Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akl (US 20220394541) in view of Ying (US 20220182910), Lee (US 20210067960) and further in view of Bogineni (US 20200404531).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/6/11/16, Akl teaches A method of data communication, comprising:
receiving ([0079], “AC UPF 502 may receive information, from AC SMF 514, identifying a mapping between the first QFI (for the first QoS flow on the GTP-U tunnel) and the transport level marking (e.g., the IP header marking).”), by a user plane function ([0079], “AC UPF 502”), from a session management function ([0079], “AC SMF 514”) ... an indication ([0079], “information ... identifying a mapping”) that the user plane function is to use a general packet radio services tunnel user plane information ([0079], “GTP-U tunnel”) for a one-to-one mapping ([0079], “a mapping between the first QFI (for the first QoS flow on the GTP-U tunnel) and the transport level marking (e.g., the IP header marking) ... AC UPF 502 may receive information identifying another mapping between a second QFI associated with a second QoS flow on a GTP-U tunnel and another transport level marking for the second QoS flow.”) between N specified Quality of Service (QoS) flows ([0079], QFI) and N flow path ([0079], “information identifying transport level marking (e.g., IP header marking or Ethernet header marking, among other examples), such as an outer IP address, an IPv6 flow label,”) for the N QoS flows ([0079], a QFI1 is associated with the first transport level marking, QFI2 is associated with the second transport level marking, so this is a one to one mapping.), wherein the indication specifies that an identifier ([0079], QFI) is to be used for the one-to-one mapping ([0079], mappings between QFIs and transport level marking.); and
configuring operation of the user plane function according to the indication ([0079], “AC UPF 502 may transmit a PDU of the first QoS flow (e.g., with the first QFI included in a GTP-U header) in a packet with a header field set with a header marking.”).
However, Akl does not specifically disclose a sequence number.
In an analogous art, Ying discloses Quality of Service (QoS) flow identifier is a sequence number ([0117 and Table 2], QFI is represented as a bit sequence.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Akl to specify sequence number as taught by Ying. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to identify a QoS flow with an unique identification, such as bit sequence.
However, the combination of Akl and Ying does not teach multicast broadcast services by the user plane function.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses receiving ([0126], “The SMF 194 may also distribute the multicast-broadcast key to the UPF 195 ... The UPF 195 may protect packets of the QoS flow using the multicast-broadcast key.”), by a user plane function ([0126], UPF 195), from a session management function ([0126], SMF 194) for multicast broadcast services by the user plane function ([0126], “The UPF 195 may protect packets of the QoS flow using the multicast-broadcast key.”), an indication ([0126], “multicast-broadcast key”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Akl to specify multicast broadcast service key as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to protect multicast broadcast service.
However, the combination of Akl and Lee does not teach radio bearers.
In an analogous art, Bogineni discloses mapping between ... Quality of Service (QoS) flows and N radio bearers for the N QoS flows ([0027], “UPF 210 of edge user plane network device 205 and CU-UP 220 may map QoS flows from PDU layer 250 to radio bearers with GTP-U tunnel mapping.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Akl to specify mapping Qos to radio bearer as taught by Bogineni. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to convey data in a communication network.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2/6/12/17, Lee teaches wherein the indication is communicated in a multicast broadcast service session control information message ([0131], “The SMF 194 may transmit an N4 establishment or modification 610 to the UPF 195. The N4 establishment or modification 610 may include a key ID that identifies the multicast-broadcast key for the QoS flow and the actual multicast-broadcast key.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Akl to specify multicast broadcast service key as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to protect multicast broadcast service.
Regarding claim(s) 4/9/14/19, Akl teaches wherein the identifier comprises (1) a QOS flow identifier (QFI) ... in a header or an extension header ([0079], “AC UPF 502 may transmit a PDU of the first QoS flow (e.g., with the first QFI included in a GTP-U header) in a packet.”), or (2) a dedicated sequence number in the header or the extension header.
However, Akl does not specifically disclose a sequence number.
In an analogous art, Ying discloses Quality of Service (QoS) flow identifier is a sequence number ([0117 and Table 2], QFI is represented as a bit sequence.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Akl to specify sequence number as taught by Ying. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to identify a QoS flow with an unique identification, such as bit sequence.
Regarding claim(s) 5/10/15/20, Akl teaches wherein the user plane function carries the identifier in a header for the N QoS flows that are one-to-one mapped ([0079], “AC UPF 502 may transmit a PDU of the first QoS flow (e.g., with the first QFI included in a GTP-U header) in a packet.”).
However, Akl does not specifically disclose a sequence number.
In an analogous art, Ying discloses Quality of Service (QoS) flow identifier is a sequence number ([0117 and Table 2], QFI is represented as a bit sequence.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Akl to specify sequence number as taught by Ying. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to identify a QoS flow with an unique identification, such as bit sequence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 08/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
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 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights