the default bearer is available. The P-CSCF may send 413 the buffered UPDATE message” in [0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castro Castro to have determining that the call can continue on the default bearer comprises determining the default bearer is available as taught by Guo in order to reduce the session setup latency [0064].
Claims 5, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro Castro et al. in view of Chong et al. (US Pub. 2019/0124124).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 17, Castro Castro teaches the limitations in claims 1, 9 and 13 as shown above. Castro Castro, however, does not teach causing a notification to be provided to a user equipment of the call that the dedicated bearer setup failed. Chong teaches causing a notification to be provided to a user equipment of the call that the dedicated bearer setup failed (see “Step 705: The P-CSCF of the originating side delivers a 380/503 response message to the originating UE” in [0276], “voice dedicated bearer (QCI=1) setup failure” in [0274] and “the 380/503 response message is used to indicate that a current VoLTE service is unavailable” in [0278]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castro Castro to have causing a notification to be provided to a user equipment of the call that the dedicated bearer setup failed as taught by Chong in order to have UE side and network side cooperate to implement a CSFB procedure [0280].
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro Castro et al. in view of Yan et al. (US Pub. 2023/0403583).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Castro Castro teaches the limitations in claims 2 and 14 as shown above. Castro Castro, however, does not teach the wireless communications network comprises a fifth generation core network (5GC), wherein the request for a dedicated bearer comprises a policy authorization create request, wherein the response to the request comprises an HTTP 201 “Created” response, wherein forwarding the request comprising transmitting a policy control update notify request, wherein the dedicated bearer setup response comprises an update notify response indicating an error. Yan teaches the wireless communications network comprises a fifth generation core network (5GC) (“Fifth Generation (5G) core network” in [0008]), wherein the request for a dedicated bearer comprises a policy authorization create request (“HTTP POST message 236 may include a policy authorization create message” in [0034]), wherein the response to the request comprises an HTTP 201 “Created” response (“HTTP 201 Created message 240” in [0034]), wherein forwarding the request comprising transmitting a policy control update notify request (“HTTP POST message 243 may include an SM Policy association update request” in [0035]), wherein the dedicated bearer setup response comprises an update notify response indicating an error (“HTTP 204 No Content message 245” in [0035]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castro Castro to have the wireless communications network comprises a fifth generation core network (5GC), wherein the request for a dedicated bearer comprises a policy authorization create request, wherein the response to the request comprises an HTTP 201 “Created” response, wherein forwarding the request comprising transmitting a policy control update notify request, wherein the dedicated bearer setup response comprises an update notify response indicating an error as taught by Yan in order to receive a notification from a Fifth Generation (5G) core network regarding a core network event [0008].
Claims 8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro Castro et al. in view of Velusamy et al. (US 10,542,575).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 20, Castro Castro teaches the limitations in claims 2, 9 and 14 as shown above. Castro Castro, however, does not teach the dedicated bearer response comprises an error code, wherein determining that the call can continue on the default bearer comprises applying a set of rules to the error code. Velusamy teaches the dedicated bearer response comprises an error code (“cause-code” in Column 11 line 2), wherein determining that the call can continue on the default bearer comprises applying a set of rules to the error code (“send a reject message to the SGW, perhaps with a cause-code indicating that the base station declined the setup request” in Column 11 Lines 4-6). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castro Castro to have the dedicated bearer response comprises an error code, wherein determining that the call can continue on the default bearer comprises applying a set of rules to the error code as taught by Velusamy in order to have failure of the initiated setup of the dedicated bearer connection may be detected by one or more network entities (Column 11 Lines 9-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro Castro et al. in view of Nagalaguli et al. (US Pub. 2017/0099118).
Regarding claim 11, Castro Castro teaches the limitations in claim 9 as shown above. Castro Castro, however, does not teach transitioning the call from a default bearer to the dedicated bearer comprises maintaining a session initiation protocol (SIP) session on the default bearer and maintaining a real time protocol (RTP) session on the dedicated bearer. Nagalaguli teaches transitioning the call from a default bearer to the dedicated bearer comprises maintaining a session initiation protocol (SIP) session on the default bearer and maintaining a real time protocol (RTP) session on the dedicated bearer (“the default bearer for PTT signaling (e.g., SIP traffic), and a dedicated bearer optimized for PTT media (e.g., RTP, RTCP, and media traffic)” in [0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Castro Castro to have transitioning the call from a default bearer to the dedicated bearer comprises maintaining a session initiation protocol (SIP) session on the default bearer and maintaining a real time protocol (RTP) session on the dedicated bearer as taught by Nagalaguli in order to split traffic across two bearers [0043].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights