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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on December 10, 2025. Claims 1-12, and 18-19 are amended. Claims 14-17 and 20-33 are canceled.
Claims 1-13, and 18-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection dated on 09/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, and 18-19 have been considered but are moot in new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues, the combination of prior arts, Frechin and Han fail to disclose the claim limitation. The application is directed towards application function (AF) transmits information about an uplink (UL)/downlink (DL) notification request to a session management function (SMF). A notification message including response information with respect to the UL/DL notification request, on the basis of the occurrence of an event related to the UL/DL notification request.
Frechin discloses a technique for allocating radio resources to communication equipment attached to a base station. A communication between a base station and at least one item of communication equipment attached to the base station. The method includes: obtaining at least one first value of a quality of a radio uplink or downlink between the base station and one of the items of equipment, referred to as client equipment, allocating radio resources to the item of equipment in accordance with an allocation scheme implementing a first radio quality of service configuration, if at least one current value of a quality of the radio uplink or downlink between the base station and the item of client equipment is associated with a radio link quality level lower than the at least one first uplink or downlink value, respectively, allocating radio resources to the item of equipment attached to the base station in accordance with an allocation scheme implementing a second radio quality of service configuration. a first value of a quality of the radio uplink between the base station and the client equipment and/or a first value of a quality of the radio downlink between the base station and the client equipment is/are obtained. This first value of a quality of the radio uplink and/or downlink can be associated with the first QoS configuration. The base station can thus allocate radio resources to the client equipment and possibly to the other equipment it serves in accordance with an allocation scheme implementing this first radio QoS configuration, as such, allocation with strict prioritization at a guaranteed bit rate, for at least one stream transmitted or received by the client equipment.
If the quality of the radio uplink and/or downlink between the base station and the client equipment deteriorates, the base station can change the allocation scheme to allocate radio resources by implementing a second radio QoS configuration for at least one stream transmitted or received by the client equipment during a second phase implementing at least one iteration. Additionally, the maintenance of the QoS rules applied to at least one stream of the client equipment is conditioned by the observed quality of the radio link between the base station and the client equipment. If the radio link quality deteriorates (uplink, downlink or both, depending on the embodiment), the base station replaces for example the initial configuration of the QoS mechanisms with a configuration that is less favourable to the client equipment, second radio QoS configuration. In other words, QoS differentiation mechanisms for a client equipment by controlling the quantity of radio resources consumed by this access.
Han discloses configure the base station for 5G-NR QoS monitoring and reporting and cause the base station to encode a Downlink User Data frame for transmission from a CU-UP to a DU of the base station. The Downlink User Data frame includes an indicator requesting a delivery status for a downlink data transmission. A Downlink Data Delivery Status frame is encoded for transmission from the DU to the CU-UP using an F1-U interface. The Downlink Data Delivery Status frame includes a feedback delay measured at the DU based on the indicator. The feedback delay indicates a time between reception of the Downlink User Data frame and transmission of the Downlink Data Delivery Status frame. A downlink or uplink delay associated with the F1-U interface is determined based on the feedback delay. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection is sustained for those claim limitations.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 18 and 19 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-13 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts Frechin and Han for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRECHIN et al. (US Publication 2024/0251432) hereafter FRECHIN, in view of Han et al. (US Publication 2024/0357413) hereafter Han, in further view of SUN et al. (US Publication 2022/0286901) hereafter SUN.
As per claim 1, FRECHIN discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a base station from a session management node, a Quality of Service (QOS) profile, wherein the QoS profile is received in a session establishment procedure (paragraphs 27-32, 162, 170), wherein the QoS profile is generated based on a Policy rule including information related to an Uplink (UL)/Downlink (DL) notification request (paragraphs 31-32, 42-47, 97: wherein it emphasizes a next generation (5G Network) of wireless communication system receiving a quality of service configuration based on network rules which includes some vales for uplink and downlink notification request); wherein the QoS profile includes the information related to the UL/DL notification request (paragraphs 25-29, 40-44, 129); and based on an event occurring with respect to the UL/DL notification request, transmitting, to the session management node, a notification message including response information to the UL/DL notification request (paragraphs 48-68, 83-88, 129-135; wherein it elaborates that when the UL/DL current value is less or higher than the notification request then a notification message which includes a response information to the UL/DL notification will be transferred). Although, FRECHIN discusses about quality of service-based policy regulation, but fails to elaborately discloses Quality of Service (QOS) profile generated based on a Policy and Charging Control (PCC).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han discloses Quality of Service (QOS) profile generated based on a Policy and Charging Control (PCC) (paragraphs 29-31).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Han’s teachings of Quality of Service (QOS) profile generated based on a Policy and Charging Control (PCC) with the teachings of Han, for the purpose of effectively maintaining the quality of a wireless communication.
Although, Han-FRECHIN disclose communication equipment to a base station with minimum uplink and/or downlink bit rate for one or more streams of the equipment and communications with different QoS levels, but fail to expressly disclose wherein the QoS profile includes the information related to the UL/DL notification request, and wherein the UL/DL notification request is related to QoS-based reporting conditions for at least UL or DL QoS satisfaction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SUN discloses the claimed limitation of communication equipment to a base station with minimum uplink and/or downlink bit rate for one or more streams of the equipment and communications with different QoS levels, but fail to expressly disclose wherein the QoS profile includes the information related to the UL/DL notification request, and wherein the UL/DL notification request is related to QoS-based reporting conditions for at least UL or DL QoS satisfaction (paragraphs 81, 156-158, 162).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated SUNs’ with teachings of uplink packet detection rule, with teachings of Han-FRECHINs’ allocating of resources and Quality of Service profile generated based on a Policy and Charging Control, for the purpose of operating and performing effectively based on the response information in maintaining the QoS updated communication.
As per claim 2, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses the method, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if QOS is not satisfied, information for whether UL QoS is not satisfied, DL QOS is not satisfied, or both UL/DL QOS is not satisfied (FRECHIN, paragraphs 31-32, and 34).
As per claim 3, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if QOS is not satisfied, information for whether there is any currently ongoing traffic (FRECHIN, paragraphs 65-67).
As per claim 4, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if QoS is not satisfied, information for whether UL traffic is present, DL traffic is present, or both UL/DL traffic are present, if there is any currently ongoing traffic (FRECHIN, paragraphs 83-86).
As per claim 5, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if the QoS is not satisfied, information informing that a QoS flow is released or removed (FRECHIN, paragraphs 30-31, 39).
As per claim 6, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if QOS is satisfied again, information for whether UL QOS is satisfied again, DL QOS is satisfied again, or both UL/DL QOS are satisfied again (FRECHIN, paragraphs 42-44).
As per claim 7, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if QoS is satisfied again, information for whether there is any currently ongoing traffic (FRECHIN, paragraphs 97-101).
As per claim 8, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if QoS is satisfied again, information for whether UL traffic is present, DL traffic is present, or both UL/DL traffic are present, if there is any currently ongoing traffic (FRECHIN, paragraphs 68, 80-81).
As per claim 9, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if a QoS requirement of a lowest priority is not satisfied, information for whether UL QoS is not satisfied, DL QoS is not satisfied, or both UL/DL QOS are not satisfied (FRECHIN, paragraphs 70-71, 75).
As per claim 10, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if a QoS requirement of a lowest priority is not satisfied, information for whether there is any currently ongoing traffic (FRECHIN, paragraphs 88-92).
As per claim 11, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if a QoS requirement of a lowest priority is not satisfied, information for whether UL traffic are present, DL traffic is present, or both UL/DL traffic is present, if there is any currently ongoing traffic (FRECHIN, paragraphs 59, 63-64).
As per claim 12, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request includes, if a QoS requirement of a lowest priority is not satisfied, information informing that a QoS flow is released or removed (FRECHIN, paragraphs 25-28).
As per claim 13, FRECHIN in view of Han discloses, wherein the response information to the UL/DL notification request is transmitted to a User Equipment (UE) (FRECHIN, paragraphs 29, 40-41).
Claim 18 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
As per claim 19, FRECHIN discloses a method performed by an Application Function (AF) adapted to operate in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting information for an Uplink (UL)/Downlink (DL) notification request to a session management node via a policy (paragraphs 31-32, 42-47, 97); receiving response information to the UL/DL notification request from the session management node; and performing an operation related to Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) based on the response information (paragraphs 48-68, 83-88, 129-135). Although, FRECHIN discusses about quality of service-based policy regulation, but he fails to elaborately disclose Policy and Charging Function (PCF) and performing an operation related to Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) based on the response information.
In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses Policy and Charging Function (PCF) and performing an operation related to Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) based on the response information (paragraphs 29-31, 95).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Han’s teachings of Policy and Charging Function (PCF) and performing an operation related to Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) based on the response information with the teachings of FRECHIN, for the purpose of effectively maintaining the quality of a wireless communication based on AI information.
Although, Han-FRECHIN disclose communication equipment to a base station with minimum uplink and/or downlink bit rate for one or more streams of the equipment and communications with different QoS levels, but fail to expressly disclose wherein the UL/DL notification request is related to QoS-based reporting conditions for at least UL or DL QoS satisfaction; receiving response information to the UL/DL notification request from the session management node via the policy and charging node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SUN discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the UL/DL notification request is related to QoS-based reporting conditions for at least UL or DL QoS satisfaction; receiving response information to the UL/DL notification request from the session management node via the policy and charging node (paragraphs 81, 156-158, 162).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights