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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 07/31/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although Lee and Dou disclose group dependency info, they do not disclose both inter and intra-group or data group dependency info as used in these, and their preceding, claims.
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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200084657 A1) in view of Dou (WO 2022036604 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a packet transmission method, performed by a network device (QoS (i.e., for packet transmission) from SMF to RAN (i.e., network devices) [par. 0022, fig. 6]), the method comprising:
obtaining quality of service (QoS) profile information of a target service stream from a session management object (SMO) (QoS profile (i.e., from some SMO) transfers to the RAN for use during QoS DL & LU traffic (i.e., target service stream) [par. 0128-135]);
receiving a first packet to be forwarded (UL/DL traffic (i.e., receives packets, including a “first packet”, to be forwarded) [par. 0129-135, fig. 4, 8]); and
processing the first packet according to a detection rule of the QoS profile information and a processing rule of the QoS profile information [par. 0129-135, fig. 4, 6, 8].
Although Lee discloses wherein the detection rule includes … of a core network, as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose second dependency info of a second packet. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Dou.
In the same field of endeavor, Dou discloses:
second dependency information of a second packet (QoS attribute info (i.e., second dependency info of a second packet) [pg. 10 par. 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with Dou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of integrity transmission [Dou pg. 10 par. 2].
Regarding claim 8, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lee further discloses a communication device [fig. 12], comprising: at least one memory [fig. 12, par. 0186] configured to store computer program code [fig. 12, par. 0188-189]; at least one processor [fig. 12 no. 1210].
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lee further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [fig. 12, par. 0186], storing computer code [fig. 12, par. 0188-189].
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Lee and Dou disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee further discloses wherein the processing the first packet comprises:
based on congestion occurring in the first network (Expected congestion (i.e., “occurring” includes present/future) [par. 0135]),
transmitting the first packet according to the processing rule based on first dependency information of the first packet satisfying the detection rule (Transmits or not [par. 0144, 157]); or
discarding the first packet according to the processing rule based on the first dependency information not satisfying the detection rule (Transmits or not [par. 0144, 157]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Lee and Dou disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee and Dou further disclose:
wherein the second dependency information [Dou, as discussed above] includes identification information based on a policy control object (PCO) (Changed QoS policy (i.e., ID “based” on PCO) [Lee par. 00102-103, 044]), and
wherein the second dependency information indicates whether an interdependency exists between different packets (QoS attribute info connecting multiple packets for integrity purposes (i.e., interdependency) [pg. 10 par. 2]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Lee and Dou disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee and Dou further disclose:
wherein the detection rule [Lee, as discussed above] includes second group identification information of the second packet and second inter-group dependency information of the second packet (QoS attribute info connecting multiple packets for integrity purposes (i.e., inter-group dependency), where ID must be included to connect the packets [pg. 10 par. 2]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Lee and Dou disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lee and Dou further disclose wherein the processing the first packet comprises:
based on congestion occurring in the first network (Expected congestion (i.e., “occurring” includes present/future) [par. 0135]),
transmitting the first packet according to the processing rule based on first group identification information of the first packet and first inter-group dependency information of the first packet satisfying the detection rule (Transmits or not [Lee par. 0144, 157], where QoS attribute info connecting multiple packets for integrity purposes (i.e., inter-group dependency) and ID must be included to connect the packets [Dou pg. 10 par. 2] and Examiner assumes the ID/dependency info is now applied to the first vs second group); or
discarding the first packet according to the processing rule based on the first group identification information satisfying the detection rule and the first inter-group dependency information not satisfying the detection rule (Transmits or not [Lee par. 0144, 157], where QoS attribute info connecting multiple packets for integrity purposes (i.e., inter-group dependency) and ID must be included to connect the packets [Dou pg. 10 par. 2]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights