DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 07/22/26.
Independent claims have been amended.
The previous 103 rejection over Youn and Salkintzis has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Youn in view of Salkintzis and further in view of Kim.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn et al. (US 2023/0132058, “Youn”) in view of Salkintzis (US 2021/0410010, “Salkintzis”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0112312, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Youn discloses a network entity for wireless communication, comprising:
- a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (See Fig.16, a memory and a processor):
- receive policy and charging control (PCC) rules that indicate that a multi-access (MA) protocol data unit (PDU) session is to be established with a redundant steering mode (See S1303 Fig.13, SMF receives PCC rule;
PNG
media_image1.png
443
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See ¶.7, receiving information indicating that PS Data Off is activated for the MA PDU session of the UE; updating a PCC rule based on the information indicating that the PS Data Off is activated for the MA PDU session; and transmitting the updated PCC rule to the SMF; See ¶.318, Policy and charging control (PCC) rules provided by the PCF may include ATSSS control information. The PCC rule and ATSSS control information may be used by the SMF to derive the ATSSS rule for the UE and the N4 rule for the UPF. For MA PDU session, if dynamic PCC rule is not used, SMF may provide ATSSS rule and N4 rule to UE and UPF, respectively; See ¶.320, when the SMF receives the PDU session establishment request message including the “MA PDU Request” indication, and if UP security protection is required for the PDU session, the SMF may confirm the establishment of the MA PDU session only if UP security protection requiring 3GPP access can be enforced; See ¶.335, the SMF may receive the PCC rule together with the ATSSS policy control information from the PCF; See ¶.306, in the PDU session establishment request message transmitted to request a new MA PDU session, the UE may provide ATSSS capability information of the UE. ATSSS capability information may include information about the steering mode and steering functionalities supported by the UE; See ¶.366, ATSSS rules may include Steering Mode. Steering Mode may determine how the matched SDF should be distributed over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access; Examiner’s Note: Salkintzis discloses the limitation “a redundant steering mode”);
- transmit N4 interface rules that indicate, for the MA PDU session (See S1305 Fig.13 and ¶.483, in step S1305, the SMF may deliver the N4 rule to the UPF. The UPF may inform how to route downlink traffic for the UE through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, based on the N4 rule; See ¶.318, the PCC rule and ATSSS control information may be used by the SMF to derive the ATSSS rule for the UE and the N4 rule for the UPF. For MA PDU session, if dynamic PCC rule is not used, SMF may provide ATSSS rule and N4 rule to UE and UPF, respectively), an indication to use the redundant steering mode, and at least one of an uplink duplication factor, a downlink duplication factor, an uplink redundant bitrate, or a downlink redundant bitrate (See ¶.315, the MA PDU session will cover all steering modes in uplink and downlink; See ¶.319, the N4 rule may indicate how to route downlink traffic through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access; See ¶.335, the N4 rule may be applied by the UPF to enforce the ATSSS policy in the downlink direction; See ¶.343, the UE may indicate to the network the steering function and steering mode supported by the UE by including one of the following in the UE ATSSS Capability; See ¶.396, the PCF may provide a PCC rule (eg, a PCC rule including ATSSS policy control information) for the MA PDU session to the SMF. From the received PCC rule, the SMF may derive (a) an ATSSS rule transmitted to the UE to control traffic steering, switching, and splitting in the uplink direction, and (b) an N4 rule sent to the UPF to control traffic steering, switching, and splitting in the downlink direction. When the UE indicates “ATSSS-LL Capability” support, the SMF may derive Measurement Assistance Information. Examiner’s Note: Salkintzis discloses the limitation “an indication to use the redundant steering mode” and Kim discloses the limitations “N4 rules that indicate at least one of an uplink duplication factor, a downlink duplication factor, an uplink redundant bitrate, or a downlink redundant bitrate”); and
- transmit access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) rules that indicate, for the MA PDU session, the indication to use the redundant steering mode and at least one of the uplink duplication factor, the downlink duplication factor, the uplink redundant bitrate, or the downlink redundant bitrate (See S1304 Fig.13 and ¶.482, In step S1304, the SMF may deliver the ATSSS rule to the UE. The UE may know how to route uplink traffic through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access based on ATSSS rules. For example, based on the ATSSS rule, the UE transmits data related to a service that does not belong to the list of 3GPP PS Data Off Exempt Services to the network through non-3PGPP access, and the UE transmits data related to a service belonging to the list of 3GPP PS Data Off Exempt Services to the network through 3GPP access and/or non-3GPP access; See ¶.297, ATSSS rules; See ¶.396, the PCF may provide a PCC rule (eg, a PCC rule including ATSSS policy control information) for the MA PDU session to the SMF. From the received PCC rule, the SMF may derive (a) an ATSSS rule transmitted to the UE to control traffic steering, switching, and splitting in the uplink direction, and (b) an N4 rule sent to the UPF to control traffic steering, switching, and splitting in the downlink direction; See ¶.461, for example, if PCC rules B, C, and D are dynamic PCC rules, PCF modifies PCC rules B, C, and D by closing gates in the downlink direction and in the uplink).
Youn discloses that “each ATSSS rule may include an access selection descriptor that includes components such as the following examples: ATSSS rules may include Steering Mode. Steering Mode may determine how the matched SDF should be distributed over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access” (See ¶.366-367), but does not explicitly disclose the limitation “a redundant steering mode.”
However, Salkintzis discloses a redundant steering mode (See 565 Fig.5E, ‘Steering Mode = Redundant-Based’,
PNG
media_image2.png
399
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See ¶.106-107, the fifth steering mode 560 is implemented by a UE having established a MA-PDU Session 505. Here, the UE has a plurality of input UL data packets 510 to be transferred via the MA-PDU Session. As depicted, the fifth steering mode is a “Redundant” traffic steering strategy. Here, a steering function implements the “Redundant” steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access 405 and the non-3GPP access 410. The output UL data packets 515 are transferred to the mobile communication network over the selected access networks; See further ¶.62 and ¶.86, for the steering mode comprising a redundant steering mode).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “an indication to use the redundant steering mode” as taught by Salkintzis into the system of Youn, so that it provides a way of implementing the redundant steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access (Salkintzis, See ¶.107).
Salkintzis discloses that “as depicted, the fifth steering mode is a “Redundant” traffic steering strategy. Here, a steering function implements the “Redundant” steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The output UL data packets are transferred to the mobile communication network over the selected access networks (Salkintzis, See ¶.107),”, but Youn and Salkintzis do not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “at least one of the uplink duplication factor, the downlink duplication factor, the uplink redundant bitrate, or the downlink redundant bitrate (Kim, See ¶.393, the duplication request indication may also be included in the N4 Session Modification Request message to indicate the PLMN UPF to duplicate/replicate the DL data and send the duplicated DL data to the PLMN NG-RAN and the PLMN N3IWF; See ¶.412, if the NG-RAN Context Release indication is included in step 15, the PLMN SMF sends the N4 Session Modification Request message with the duplication stop indication which indicates the PLMN UPF to stop the DL data duplication. Based on the duplication stop indication, the PLMN UPF may send the DL data only to the PLMN N3IWF. Then, the PLMN UPF acknowledges by sending an N4 Session Modification Response message; See further ¶.447, ¶.464, and ¶.483).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “at least one of the uplink duplication factor, the downlink duplication factor, the uplink redundant bitrate, or the downlink redundant bitrate” as taught by Kim into the system of Youn and Salkintzis, so that it provides a way the PLMN UPF to replicate the DL data to the NG-RAN and/or stop the DL data duplication (Kim, See ¶.393 and ¶.412).
Regarding claim 2, Youn discloses “wherein the network entity is a session management function (See Fig.13, SMF).”
Regarding claim 3, Youn and Salkintzis do not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “select the at least one of the uplink duplication factor, the downlink duplication factor, the uplink redundant bitrate, or the downlink redundant bitrate (Kim, See ¶.393, ¶.412, ¶.447, ¶.464, and ¶.483 as cited in the rejection of claim 1).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Youn and Salkintzis do not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “receive a message that indicates the one of the uplink duplication factor, the downlink duplication factor, the uplink redundant bitrate, or the downlink redundant bitrate (Kim, See ¶.393, ¶.412, ¶.447, ¶.464, and ¶.483 as cited in the rejection of claim 1).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Youn discloses “receive the message, are configured to receive PCC rules from a policy and control function (See S1303 Fig.13, receiving PCC rule from PCF).”
Regarding claim 6, Youn and Salkintzis disclose “wherein the one or more processors are configured to select the access path to duplicate (See ¶.308, the network may allocate one IP address/prefix for the MA PDU session and two additional IP addresses/prefix called “link-specific multipath” to the UE; See Fig.10; See ¶.319, the UE may receive the ATSSS rule from the SMF. The ATSSS rule may indicate how to route uplink traffic through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access. Similarly, the UPF may receive the N4 rule from the SMF. The N4 rule may indicate how to route downlink traffic through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access; Salkintzis, See 565 Fig.5E, ‘Steering Mode = Redundant-Based).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Youn and Salkintzis disclose “wherein the message indicates an access path to duplicate (See ¶.308, the network may allocate one IP address/prefix for the MA PDU session and two additional IP addresses/prefix called “link-specific multipath” to the UE; See Fig.10; See ¶.319, the UE may receive the ATSSS rule from the SMF. The ATSSS rule may indicate how to route uplink traffic through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access. Similarly, the UPF may receive the N4 rule from the SMF. The N4 rule may indicate how to route downlink traffic through 3GPP access and non-3GPP access; See further ¶.335; Salkintzis, See 565 Fig.5E, ‘Steering Mode = Redundant-Based).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Youn discloses that Fig.9 discloses an MA-PDU session applying the ATSSS rule and PCC rules provided by the PCF may include ATSSS control information. The PCC rule and ATSSS control information may be used by the SMF to derive the ATSSS rule for the UE and the N4 rule for the UPF. For MA-PDU session, if dynamic PCC rule is not used, SMF may provide ATSSS rule and N4 rule to UE and UPF, respectively (Youn, See ¶.318),
but does not explicitly disclose what Salkintzis discloses “wherein the ATSSS rules and the N4 interface rules indicate the redundant steering mode associated with the MA PDU session (Salkintzis, See ¶.6, receiving a second message that includes a plurality of steering rules. Here, each steering rule indicates a steering mode selected from a plurality of steering modes; See ¶.107-108, as depicted, the fifth steering mode is a “Redundant” traffic steering strategy. Here, a steering function implements the “Redundant” steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The output UL data packets 515 are transferred to the mobile communication network over the selected access networks).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Youn does not explicitly disclose what Salkintzis discloses “wherein the ATSSS rules and the N4 interface rules indicate an amount of traffic of an access path (Salkintzis, See ¶.111, each access receives a percentage of the data flows transmitted via the MA-PDU session. Essentially, each access is assigned a weight factor (50% in the depicted embodiment) and receives an amount of traffic corresponding to this factor. The complexity involved in the sixth steering mode is relatively small as there is no need to assess the transmission performance on every access. Beneficially, the sixth steering mode allows the MA-PDU Session to provide bandwidth aggregation with a certain load balancing ratio).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the ATSSS rules and the N4 interface rules indicate an amount of traffic of the access path” as taught by Salkintzis into the system of Youn, so that it provides a way of allowing the MA-PDU session to provide bandwidth aggregation with a certain load balancing ratio (Salkintzis, See ¶.111).
Regarding claim 10, Youn discloses “wherein the ATSSS rules and the N4 interface rules indicate an access path (See Fig.8, MA-PDU session between SMF and UPF over N4 interface for multi-path such as 3GPP access and/or non-3GPP access; See Fig.13, SMF implements ATSSS rule and N4 rule).”
Regarding claim 11, Youn and Salkintzis disclose “wherein the ATSSS rules and the N4 interface rules indicate an amount of traffic to duplicate for one or more Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access paths and one or more non-3GPP access paths (Youn, See Fig.8, 3GPP Access and Non-3GPP Access; Salkintzis, See ¶.111, each access receives a percentage of the data flows transmitted via the MA-PDU session. Essentially, each access is assigned a weight factor (50% in the depicted embodiment) and receives an amount of traffic corresponding to this factor. The complexity involved in the sixth steering mode is relatively small as there is no need to assess the transmission performance on every access. Beneficially, the sixth steering mode allows the MA-PDU Session to provide bandwidth aggregation with a certain load balancing ratio).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Youn, Salkintzis, and Kim disclose a network entity for wireless communication, comprising:
- a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Youn, See Fig.16), configured to: generate policy and charging control (PCC) rules that indicate that a multi-access (MA) protocol data unit (PDU) session with a redundant steering mode is to be established (Youn, See Fig.13, PCF generates and sends PCC rule to SMF; Salkintzis, See the rejection of claim 1 for a redundant steering mode disclosed by Salkintzis) based at least in part on one or more requirements associated with an application (Youn, See ¶.320, when the SMF receives the PDU session establishment request message including the “MA PDU Request” indication, and if UP security protection is required for the PDU session, the SMF may confirm the establishment of the MA PDU session only if UP security protection requiring 3GPP access can be enforced. The SMF need not to check whether it can enforce UP security protections that require non-3GPP access), wherein the PCC rules indicate at least one of an uplink duplication factor, a downlink duplication factor, an uplink redundant bitrate, or a downlink redundant bitrate for the MA PDU session (Kim, See ¶.393, ¶.412, ¶.447, ¶.464, and ¶.483 as cited in the rejection of claim 1; See ¶.258, the SMF may perform an SM Policy Association Establishment procedure to establish an SM Policy association with the PCF and get the default PCC rules for the PDU session); and transmit the PCC rules (Youn, See S1303 Fig.13, PCF transmits PCC rule to SMF). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Youn discloses “wherein the network entity is a policy and control function (See Fig.13, PCF).”
Regarding claim 14, Youn, Salkintzis, and Kim disclose “select one or more of an uplink duplication factor, a downlink duplication factor, an uplink redundant bitrate, or a downlink redundant bitrate for the MA PDU session (Salkintzis, as rejected in claim 4), and wherein the PCC rules indicate one or more of the uplink duplication factor, the downlink duplication factor, the uplink redundant bitrate, or the downlink redundant bitrate (Youn, See ¶.396, PCC rules in detail; See further ¶.460 and ¶.461-462; Kim, See ¶.393, ¶.412, ¶.447, ¶.464, and ¶.483 as cited in the rejection of claim 1).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Youn discloses “select an access path to duplicate, wherein the PCC rules indicate the access path (See ¶.396, ¶.460, and ¶.461 for access path).”
Regarding claim 16, Youn discloses “transmit the PCC rules, are configured to transmit the PCC rules to a session management function (See S1303 Fig.13, sending the PCC rule to SMF).”
Regarding claim 17, Youn discloses “receive the one or more requirements from an application function (See S1301-S1302 Fig.13, PCF determines policy; See ¶.317, PCF receives ATSSS capability of the MA-PDU session from SMF).”
Claims 18 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn in view of Salkintzis and further in view of Yeh et al. (US 2023/0189058, “Yeh”).
Regarding claim 18, Youn and Salkintzis discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
- a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Youn, See Fig.16), configured to:
- receive an indication that a quality of service (QoS) of QoS flows of a single access (SA) protocol data unit (PDU) session can be improved if a multi-access (MA) PDU session with a redundant steering mode is established (Youn, See ¶.330-332, If the ATSSS-capable UE requests a single-access PDU session, but the network decides to establish the MA PDU session instead, the MA PDU session may be established. This example may correspond to an optional scenario, this example may occur when a UE that requires single access for a PDU session has requested a single-access PDU session, but when there are no a policy (e.g. UE route selection policy (URSP) rule) and local restrictions. When the UE moves from EPS to 5GS, a MA PDU session may be established while the PDU session modification procedure is performed. An ATSSS-capable UE may decide to request a MA PDU session based on the provided URSP rule. In particular, if the URSP rule triggers the UE to establish a new PDU session, and if the access type preference component of the URSP rule indicates “Multi-Access”, the UE may request an MA PDU session when the UE applies the URSP rule; Salkintzis, See ¶.107-108, as depicted, the fifth steering mode is a “Redundant” traffic steering strategy. Here, a steering function implements the “Redundant” steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The output UL data packets are transferred to the mobile communication network over the selected access networks. [0108] For the “Redundant” steering strategy, all data flows are transmitted on both accesses in order to increase reliability. Here, the UE duplicates each received packet, sending one copy over the 3GPP access and the other over the non-3GPP access. Beneficially, the fifth steering mode allows the MA-PDU Session to provide high data reliability (e.g., a very small, packet error rate); See 565 Fig.5E, ‘Steering Mode = Redundant-Based’); and
- transmit, based at least in part on the indication, a request to convert the SA PDU session into the MA PDU session with the redundant steering mode (Youn, See ¶.330-332, If the ATSSS-capable UE requests a single-access PDU session, but the network decides to establish the MA PDU session instead, the MA PDU session may be established. This example may correspond to an optional scenario, this example may occur when a UE that requires single access for a PDU session has requested a single-access PDU session, but when there are no a policy (e.g. UE route selection policy (URSP) rule) and local restrictions. When the UE moves from EPS to 5GS, a MA PDU session may be established while the PDU session modification procedure is performed. An ATSSS-capable UE may decide to request a MA PDU session based on the provided URSP rule. In particular, if the URSP rule triggers the UE to establish a new PDU session, and if the access type preference component of the URSP rule indicates “Multi-Access”, the UE may request an MA PDU session when the UE applies the URSP rule).
Salkintzis discloses the method of improving QoS by using MA PDU session with a redundance steering mode, i.e. MA PDU session provides high data reliability by decreasing packet error rate (Salkintzis, See ¶.108).”
Further, a new prior art by Yeh explicitly discloses the limitations “QoS of the QoS flows of the SA PDU session can be improved if a multi- access (MA) PDU session with a redundant steering mode is established” (Yeh, ¶.16, by incorporating RAN-measurements, the network can proactively adjust traffic distribution across 3GPP and non-3GPP access according to more accurate access performance (rate, latency, etc.) estimate. This enables more efficient use of multiple access technologies and better quality-of-service (QoS) guarantee through tight multiple access traffic management, and helps enhance multi-access edge computing (MEC)).
Regarding claim 22, Youn discloses “transmit the request, are configured to transmit the request based at least in part on one or more of a data transfer requirement, a channel condition, traffic condition, or network coverage (See S1301 Fig.13 and ¶.330).”
Regarding claim 23, it is a network entity claim corresponding to the claim 18, except the limitations “establishing the MA PDU session with the redundant steering mode (Salkintzis, See 565 Fig.5E, redundant steering mode; 405 Fig.4, ‘MA PDU session established’)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim 18.
Regarding claim 24, Youn discloses “the network entity is a session management function (See Fig.13, SMF).”
Regarding claim 25, it is a claim corresponding to the claims 3 & 4 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 26, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 22 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youn in view of Salkintzis and Yeh and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Youn, Salkintzis, and Kim disclose “receive access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) rules that, for the MA PDU session indicate (Youn, See S1304 Fig.13, UE receives ATSSS rule), an indication to use the redundant steering mode (Salkintzis, See 520 Fig.5) and one or more of an uplink duplication factor, a downlink duplication factor, an uplink redundant bitrate, or a downlink redundant bitrate (Kim, See ¶.393, ¶.412, ¶.447, ¶.464, and ¶.483 as cited in the rejection of claim 1).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Youn and Salkintzis disclose “the ATSSS rules indicate an amount of traffic to duplicate for one or more Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) access paths and one or more non-3GPP access paths (Youn, See Fig.8, 3GPP access & Non-3GPP access; Salkintzis, See ¶.106-107, the fifth steering mode is implemented by a UE having established a MA-PDU Session. Here, the UE has a plurality of input UL data packets to be transferred via the MA-PDU Session. As depicted, the fifth steering mode is a “Redundant” traffic steering strategy. Here, a steering function implements the “Redundant” steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access 405 and the non-3GPP access. The output UL data packets are transferred to the mobile communication network over the selected access networks; See further ¶.62 and ¶.86, for the steering mode comprising a redundant steering mode).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims and a new prior art by Kim for the newly added limitations. The previous 103 rejection over Youn and Salkintzis has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Youn in view of Salkintzis, and further in view of Kim.
At pages 10-12, with respect to claims 1 and 12, applicant argues that “neither YOUN nor SALKINTZIS, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the amended feature of "an uplink or downlink duplication factor" or "an uplink or downlink redundant bitrate". The redundant steering mode of SALKINTZIS is an all-or-nothing strategy. SALKINTZIS, at paragraphs [0107] and [0108], describes that, in the redundant mode, "all data flows are transmitted on both accesses," such that "the UE duplicates each received packet, sending one copy over the 3GPP access and the other over the non-3GPP access." SALKINTZIS thus duplicates every packet over both accesses and does not disclose a duplication factor (i.e., the claimed "uplink duplication factor" and/or "downlink duplication factor"), which governs a partial duplication of traffic over an access path, nor a redundant bitrate (i.e., the claimed "uplink redundant bitrate" and/or "downlink redundant bitrate"), which reflects a combined bitrate attributable to such partial duplication that differs from the bitrate requested for the QoS flows.”
In reply, as rejected in claim 1, a new prior art by Kim discloses an indication such as an uplink or downlink duplication factor.”
At pages 12-13, with respect to claims 18 and 23, applicant argues that “first, the cited portions of YOUN do not disclose or suggest "an indication that a QoS of QoS flows of a single access (SA) protocol data unit (PDU) session can be improved if a multi- access (MA) PDU session with a redundant steering mode is established." Paragraphs [0330]-[0332] of YOUN describe converting a single-access PDU session into an MA PDU session in response to a UE route selection policy (URSP) rule, an operator policy, or mobility from EPS to 5GS. YOUN does not disclose transmitting or receiving any indication that the QoS of an SA PDU session can be improved by establishing an MA PDU session with a redundant steering mode. Paragraph [0338] of Youn merely describes that the 5G QoS model is access-agnostic (the same QoS flow identifier applied over 3GPP and non-3GPP access) and does not disclose a conditional QoS-improvement indication. SALKINTZIS is relied upon only for the redundant steering mode and does not disclose any such indication or any conversion of an SA PDU session into an MA PDU session. The conversion recited in claims 18 and 23 is performed "based at least in part on the indication," in contrast to the URSP-driven, policy-driven, and mobility-driven conversion of YOUN. Second, with respect to claim 23 specifically, the Office Action's treatment of claim 23 as "corresponding to" claim 18 does not account for the additional limitations recited only in claim 23, including "establishing the MA PDU session" at the network entity. The Office Action identifies no disclosure in YOUN or SALKINTZIS of a network entity configured to "transmit an indication that the QoS of the QoS flows of the SA PDU session can be improved if a multi- access (MA) PDU session with a redundant steering mode is established," "receive, based at least in part on the indication, a request to convert the SA PDU session into the MA PDU session with the redundant steering mode," and "establish the MA PDU session with the redundant steering mode," as recited in amended claim 23. Because claim 18 is a user equipment claim that does not recite "establish[ing] the MA PDU session," the Office Action's incorporation of the claim 18 mapping does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for at least this feature of claim 23.” [emphasis added].
In reply, the limitations “QoS of the QoS flows of the SA PDU session can be improved if a multi- access (MA) PDU session with a redundant steering mode is established” explicitly read on:
¶.[0107]-[0108] of Salkintzis discloses “as depicted, the fifth steering mode is a “Redundant” traffic steering strategy. Here, a steering function implements the “Redundant” steering strategy to route the input UL data packets via the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access. The output UL data packets are transferred to the mobile communication network over the selected access networks. [0108] For the “Redundant” steering strategy, all data flows are transmitted on both accesses in order to increase reliability. Here, the UE duplicates each received packet, sending one copy over the 3GPP access and the other over the non-3GPP access. Beneficially, the fifth steering mode allows the MA-PDU Session to provide high data reliability (e.g., a very small, packet error rate)). [emphasis added]. A new prior art by Yeh further explicitly discloses the “QoS improvement” as rejected in claim 18.
Further, [405 Fig.4] of Salkintzis discloses the method of “establishing MA PDU session” as rejected in claim 23. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights