DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10, 15-18 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (US 2018/0352448)(“Ryu”).
As per claim 1, Ryu teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
selecting a user plane for a service (see ¶0260, i.e., selecting a UP solution/mode for a service request procedure); and
transmitting a request for the service over the user plane (see ¶0261, i.e., “transmit a service request message in order to start a service request for the UP solution/mode”).
As per claim 2, Ryu further teaches wherein selecting the user plane includes selecting between the user plane and a control plane (see ¶0260) based at least in part on a generation of a network connection (see for example, ¶0256, i.e., based on a need to generate a PDN connection, e.g., for IP-based traffic).
As per claim 3, Ryu further teaches wherein selecting the user plane includes selecting between the user plane and a control plane (see ¶0260) based at least in part on a service type (see ¶0238, e.g., “based on the type of data to transmit”, read as a service type).
As per claim 4, Ryu further teaches using the service over the user plane (see ¶0260), wherein a service protocol is not affected by whether the transport is over a control plane or the user plane (see ¶0233, which anticipates either the CP or UP solution could be used for transmitting data for a service, which implies a service protocol is not affected by whether data is transmitted over a control plane or the user plane. Alternatively, see ¶0102, wherein the service/application layer is in a separate layer from the physical/transport layer, thus impliedly a service/application layer protocol, e.g., regulating how data is generated by the application layer, does not affect the underlying physical/transport layer protocols).
As per claim 10, Ryu further teaches wherein the service over the user plane includes a routing service (see ¶0255-256, e.g., for routing IP traffic).
Claims 15-18 and 24 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4 and 10 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 12-14 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiao et al. (US 2023/0309158)(“Qiao”).
As per claim 12, Qiao teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a network entity (i.e., AMF, see Fig. 10 ref. 110), comprising:
receiving a request for a service over a user plane (see Fig. 10, ref. 1005/1010, also see ¶0126, i.e., “The service request procedure may be used to activate a user plane connection for an established PDU session”); and
transmitting a response indicating that the service is to be over the user plane (see ¶0159, i.e., performing RRC connection reconfiguration for activating user-plane (UP) connections).
As per claim 13, Qiao teaches wherein the service is decoupled from a transport layer (e.g., Application/Service Layer, see Fig. 7, which is shown as being separate or decoupled from the lower level/transport layer).
As per claim 14, Qiao further teaches authenticating the service using a control plane (e.g., initiating a NAS (i.e., control-plane) authentication/security procedure, see Fig. 10, ref. 1015); and assisting operation of the service over the user plane (e.g., mapping QoS flows, etc., see for example, Fig. 7 and ¶0071).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 12-14 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in further view of Qiao (US 2020/0214054)(“Qiao”).
As per claim 5, Ryu teach wherein the service over the user plane uses a PDN connection setup (see for example ¶0242).
However, Ryu fails to teach wherein the service over the user plane uses a protocol data unit session specific to the service.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless setup management, Qiao ‘054 teaches connecting over a user plane to a PDU session that is specific to a type of application or service (i.e., “delay sensitive applications”, see ¶0244, and/or “emergency service, URLLC, V2X, IoT, and/or VoLTE”, see ¶0293).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly use the selected user plane in Ryu to establish a connection with an always-on PDU session tied to a particular application/service (i.e., “delay sensitive applications”, see ¶0244, and/or “emergency service, URLLC, V2X, IoT, and/or VoLTE”, see ¶0293) as taught by Qiao ‘054. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to improve network resource usage for delay sensitive applications or emergency services in Ryu.
As per claim 7, Ryu fails to teach wherein the services over the user plane includes a quality of service management service.
Nevertheless, the user of a user plane to support a quality of service management service was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (e.g., QoS/flow differentiation, see for example, Qiao ‘054, ¶0163).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly configure the user plane mode of Ryu to support a QoS/flow differentiation service (i.e., quality of service management service). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support traffic prioritization.
As per claim 8, Ryu fails to teach wherein the services over the user plane includes a mobility service.
Nevertheless, the user of a user plane to support a mobility service (e.g., V2X) was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Qiao ‘054, ¶0293, i.e., “emergency service, URLLC, V2X, IoT, and/or VoLTE”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the teachings of Ryu to support V2X or “mobility service” requests. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support mobile or vehicle connectivity.
As per claim 11, Ryu fails to teach wherein the service over the user plane includes a service associated with a connection between the UE and an access and mobility function in a core network.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Qiao ‘054 teaches an application/service over a user plane (i.e., “delay sensitive applications”, see ¶0244, and/or “emergency service, URLLC, V2X, IoT, and/or VoLTE”, see ¶0293) including a service associated with a connection between the UE and an access and mobility function in a core network (see Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly establish PDU sessions through an access and mobility function (AMF) in a core network. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support enhanced functionalities (e.g., access authentication/authorization, see ¶0038).
Claims 19, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 5, 7, 8, and 11 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2012/0315890)(“Suzuki”).
As per claims 9 and 23, Ryu does not expressly teach wherein the service over the user plane includes a minimization of drive test service.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless setup management, Suzuki teaches implementing a minimization of drive test service over a user plane architecture (see Fig. 2 and ¶0061-0062).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ryu to similarly support, over a user plane, a minimization of drive test service. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of the benefits of MDT services, e.g., reduced maintenance costs (see for example, ¶0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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 (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights