DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 06/06/2024, claims 1-10, 13-18, 21, 23, 24, and 37 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 has been placed in the application file, and the information referred therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
Drawing figures submitted on 06/06/2024 have been reviewed and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10, 13-18, 21, 23, 24, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a process and therefore fall within a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claims recite limitations including:
Transmitting QoS flows of a target service, determining whether to reduce a QoS level associated with a target QoS flow or stop transmission of the target QoS flow; and
managing transmission behavior based on the determined service requirements.
These limitations describe evaluating information and making decisions regarding resource allocation and transmission management. Such activities constitute mental processes because they can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper, including observing information, evaluating conditions, and deciding whether to continue, modify, or terminate a service.
The claims therefore recite an abstract idea.
See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying or acting on the results constitutes an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements merely recite generic components such as:
a user equipment (UE);
a network;
a QoS flow; and
wireless communication functionality.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of transmitting, receiving, storing, and processing information.
The claims do not improve the functioning of the UE, the network, or wireless communication technology. Rather, they merely use generic communication components as tools to implement the abstract idea of determining and managing service levels.
See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application).
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims also fail to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements recite only conventional wireless communication components performing routine functions such as:
transmitting and receiving information;
managing QoS flows; and
processing service-related information.
Such activities are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of wireless communications.
The claims merely automate a decision-making process regarding QoS management using generic network components and therefore do not provide an inventive concept.
See:
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (generic computer implementation of an abstract idea is not significantly more);
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (receiving, processing, and transmitting information using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept);
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying or acting on the results using conventional technology is abstract and lacks an inventive concept).
Conclusion
The claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1, 14, 24 and 37 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5, 8, 14-16, 24 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KHIRALLAH et al. (US 2020/0280871 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Khirallah teaches a data transmission method, applied to a terminal and comprising:
when sending multiple Quality of Service (QoS) flows of a target service to at least one network device (See Figs. 7-8: the UE to monitor QoS characteristics for each QoS flow if necessary and report, at S806, QoS information acquired by the UE 3 as a result of the monitoring at S802 (e.g. as described with reference to one of FIGS. 7(A) to (C). ¶ [0115]),
reducing a QoS guarantee level of a target QoS flow (See Fig. 8: the QoE/QoS information reported by the UE 3 and the QoS information acquired by the base station 5 (either from its own QoS measurements or from QoS measurement results reported by the UE 3) indicate that there is degradation (i.e., reducing in a level) in the monitored QoS for at least one QoS flow beyond acceptable limits. ¶ [0116]); wherein the target QoS flow is one QoS flow of the target service. (See Fig. 8: This indicates that it may be possible to achieve a satisfactory QoE at the UE 3, for all QoS flows, with less stringent QoS requirements…and updating QoE information (and possibly one or other parameters such as overall cell load) whilst still ensuring that an acceptable QoE (i.e., target service) is maintained for all QoS flows on that DRB at the UE 3. ¶ [0117]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “…or…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 2; Khirallah teaches the data transmission method further comprising: storing an untransmitted QoS flow of the target service (See Fig. 8: The QoE may, for example, be assessed against one or more predefined thresholds, which delineate the acceptable degradation limit, and that are stored in memory 39. For example, where a particular measurement result that increases with QoE, falls below a corresponding threshold. ¶ [0082]), and sending the untransmitted QoS flow to the network device actively (See Fig. 9: The UE 3 reports, at S906, QoE information acquired by the UE 3 as a result of the monitoring at S902. ¶ [0121]).
Regarding claim 3; Khirallah teaches the data transmission method wherein the sending the untransmitted QoS flow to the network device actively or according to the scheduling of the network side comprises one of: transmitting the untransmitted QoS flow through an originally configured DRB via air interface (See FIG. 7, at S700, a plurality of QoS flows are mapped to a single DRB in a particular PDU session (although there may be other DRBs within the same PDU session each associated with one or more respective QoS flows). ¶ [0098-0099]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one of”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 5; Khirallah teaches the data transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the target QoS flow comprises at least one QoS flow comprises at least one of the multiple QoS flows of the target service (See Fig. 8: Where the UE 3 performs QoS measurements, the QoE/QoS measurement module 45 also performs these measurements for assessing whether the QoS for each QoS flow has degraded beyond acceptable limits (e.g. based on one or more predefined thresholds for the QoS measurements (i.e., target service) as described for QoE degradation based, for example, on the configured QoS characteristics and/or other QoS parameters in the QoS profile). ¶ [0082]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “and/or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 8: Khirallah teaches the data transmission method according to wherein the reducing the QoS guarantee level of the target QoS flow or stopping the transmission of the target QoS flow comprises:
receiving first indication information sent by the at least one network device; wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate reducing the QoS guarantee level of the target QoS flow (See Fig. 8: Accordingly, at S808, the base station 5 update the QoS parameters (e.g. to relax the QoS requirements) for a given DRB, based on the reported QoE information (and possibly one or other parameters such as overall cell load) whilst still ensuring that an acceptable QoE is maintained for all QoS flows on that DRB at the UE 3. Where the actual QoE measurements are reported (as opposed to simply a QoE degradation flag), as described with reference to FIGS. 7(B) and (C), the extent to which the measured QoE exceeds a target level may beneficially be used to inform the base station's decision on whether or not to update the QoS parameters of the DRB and, if the QoS parameters are to be updated, the extent to which they can be updated without causing an unacceptable degradation in QoE. ¶ [0117]).
Regarding claim 14: Khirallah teaches a data transmission method, applied to a network device and comprising:
receiving multiple Quality of Service (QoS) flows of a target service sent by a terminal (See Figs. 7-8: the UE to monitor QoS characteristics for each QoS flow if necessary and report, at S806, QoS information acquired by the UE 3 as a result of the monitoring at S802 (e.g. as described with reference to one of FIGS. 7(A) to (C). ¶ [0115]),
wherein a QoS guarantee level of a target QoS flow is reduced (See Fig. 8: the QoE/QoS information reported by the UE 3 and the QoS information acquired by the base station 5 (either from its own QoS measurements or from QoS measurement results reported by the UE 3) indicate that there is degradation (i.e., reducing in a level) in the monitored QoS for at least one QoS flow beyond acceptable limits. ¶ [0116]); wherein the target QoS flow is one QoS flow of the target service. (See Fig. 8: This indicates that it may be possible to achieve a satisfactory QoE at the UE 3, for all QoS flows, with less stringent QoS requirements…and updating QoE information (and possibly one or other parameters such as overall cell load) whilst still ensuring that an acceptable QoE (i.e., target service) is maintained for all QoS flows on that DRB at the UE 3. ¶ [0117]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “…or…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 15; Khirallah teaches the data transmission method further comprising: receiving an untransmitted QoS flow of the target service (See Fig. 8: The QoE may, for example, be assessed against one or more predefined thresholds, which delineate the acceptable degradation limit, and that are stored in memory 39. For example, where a particular measurement result that increases with QoE, falls below a corresponding threshold. ¶ [0082]) sent by the terminal (See Fig. 9: The UE 3 reports, at S906, QoE information acquired by the UE 3 as a result of the monitoring at S902. ¶ [0121]).
Regarding claim 16; Khirallah teaches the data transmission method wherein the target QoS flow comprises at least one QoS flow comprises at least one of the multiple QoS flows of the target service (See Fig. 8: Where the UE 3 performs QoS measurements, the QoE/QoS measurement module 45 also performs these measurements for assessing whether the QoS for each QoS flow has degraded beyond acceptable limits (e.g. based on one or more predefined thresholds for the QoS measurements (i.e., target service) as described for QoE degradation based, for example, on the configured QoS characteristics and/or other QoS parameters in the QoS profile). ¶ [0082]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “and/or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 24: Khirallah teaches a terminal comprising: a transceiver, a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor; wherein: the processor is configured to read the program in the memory to perform:
when sending multiple Quality of Service (QoS) flows of a target service to at least one network device (See Figs. 7-8: the UE to monitor QoS characteristics for each QoS flow if necessary and report, at S806, QoS information acquired by the UE 3 as a result of the monitoring at S802 (e.g. as described with reference to one of FIGS. 7(A) to (C). ¶ [0115]),
reducing a QoS guarantee level of a target QoS flow (See Fig. 8: the QoE/QoS information reported by the UE 3 and the QoS information acquired by the base station 5 (either from its own QoS measurements or from QoS measurement results reported by the UE 3) indicate that there is degradation (i.e., reducing in a level) in the monitored QoS for at least one QoS flow beyond acceptable limits. ¶ [0116]); wherein the target QoS flow is one QoS flow of the target service. (See Fig. 8: This indicates that it may be possible to achieve a satisfactory QoE at the UE 3, for all QoS flows, with less stringent QoS requirements…and updating QoE information (and possibly one or other parameters such as overall cell load) whilst still ensuring that an acceptable QoE (i.e., target service) is maintained for all QoS flows on that DRB at the UE 3. ¶ [0117]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “…or…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 37: Khirallah teaches a network device, comprising: a transceiver, a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor; wherein: the processor is configured to read the program in the memory to perform:
receiving multiple Quality of Service (QoS) flows of a target service sent by a terminal (See Figs. 7-8: the UE to monitor QoS characteristics for each QoS flow if necessary and report, at S806, QoS information acquired by the UE 3 as a result of the monitoring at S802 (e.g. as described with reference to one of FIGS. 7(A) to (C). ¶ [0115]),
wherein a QoS guarantee level of a target QoS flow is reduced (See Fig. 8: the QoE/QoS information reported by the UE 3 and the QoS information acquired by the base station 5 (either from its own QoS measurements or from QoS measurement results reported by the UE 3) indicate that there is degradation (i.e., reducing in a level) in the monitored QoS for at least one QoS flow beyond acceptable limits. ¶ [0116]); wherein the target QoS flow is one QoS flow of the target service. (See Fig. 8: This indicates that it may be possible to achieve a satisfactory QoE at the UE 3, for all QoS flows, with less stringent QoS requirements…and updating QoE information (and possibly one or other parameters such as overall cell load) whilst still ensuring that an acceptable QoE (i.e., target service) is maintained for all QoS flows on that DRB at the UE 3. ¶ [0117]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “…or…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 13, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHIRALLAH et al. (US 2020/0280871 A1) in view of HAN et al. (US 2019/0357076 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17; Khirallah teaches the data transmission method wherein the QoS flows are grouped (See Fig. 8a: ¶ [0116]).
Khirallah doesn’t explicitly disclose the method of grouping the QoS flows presenting a same orientation into a group.
However, Han discloses the method of grouping the QoS flows presenting a same orientation into a group (Han-See Fig. 4: To indicate a QoS flow ID group, the UE receives the PDCP control PDU, and maps an uplink QoS flow. ¶ [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide grouping the QoS flows presenting a same orientation into a group as taught by Han to have incorporated in the system of Khirallah, so that it would provide that, in a service transfer process, a reliable QoS service can be provided for a user, and continuity of a user service can be ensured. Han: Abstract.
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one of”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claims 13 and 23; Khirallah in view of Han discloses the data transmission method according to claim 1, wherein when sending the multiple QoS flows of the target service to the at least one network device, the method further comprises: carrying a group identifier of each QoS flow according to at least one of the following methods: adding the group identifier of each QoS flow to a data frame. (Han-See Fig. 4: To indicate a QoS flow ID group, the UE receives the PDCP control PDU, and maps an uplink QoS flow. ¶ [0121]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, 18, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim , but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2024/0056902 A1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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.
/SAI AUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights