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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
Bhangu, Laselva, Pahuja, Kim, Sha, Park, Lenovo, and Qiao do not overcome the deficiencies of Wu, nor does the Office Action suggest otherwise.
In regards to claim 1, KIM teaches “and transmit a message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the one or more alternative QoS profiles based at least in part on the energy efficiency mode.” KIM writes, “Thereafter, the NG-RAN may determine whether it can guarantee (or fulfill) the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (i.e., Such QoS indicated by the Alternative QoS Profiles as GFBR, PDB, PER, etc.) for the QoS flow. This may be regarded as a case that the NG-RAN can support a better/higher QoS after the first notification. As a result of the determination, a second notification indicating that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed (or fulfilled) for the QoS flow may be transmitted to the SMF. Here, the second notification may include information on the Alternative QoS Profile that can guarantee (or fulfill) the QoS flow among the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (paragraph 0134). KIM indicates the NG-RAN will send a second notification after determining the NG-RAN can fulfill the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles. The Alternative QoS Profile(s) may be associated with the energy efficiency mode.
Wu, Bhangu, Laselva, Pahuja, Kim, Sha, Park, Lenovo, and Qiao-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest all of the features of amended independent claim 12.
Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches receive a message indicating that a radio access network (RAN) node is entering an energy efficiency mode and further indicating that one or more Quality of Service (QoS) flows of a plurality of QoS flows are modified in accordance with one or more alternative QoS profiles based at least in part on the energy efficiency mode, KIM writes, “Thereafter, the NG-RAN may determine whether it can guarantee (or fulfill) the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (i.e., Such QoS indicated by the Alternative QoS Profiles as GFBR, PDB, PER, etc.) for the QoS flow. This may be regarded as a case that the NG-RAN can support a better/higher QoS after the first notification. As a result of the determination, a second notification indicating that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed (or fulfilled) for the QoS flow may be transmitted to the SMF. Here, the second notification may include information on the Alternative QoS Profile that can guarantee (or fulfill) the QoS flow among the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles” (paragraph 0134). KIM adds, “Alternatively, the PDU session related message may be a PDU session modification related message forwarded from the SMF. In this regard, FIG. 9 shows a PDU session modification procedure. Referring to FIG. 9, in step 3a or step 3b, an SMF may include an Alternative QoS Profile in N2 SM information forwarded to an NG-RAN. Namely, at least one or more Alternative QoS Profiles are included for a prescribed GBR QoS Flow together with a QoS Profile and then provided to the NG-RAN. An AMF forwards the N2 SM information received from the SMF to the NG-RAN in step 4. For reference, each QoS Flow is identified by a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI). Hence, the QoS Profile and the Alternative QoS Profile(s) are provided to the NG-RAN as a part of QoS Parameters for the QoS Flow identified by the QFI. Besides, details of the respective steps shown in FIG. 9 refer to the contents disclosed in ‘UE or network requested PDU Session Modification’ of Section TS 23.502 4.3.2.2, which is used as the related art of the specification” (paragraph 0141).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al. (US 20260032519 A1, hereinafter, "WU"), BHANGU (US 20250247316 A1, hereinafter, "BHANGU"), and KIM et al. (US 20220312509 A1, hereinafter, "KIM").
Regarding claim 1, WU teaches a radio access network (RAN) node, comprising:
WU writes, “As shown in FIG. 2, in this embodiment, the method is applied to an access network function entity (for example, a RAN) side, and the method can include S201 to S204” (paragraphs 0047, 0236; figure 2; figure 10, communication apparatus: 1000).
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (paragraph 0237; figure 10, memory
1002);
and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or
collectively operable to execute the code (paragraph 0241; figure 10, processor: 1001) to cause the
RAN node to:
wherein the energy efficiency mode is associated with one or more alternative quality of
service (QoS) profiles that are different from a set of QoS profiles of the PDU session,
WU writes, “...the terminal status information is further configured for an access network function
entity to determine a first QoS profile for one or more QoS flows associated with the terminal from one
or more alternative QoS profiles according to the terminal status information of the terminal”
(paragraph 0228). WU adds, “The UE status information is used to represent a power consumption
status of the UE. For example, the UE status information includes one or more parameters related to UE
performance. For example, the UE status information may include at least one of the following: a UE
battery level, a UE battery life, a UE powered mode, a UE central processing unit (CPU) load, a UE
overheating status. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, parameters related to UE power
consumption may include others. Here, the UE powered mode can include a battery-powered mode and
a mains/wall-powered mode. Here, the battery-powered mode refers to using a built-in battery of the
UE for power supply, and the mains/wall-powered mode refers to using a power adapter to connect to,
for example, a wall socket, a mobile socket or the like, so as to connect to a power source to supply
power to the UE” (paragraph 0049). WU continues, “In some possible implementations, the one or more
alternative QoS profiles mentioned above may include at least one of the following: a packet delay
budget, a packet error rate, an uplink (UL) guaranteed bitrate, a downlink (DL) guaranteed bitrate, an
averaging window, a maximum data burst volume, or a terminal status management indication. The
terminal status management indication is configured to indicate whether the one or more alternative
QoS profiles support application to terminal status management” (paragraph 0058). WU states the
terminal status information is configured to determine a QoS profile for one or more QoS flows
associated with the terminal from one or more alternative QoS profiles. The UE status information is
used to represent a power consumption status. Thus, indicating the power consumption and energy-
efficiency is associated with the alternative QoS profile. WU explains the alternative QoS profiles may
include at least one of the following: a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, an uplink (UL)
guaranteed bitrate, a downlink (DL) guaranteed bitrate, an averaging window, a maximum data burst
volume, or a terminal status management indication. Therefore, indicating the alternative QoS profiles
are different from the QoS profiles.
and wherein the one or more alternative QoS profiles are allowed for the PDU session based
at least in part on an agreement associated with the UE;
WU writes, “In S704, the PCF makes a policy decision. The PCF may determine whether updated or new
policy information needs to be sent to the SMF. The PCF generates or updates policy control and
charging (PCC) rules based on the UE status information provided by the NEF. The PCF triggers
Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify to update policy information about the corresponding PDU session
of the SMF, including PCC rules and QoS policies related to the AF request” (paragraphs 0179-0180). WU
continues, “In S709-S711, the SMF triggers a PDU session modification procedure, so that the (R)AN can
determine a QoS profile for one or more QoS flows associated with the UE from one or more alternative
QoS profiles according to the UE status information” (paragraph 0185; figure 7). WU states the PCF
generates or updates PCC rules based on the UE status information and the PCF triggers
Npcf_SMPolicyControl_UpdateNotify to update policy information about the corresponding PDU session
of the SMF, including PCC rules and QoS policies. WU explains the SMF triggers a PDU session
modification procedure, so that the (R)AN can determine a QoS profile for one or more QoS flows
associated with the UE from one or more alternative QoS profiles according to the UE status
information.
WU fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “establish a packet data unit (PDU) session
with a user equipment (UE) via a session establishment procedure;”, “determine to enter an
energy efficiency mode based at least in part on one or more network parameters,”, and “and transmit a message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the one or more alternative QoS profiles based at least in part on the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, BHANGU teaches establish a packet data unit (PDU) session with a
user equipment (UE) via a session establishment procedure;
BHANGU writes, “According to embodiments, the energy data described herein may include, but are not
limited to: Energy consumption information: This information may include energy consumption level of
one or more network entities, such as energy consumed in one or more operations of one or more
network functions, energy consumed in one or more operations of one or more network services,
energy consumed in one or more operations of one or more network slices, energy consumed one or
more protocol data unit (PDU) sessions of a UE, energy consumed by one or more operations of the UE,
energy consumed by a component of a AN (e.g., base station, etc.), and the like” (paragraphs 0131-
0132). BHANGU adds, “Referring still to FIG. 10, the Session Management Function (SMF) 1011-3 may
refer to a network function which is responsible for managing and controlling the session-related
aspects of network entities (e.g., UE, etc.). The key functions of SMF 1011-3 may include, for example,
session establishment (e.g., allocating of network resources, setting up necessary control and bearer
paths, establishing session context, etc.), user plane and control plane separation (e.g., interacting with
the Control Plane Function (CPF) to handle control plane signaling and management while delegating
the user plane data handling to the User Plane Function (UPF), etc.), policy and quality of service (QoS)
enforcement (e.g., enforcing policies and QoS requirements defined by network operators or service
providers, ensuring that the appropriate QoS levels are applied to user sessions, ensuring policies
related to data usage, traffic management, and service differentiation are enforced, etc.), network slice
management (e.g., coordinating the allocation of network resources, policies, and QoS parameters
specific to the network slice associated with a particular session, etc.), and the like” (paragraph 0186).
determine to enter an energy efficiency mode based at least in part on one or more network parameters,
BHANGU writes, “As another example, based on determining that the low level of energy efficiency is
caused by sub-optimal operational mode (e.g., the load of the AMF 1011-2 is low, but the AMF 1011-2 is
in a high-performance mode which consumes a huge amount of energy, etc.), the server node may
determine an operational mode (e.g., low-power mode, sleep mode, etc.) based on the information of
the current load. It can be understood that the server node may appropriately determine one or more
optimal configurations for other energy efficiency factors (e.g., network topology, resource
management, etc.) described herein in a similar manner, without departing from the scope of the
present disclosure” (paragraph 0184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of WU to include aspects described by BHANGU that “relate to the provisioning of network energy management in one or more telecommunication systems.” BHANGU provides the motivation for modification stating, “Accordingly, the implementation of EMF in example embodiments of the present disclosure may leverage the advantages of containerization, such as high scalability, reliability, portability, and resource efficiency.” (paragraph 0040).
WU and BHANGU fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “and transmit a message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the one or more alternative QoS profiles based at least in part on the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, KIM teaches and transmit a message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the one or more alternative QoS profiles based at least in part on the energy efficiency mode.
KIM writes, “Thereafter, the NG-RAN may determine whether it can guarantee (or fulfill) the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (i.e., Such QoS indicated by the Alternative QoS Profiles as GFBR, PDB, PER, etc.) for the QoS flow. This may be regarded as a case that the NG-RAN can support a better/higher QoS after the first notification. As a result of the determination, a second notification indicating that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed (or fulfilled) for the QoS flow may be transmitted to the SMF. Here, the second notification may include information on the Alternative QoS Profile that can guarantee (or fulfill) the QoS flow among the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (paragraph 0134). KIM indicates the NG-RAN will send a second notification after determining the NG-RAN can fulfill the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles. The Alternative QoS Profile(s) may be associated with the energy efficiency mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of WU and BHANGU to include aspects described by KIM that “relates to a wireless communication system, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for an NG-RAN to determine and notify whether Alternative QoS Profiles are guaranteed (or fulfilled) even after notifying that a QoS profile was not guaranteed (or fulfilled).” KIM provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to the present disclosure, a QoS at a level as high as possible can be quickly provided for a QoS Flow” (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 3, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the RAN node to:
Additionally, KIM teaches receive a second message indicating the one or more alternative QoS profiles associated with the energy efficiency mode,
KIM writes, “...provided is a method of operating a Next Generation-Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) in a wireless communication system, the method including receiving a PDU session related message including a QoS profile related to a QoS flow and two or more Alternative QoS Profiles by the NG-RAN...” (paragraph 0017).
wherein determining to enter the energy efficiency mode is based at least in part on receiving
the second message.
KIM writes, “Thereafter, the NG-RAN may determine whether it can guarantee (or fulfill) the two or
more Alternative QoS Profiles (i.e., Such QoS indicated by the Alternative QoS Profiles as GFBR, PDB,
PER, etc.) for the QoS flow. This may be regarded as a case that the NG-RAN can support a better/higher
QoS after the first notification. As a result of the determination, a second notification indicating that the
Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed (or fulfilled) for the QoS flow may be transmitted to the SMF. Here,
the second notification may include information on the Alternative QoS Profile that can guarantee (or
fulfill) the QoS flow among the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles” (paragraph 0134).
Regarding claim 6, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1, wherein, to transmit the message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the RAN node to:
Additionally, WU teaches transmit, to a session management function (SMF) via a access and mobility management function (AMF), the message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode.
WU writes, “In S803, for AN initiated modification, the SMF responds to the AMF through
Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response ([N2 SM information (PDU session ID, QFI(s), QoS
Profile(s), [alternative QoS profile(s)], Session-AMBR], [CN Tunnel Info(s)]), N1 SM container (PDU
session modification command (PDU session ID, QoS rule(s), QoS rule operation, QoS flow level QoS
parameters if needed for the QoS flow(s) associated with the QoS rule(s), Session-AMBR, [Always-on
PDU Session Granted], [Port Management Information Container], [corresponding UE status]))). It
should be noted that alternative QoS profile is only valid for AN initiated modification” (paragraph
0192). WU states the SMF responds to the AMF through Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext
Response which includes N2 SM information and N1 SEM container, which contains information on
session modification, Session-AMBR, and QoS rules, therefore indicating the first network is entering a
power saving or energy-efficiency mode.
Regarding claim 7, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 6,
Additionally, WU teaches wherein the message indicates one or more QoS flows that are
associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles.
WU writes, “In S803, for AN initiated modification, the SMF responds to the AMF through
Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response ([N2 SM information (PDU session ID, QFI(s), QoS
Profile(s), [alternative QoS profile(s)], Session-AMBR], [CN Tunnel Info(s)]), N1 SM container (PDU
session modification command (PDU session ID, QoS rule(s), QoS rule operation, QoS flow level QoS
parameters if needed for the QoS flow(s) associated with the QoS rule(s), Session-AMBR, [Always-on
PDU Session Granted], [Port Management Information Container], [corresponding UE status]))). It
should be noted that alternative QoS profile is only valid for AN initiated modification” (paragraph
0192).
Regarding claim 9, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1, wherein:
Additionally, WU teaches the message further indicates a PDU session identifier, session
management information, the one or more alternative QoS profiles, or any combination thereof,
WU writes, “In S801, (AN initiated notification control) If notification control is configured for a GBR QoS
flow, the (R)AN sends a N2 message (PDU session ID, N2 SM information) to the SMF when the (R)AN
decides QoS targets of the QoS flow cannot be fulfilled or can be fulfilled again, respectively. The N2 SM
information includes a QoS Flow Identity (QFI) and an indication that the QoS targets for that QoS flow
cannot be fulfilled or can be fulfilled again, respectively. When the QoS targets cannot be fulfilled, the
N2 SM information indicates a reference to the alternative QoS profile matching values of QoS
parameters that the NG-RAN is currently fulfilling (optionally, and the corresponding UE status)”
(paragraph 0190).
and the session management information comprises one or more QoS flow identifiers (QFIs)
associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles.
WU writes, “In S801, (AN initiated notification control) If notification control is configured for a GBR QoS
flow, the (R)AN sends a N2 message (PDU session ID, N2 SM information) to the SMF when the (R)AN
decides QoS targets of the QoS flow cannot be fulfilled or can be fulfilled again, respectively. The N2 SM
information includes a QoS Flow Identity (QFI) and an indication that the QoS targets for that QoS flow
cannot be fulfilled or can be fulfilled again, respectively. When the QoS targets cannot be fulfilled, the
N2 SM information indicates a reference to the alternative QoS profile matching values of QoS
parameters that the NG-RAN is currently fulfilling (optionally, and the corresponding UE status)”
(paragraph 0190).
Regarding claim 10, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1,
Additionally, BHANGU teaches wherein the one or more network parameters comprise a traffic load associated with one or more cells, a quantity of one or more UEs associated with the RAN node, a location of the one or more UEs, a communication mode of the one or more UEs, or any combination thereof.
BHANGU writes, “According to embodiments, the database may correspond to a distributed storage
system, wherein individual databases are configured to store custom information, such as, historical
data related to level of energy efficiency of each network entity, predicted energy usage pattern of each
network entity, energy optimization rules or policies associated with different network entities, level of
energy efficiency achieved, types of network resources/parameters associated with each network
function, and the like” (paragraph 0109).
Regarding claim 11, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1, wherein:
Additionally, WU teaches the one or more alternative QoS profiles are associated with one or
more first parameters,
WU writes, “The SMF may need to send transparently through the RAN the PDU session modification
command to inform the UE, about changes in QoS parameters (i.e., 5QI, GFBR, MFBR) that the RAN is
currently fulfilling after the SMF receives QoS notification control (paragraph 0194). When the QoS
targets cannot be fulfilled, the N2 SM information indicates a reference to the alternative QoS profile
matching values of QoS parameters that the NG-RAN is currently fulfilling (optionally, and the
corresponding UE status)” (paragraph 0190). WU adds, “It should be noted that in an embodiment of
the present disclosure, QoS parameters (for example, alternative QoS parameter sets) in the alternative
QoS profiles defined in the existing communication protocol are extended, so that extended alternative
QoS profiles can be applied to both guaranteed bit rate (GBR) QoS flows and non GBR QoS flows”
(paragraph 0060).
the one or more first parameters are different than one or more second parameters associated with the set of QoS profiles,
WU writes, “In some possible implementations, the one or more alternative QoS profiles mentioned
above may include at least one of the following: a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, an uplink
(UL) guaranteed bitrate, a downlink (DL) guaranteed bitrate, an averaging window, a maximum data
burst volume, or a terminal status management indication. The terminal status management indication
is configured to indicate whether the one or more alternative QoS profiles support application to
terminal status management” (paragraph 0058). WU explains the alternative QoS profiles may include
at least one of the following: a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, an uplink (UL) guaranteed
bitrate, a downlink (DL) guaranteed bitrate, an averaging window, a maximum data burst volume, or a
terminal status management indication. Therefore, indicating the alternative QoS profiles are different
from the QoS profiles.
and the one or more first parameters and the one or more second parameters comprise a
guaranteed bit rate (GBR), a maximum bit rate (MBR), a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, or any combination thereof.
WU writes, “In some possible implementations, the one or more alternative QoS profiles mentioned
above may include at least one of the following: a packet delay budget, a packet error rate, an uplink
(UL) guaranteed bitrate, a downlink (DL) guaranteed bitrate, an averaging window, a maximum data
burst volume, or a terminal status management indication. The terminal status management indication
is configured to indicate whether the one or more alternative QoS profiles support application to
terminal status management” (paragraph 0058).
Claims 19 is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 that has already been
rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected
under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU, BHANGU, and KIM as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of PAHUJA et al. (US 20240251345 A1, hereinafter, "PAHUJA") and LASELVA et al. (WO 2025098953 A1, hereinafter, "LASELVA").
Regarding claim 2, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the RAN node to:
WU, BHANGU, and KIM fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “determine to exit the energy efficiency mode based at least in part on the one or more network parameters;” and “and transmit a second message indicating that the RAN node is exiting the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the set of QoS profiles of the PDU session based at least in part on exiting the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, PAHUJA teaches determine to exit the energy efficiency mode
based at least in part on the one or more network parameters;
PAHUJA writes, “The apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a threshold evaluation machine
learning module configured to determine, based at least on the predicted future load and one or more
parameters indicative of user experience within the group of cells, the at least one threshold load value
for establishing whether the cell of the group of cells should enter or exit the power saving mode” (claim
9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of WU, BHANGU, and KIM to include aspects described by PAHUJA that “relate to power saving in a wireless communication network and, in particular, an apparatus and a method to determine a threshold to decide whether a cell should enter or exit a power saving mode.” PAHUJA provides the motivation for modification stating, “It will be appreciated that energy consumption of a network can be reduced by improving the energy efficiency of the network, and/or by introducing energy saving operation, for example, switching off a carrier in the network. Whilst energy saving is important, network providers typically also consider quality of service and functionality provided by a wireless communication network to users of that network. Therefore, energy saving methods may be influenced by network load and a requirement for a network to support operation of user equipment within that network” (paragraph 0123).
WU, BHANGU, KIM, and PAHUJA fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “and transmit a second message indicating that the RAN node is exiting the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the set of QoS profiles of the PDU session based at least in part on exiting the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, LASELVA teaches and transmit a second message indicating that the RAN node is exiting the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the set of QoS profiles of the PDU session based at least in part on exiting the energy efficiency mode.
LASELVA writes, “In the following examples the preference regarding to an acceptable QoS degradation
that can be tolerated can be expressed by the signaling or transmitting a preferred mode of operation
for a data session from two (or more) operation modes. A first example operation mode is a
‘performance mode’ where a focus is on the performance of the communication between the device
(e.g., a UE) and access network (or in other words the achievement of the agreed QoS compared to
power consumption is the focus). A second example operation mode is an ‘energy saving mode’ where a
focus is on producing energy savings with respect to the energy or power consumption for
communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network” (paragraph 00136). LASELVA adds,
“In other words the performance mode aims to produce a higher QoS with respect to a data session for
communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network than the energy saving mode. Thus
typically an energy saving mode causes a configuration to be selected which tolerates a lower QoS than
the performance mode, with the benefit of a lower power consumption or lower energy usage between
the device (e.g., a UE) and access network” (paragraph 00138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of WU, BHANGU, and KIM to include aspects described by LASELVA that “relate to a method, apparatus, system and computer program and in particular but not exclusively to implementing energy saving controls within a communications network whilst providing an acceptable quality of service (QoS).” LASELVA provides the motivation for modification stating, “As shown in Figure 4, the UE 401 is configured to use access stratum (AS) 413 level signalling (in other words signalling or dialogue which is explicitly between the UE and a RAN node) to indicate UE preferred configurations in case of the UE overheating and also for improved performance of the battery of the UE during communications with a RAN node” (paragraph 00142).
Claims 20 is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 2 that has already been
rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 2. Claim 20 is rejected
under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU, BHANGU, and KIM as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SHA et al. (US 20250212114 A1, hereinafter, "SHA").
Regarding claim 5, WU, BHANGU, and KIM teach the RAN node of claim 1, wherein, to transmit the message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the RAN node to:
WU, BHANGU, and KIM fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “transmit, to the UE, the message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, SHA teaches transmit, to the UE, the message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode.
SHA writes, “FIG. 12 illustrates an example message flow for sending power saving related information.
The message may be sent from a RAN node such as gNB to a UE, via at least one of: a MAC CE message,
or a Downlink Control Information (DCI) message” (paragraph 0139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of WU, BHANGU, and KIM to include aspects described by SHA that “[t]his disclosure is directed generally to wireless communications, and particularly to a method, device, and system for exchanging power saving information in a wireless network.” SHA provides the motivation for modification stating, “ With power saving information from other network elements, a network element such as a RAN node, may make a more informed choice, for example, when attempting to transfer certain traffic or service to another RAN node, and achieving a higher successful transfer rate while maintaining the service requirement such as a Quality of Service (QOS) requirement” (paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM and PARK et al. (US 20210410107 A1, hereinafter, "PARK").
Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches receive a message indicating that a radio access network (RAN) node is entering an energy efficiency mode and further indicating that one or more Quality of Service (QoS) flows of a plurality of QoS flows are modified in accordance with one or more alternative QoS profiles based at least in part on the energy efficiency mode,
KIM writes, “Thereafter, the NG-RAN may determine whether it can guarantee (or fulfill) the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (i.e., Such QoS indicated by the Alternative QoS Profiles as GFBR, PDB, PER, etc.) for the QoS flow. This may be regarded as a case that the NG-RAN can support a better/higher QoS after the first notification. As a result of the determination, a second notification indicating that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed (or fulfilled) for the QoS flow may be transmitted to the SMF. Here, the second notification may include information on the Alternative QoS Profile that can guarantee (or fulfill) the QoS flow among the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles” (paragraph 0134). KIM adds, “Alternatively, the PDU session related message may be a PDU session modification related
message forwarded from the SMF. In this regard, FIG. 9 shows a PDU session modification procedure.
Referring to FIG. 9, in step 3a or step 3b, an SMF may include an Alternative QoS Profile in N2 SM
information forwarded to an NG-RAN. Namely, at least one or more Alternative QoS Profiles are
included for a prescribed GBR QoS Flow together with a QoS Profile and then provided to the NG-RAN.
An AMF forwards the N2 SM information received from the SMF to the NG-RAN in step 4. For reference,
each QoS Flow is identified by a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI). Hence, the QoS Profile and the Alternative
QoS Profile(s) are provided to the NG-RAN as a part of QoS Parameters for the QoS Flow identified by
the QFI. Besides, details of the respective steps shown in FIG. 9 refer to the contents disclosed in ‘UE or
network requested PDU Session Modification’ of Section TS 23.502 4.3.2.2, which is used as the related
art of the specification” (paragraph 0141).
the one or more QoS flows associated with a packet data unit (PDU) session between the SMF and a user equipment (UE),
KIM writes, “In one technical aspect of the present disclosure, provided is a method of operating a Next
Generation-Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) in a wireless communication system, the method including
receiving a PDU session related message including a QoS profile related to a QoS flow and two or more
Alternative QoS Profiles by the NG-RAN, determining whether to guarantee the QoS profile for the QoS
flow by the NG-RAN, transmitting a first notification indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed for
the QoS flow to an SMF by the NG-RAN, determining whether the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles
can be guaranteed for the QoS flow by the NG-RAN, and transmitting a second notification indicating
that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed for the QoS flow, wherein the second notification may
include information on the Alternative QoS Profile capable of guaranteeing the QoS flow among the two
or more Alternative QoS Profiles” (paragraph 0017). KIM adds, “The AMF of the 5G system performs
registration management (RM) and connection management (CM) for non-3GPP access as well as 3GPP
access. As such, the same AMF serves a UE for 3GPP access and non-3GPP access belonging to the same
PLMN, so that one network function may integrally and efficiently support authentication, mobility
management, and session management for UEs registered through two different accesses” (paragraph
0119).
wherein the one or more alternative QoS profiles are different from a set of QoS profiles of
the PDU session;
KIM writes, “In one technical aspect of the present disclosure, provided is a method of operating a Next
Generation-Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) in a wireless communication system, the method including
receiving a PDU session related message including a QoS profile related to a QoS flow and two or more
Alternative QoS Profiles by the NG-RAN, determining whether to guarantee the QoS profile for the QoS
flow by the NG-RAN, transmitting a first notification indicating that the QoS profile is not guaranteed for
the QoS flow to an SMF by the NG-RAN, determining whether the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles
can be guaranteed for the QoS flow by the NG-RAN, and transmitting a second notification indicating
that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed for the QoS flow, wherein the second notification may
include information on the Alternative QoS Profile capable of guaranteeing the QoS flow among the two
or more Alternative QoS Profiles” (paragraph 0017).
modify the PDU session in accordance with the one or more alternative QoS profiles;
KIM writes, “An NG-RAN is provided with an Alternative QoS Profile including the above-described
original QoS information from an SMF when the QoS Flow is generated/added. An SMF may provide a
QoS Profile and Alternative QoS Profile(s) to the NG-RAN while adding or modifying a QoS Flow.
Representatively, a PDU Session Establishment procedure and a PDU Session Modification procedure
may be used. Namely, the PDU session related message may be a PDU session establishment related
message forwarded from the SMF. FIG. 8 shows a PDU session establishment procedure. Referring to
FIG. 8, an SMF may include an Alternative QoS Profile in N2SM information forwarded to an NG-RAN.
Namely, one or more Alternative QoS Profiles may be included for a prescribed GBR QoS Flow together
with a QoS Profile and then provided to the NG-RAN. An AMF forwards the N2 SM information received
from the SMF to the NG-RAN in a step 12. Besides, details of the respective steps shown in FIG. 8 refer
to the contents disclosed in ‘UE Requested PDU Session Establishment’ of Section TS 23.502 4.3.2.2,
which is used as the related art of the specification” (paragraph 0140).
and transmit a response message comprising an indication of an updated PDU session in accordance with the modified PDU session and the one or more alternative QoS profiles.
KIM writes, “Alternatively, the PDU session related message may be a PDU session modification related
message forwarded from the SMF. In this regard, FIG. 9 shows a PDU session modification procedure.
Referring to FIG. 9, in step 3a or step 3b, an SMF may include an Alternative QoS Profile in N2 SM
information forwarded to an NG-RAN. Namely, at least one or more Alternative QoS Profiles are
included for a prescribed GBR QoS Flow together with a QoS Profile and then provided to the NG-RAN.
An AMF forwards the N2 SM information received from the SMF to the NG-RAN in step 4. For reference,
each QoS Flow is identified by a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI). Hence, the QoS Profile and the Alternative
QoS Profile(s) are provided to the NG-RAN as a part of QoS Parameters for the QoS Flow identified by
the QFI. Besides, details of the respective steps shown in FIG. 9 refer to the contents disclosed in ‘UE or
network requested PDU Session Modification’ of Section TS 23.502 4.3.2.2, which is used as the related
art of the specification” (paragraph 0141).
KIM fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “a session management function (SMF), comprising:”, “one or more memories storing processor-executable code;”, and “and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:”
However, in analogous art, PARK teaches a session management function (SMF), comprising:
PARK writes, “In an example, other nodes in a wireless network (e.g. AMF, UPF, SMF, etc.) may comprise
one or more communication interfaces, one or more processors, and memory storing instructions ”
(paragraph 0074).
one or more memories storing processor-executable code;
PARK writes, “In an example, other nodes in a wireless network (e.g. AMF, UPF, SMF, etc.) may comprise
one or more communication interfaces, one or more processors, and memory storing instructions ”
(paragraph 0074).
and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:
PARK writes, “In an example, other nodes in a wireless network (e.g. AMF, UPF, SMF, etc.) may comprise
one or more communication interfaces, one or more processors, and memory storing instructions ”
(paragraph 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of KIM to include aspects described by PARK that “the embodiments of the technology disclosed herein may relate to radio access networks in multicarrier communication systems.” PARK provides the motivation for modification stating, “Embodiments of the present disclosure may provide enhanced signaling mechanisms for wireless devices that support communications with multiple wireless systems. In an example embodiment, a wireless device may inform a second wireless system whether the wireless device is actively communicating with a first wireless system. The second wireless system takes into account the information when determining signal transmission to the wireless device. Example embodiments may increase resource utilization efficiency and decrease service latency” (paragraph 0165).
Regarding claim 14, KIM and PARK teach the SMF of claim 12, wherein, to modify the PDU session, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:
Additionally, KIM teaches transmit a second message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode and identifying one or more QoS flows associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles in accordance with the energy efficiency mode.
KIM writes, “Thereafter, the NG-RAN may determine whether it can guarantee (or fulfill) the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles (i.e., Such QoS indicated by the Alternative QoS Profiles as GFBR, PDB, PER, etc.) for the QoS flow. This may be regarded as a case that the NG-RAN can support a better/higher QoS after the first notification. As a result of the determination, a second notification indicating that the Alternative QoS Profile is guaranteed (or fulfilled) for the QoS flow may be transmitted to the SMF. Here, the second notification may include information on the Alternative QoS Profile that can guarantee (or fulfill) the QoS flow among the two or more Alternative QoS Profiles” (paragraph 0134). KIM adds, “Alternatively, the PDU session related message may be a PDU session modification related
message forwarded from the SMF. In this regard, FIG. 9 shows a PDU session modification procedure.
Referring to FIG. 9, in step 3a or step 3b, an SMF may include an Alternative QoS Profile in N2 SM
information forwarded to an NG-RAN. Namely, at least one or more Alternative QoS Profiles are
included for a prescribed GBR QoS Flow together with a QoS Profile and then provided to the NG-RAN.
An AMF forwards the N2 SM information received from the SMF to the NG-RAN in step 4. For reference,
each QoS Flow is identified by a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI). Hence, the QoS Profile and the Alternative
QoS Profile(s) are provided to the NG-RAN as a part of QoS Parameters for the QoS Flow identified by
the QFI. Besides, details of the respective steps shown in FIG. 9 refer to the contents disclosed in ‘UE or
network requested PDU Session Modification’ of Section TS 23.502 4.3.2.2, which is used as the related
art of the specification” (paragraph 0141).
Claim(s) 13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM and PARK as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of LASELVA et al. (WO 2025098953 A1, hereinafter, "LASELVA").
Regarding claim 13, KIM and PARK teach the SMF of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:
KIM and PARK fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “transmit a second message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode in accordance with one or more policy and charging control (PCC) rules, the one or more PCC rules associated with the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, LASELVA teaches transmit a second message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode in accordance with one or more policy and charging control (PCC) rules, the one or more PCC rules associated with the energy efficiency mode.
LASELVA writes, “In the following examples the preference regarding to an acceptable QoS degradation that can be tolerated can be expressed by the signaling or transmitting a preferred mode of operation for a data session from two (or more) operation modes. A first example operation mode is a ‘performance mode’ where a focus is on the performance of the communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network (or in other words the achievement of the agreed QoS compared to power consumption is the focus). A second example operation mode is an ‘energy saving mode’ where a focus is on producing energy savings with respect to the energy or power consumption for communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network” (paragraph 00136). LASELVA continues, “In other words the performance mode aims to produce a higher QoS with respect to a data session for communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network than the energy saving mode. Thus typically an energy saving mode causes a configuration to be selected which tolerates a lower QoS than the performance mode, with the benefit of a lower power consumption or lower energy usage between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network” (paragraph 00138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of KIM and PARK to include aspects described by LASELVA that “relate to a method, apparatus, system and computer program and in particular but not exclusively to implementing energy saving controls within a communications network whilst providing an acceptable quality of service (QoS).” LASELVA provides the motivation for modification stating, “As shown in Figure 4, the UE 401 is configured to use access stratum (AS) 413 level signalling (in other words signalling or dialogue which is explicitly between the UE and a RAN node) to indicate UE preferred configurations in case of the UE overheating and also for improved performance of the battery of the UE during communications with a RAN node” (paragraph 00142).
Regarding claim 16, KIM and PARK teach the SMF of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:
KIM and PARK fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “receive a second message indicating that the RAN node is exiting the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the set of QoS profiles of the PDU session based at least in part on exiting the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, LASELVA teaches receive a second message indicating that the RAN node is exiting the energy efficiency mode and that the PDU session is modified in accordance with the set of QoS profiles of the PDU session based at least in part on exiting the energy efficiency mode.
LASELVA writes, “In the following examples the preference regarding to an acceptable QoS degradation
that can be tolerated can be expressed by the signaling or transmitting a preferred mode of operation
for a data session from two (or more) operation modes. A first example operation mode is a
‘performance mode’ where a focus is on the performance of the communication between the device
(e.g., a UE) and access network (or in other words the achievement of the agreed QoS compared to
power consumption is the focus). A second example operation mode is an ‘energy saving mode’ where a
focus is on producing energy savings with respect to the energy or power consumption for
communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network” (paragraph 00136). LASELVA
continues, “In other words the performance mode aims to produce a higher QoS with respect to a data
session for communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network than the energy saving
mode. Thus typically an energy saving mode causes a configuration to be selected which tolerates a
lower QoS than the performance mode, with the benefit of a lower power consumption or lower energy
usage between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network (paragraph 00138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of KIM and PARK to include aspects described by LASELVA that “relate to a method, apparatus, system and computer program and in particular but not exclusively to implementing energy saving controls within a communications network whilst providing an acceptable quality of service (QoS).” LASELVA provides the motivation for modification stating, “As shown in Figure 4, the UE 401 is configured to use access stratum (AS) 413 level signalling (in other words signalling or dialogue which is explicitly between the UE and a RAN node) to indicate UE preferred configurations in case of the UE overheating and also for improved performance of the battery of the UE during communications with a RAN node” (paragraph 00142).
Regarding claim 17, KIM and PARK teach the SMF of claim 12, wherein, to receive the message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:
KIM and PARK fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “receive, from the RAN node via a access and mobility management function (AMF), the message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode.”
However, in analogous art, LASELVA teaches receive, from the RAN node via a access and mobility management function (AMF), the message indicating that the RAN node is entering the energy efficiency mode.
LASELVA writes, “In the following examples the preference regarding to an acceptable QoS degradation
that can be tolerated can be expressed by the signaling or transmitting a preferred mode of operation
for a data session from two (or more) operation modes. A first example operation mode is a
‘performance mode’ where a focus is on the performance of the communication between the device
(e.g., a UE) and access network (or in other words the achievement of the agreed QoS compared to
power consumption is the focus). A second example operation mode is an ‘energy saving mode’ where a
focus is on producing energy savings with respect to the energy or power consumption for
communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network” (paragraph 00136). LASELVA
continues, “In other words the performance mode aims to produce a higher QoS with respect to a data
session for communication between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network than the energy saving
mode. Thus typically an energy saving mode causes a configuration to be selected which tolerates a
lower QoS than the performance mode, with the benefit of a lower power consumption or lower energy
usage between the device (e.g., a UE) and access network (paragraph 00138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of KIM and PARK to include aspects described by LASELVA that “relate to a method, apparatus, system and computer program and in particular but not exclusively to implementing energy saving controls within a communications network whilst providing an acceptable quality of service (QoS).” LASELVA provides the motivation for modification stating, “As shown in Figure 4, the UE 401 is configured to use access stratum (AS) 413 level signalling (in other words signalling or dialogue which is explicitly between the UE and a RAN node) to indicate UE preferred configurations in case of the UE overheating and also for improved performance of the battery of the UE during communications with a RAN node” (paragraph 00142).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM and PARK as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of QIAO et al. (US 20230179640 A1, hereinafter, "QIAO").
Regarding claim 15, KIM and PARK teach the SMF of claim 14, wherein, to transmit the second message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the SMF to:
KIM and PARK fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “transmit the second message identifying the one or more QoS flows associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles, wherein a usage charging data record (CDR) associated with the UE is updated in accordance with a charging rate associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles.”
However, in analogous art, QIAO teaches transmit the second message identifying the one or more QoS flows associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles, wherein a usage charging data record (CDR) associated with the UE is updated in accordance with a charging rate associated with the one or more alternative QoS profiles.
QIAO writes, “In an example, the UPF may report resource usage of a PDU session to the SMF. As an
example, the UPF may report resource usage of a wireless device to the SMF. by enforcing the charging
control rules, the SMF may send to the CHF a message (e.g. Charging Data Request [update]) comprising
resource usage information received from the UPF. In an example, the CHF may update CDR for this PDU
session. The CHF may acknowledge the SMF by sending a Charging Data Response message. In an
example, the SMF may send to the AMF a Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response message”
(paragraph 0371). KIM adds, “An AMF forwards the N2 SM information received from the SMF to the
NG-RAN in step 4. For reference, each QoS Flow is identified by a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI). Hence, the
QoS Profile and the Alternative QoS Profile(s) are provided to the NG-RAN as a part of QoS Parameters
for the QoS Flow identified by the QFI. Besides, details of the respective steps shown in FIG. 9 refer to
the contents disclosed in ‘UE or network requested PDU Session Modification’ of Section TS 23.502
4.3.2.2, which is used as the related art of the specification” (paragraph 0141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of KIM and PARK to include aspects described by QIAO that “the embodiments of the technology disclosed herein may relate to synchronization of multiple service data flows (e.g. for 5G or future communication system).” QIAO provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to various embodiments, when facing an overload scenario, the network entity may attempt to avoid discard and/or delay of any one flow associated with the synchronization request. For example, the network entity may determine to treat each of the multiple flows associated with a synchronization request similarly. If the network entity is overloaded, the network entity may deliver all of the multiple flows synchronously while discarding/delaying other selected flows. Alternatively, the network entity may discard data associated with each of the multiple flows to reduce congestion, or delay each of the multiple flows to reduce congestion” (paragraph 0381).
Claims 8 and 18 have been canceled by the applicant, respectfully.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A REYES whose telephone number is (703)756-4558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EDT.
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, KHALED KASSIM can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/Christopher A. Reyes/Examiner, Art Unit 2475 9/17/2026
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights