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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the apparatus includes a radio access network (RAN).” However, it is unclear how a single apparatus can include a network, particularly a radio access network (RAN). Generally, a RAN is a collection/system of devices that implement a radio access technology, and nothing has been recited in the claims that describes how a single apparatus can include such a collection/system of devices. Therefore, the abovementioned limitation fails to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, claim 9 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For examination purposes, the abovementioned limitations have been construed as only the apparatus.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the apparatus includes a core network.” However, it is unclear how a single apparatus can include a network, particularly a core network. Generally, a core network is a collection/system of devices that route traffic, authenticate users, track location of UEs, etc., among other functionalities, and nothing has been recited in the claims that describes how a single apparatus can include such a collection/system of devices. Therefore, the abovementioned limitation fails to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, claim 10 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For examination purposes, the abovementioned limitations have been construed as only the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “determining, by a processor of an apparatus, whether an eco-friendly condition associated with a data session is met; and determining, by the processor, to modify a quality of service (QoS) associated with the data session in an event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met.” This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor of an apparatus,” or "by the processor" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor of an apparatus,” or "by the processor" language, the claim encompasses a user simply determining whether an eco-friendly condition is met for a data session and, based on it being met, determine to modify a QoS for the data session in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of determining whether a network data condition is met for use in another determining step to determine if a QoS should be modified), and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Nothing has been found the in the specification that provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic off-the-shelf computer component. Additionally, the recited steps of determining whether a data condition is satisfied and determining whether an action to modify data should be performed based on the data condition being satisfied are well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as they are here. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 2-6, 10, and 11, each recite at least one determining step, which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Furthermore, other than reciting "by the processor" nothing in those claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, those claim elements are mental processes. Additionally, those judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the determining steps are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and where the processor that performs the determining steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining steps. Thus, those claims are directed to the abstract idea. Lastly, those claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic off-the-shelf computer component, and the recited determining steps are well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as they are here. For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in those claims, and thus they are ineligible.
Claims 13-17, 19, and 20 are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11. Claims 13-16, 19, and 20 are also ineligible under the same rationale, and thus, rejected under the same rationale.
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)(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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baek (WO2025042159A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches “[a] method comprising: determining, by a processor of an apparatus, whether an eco-friendly condition associated with a data session is met” (see ¶¶ [0092] and [0101]; to reduce energy consumption (i.e., eco-friendly), an energy saving support indication can be transmitted to indicate that the service data flow (i.e., data session) can apply an alternative service requirement instead of a service requirement; when the energy consumption (i.e., eco-friendly) of the NG-RAN (i.e., apparatus) exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., condition; determining whether an eco-friendly condition is met); thus, apparatus determines whether an eco-friendly condition associated with a data session is met); and
Baek further teaches “determining, by the processor, to modify a quality of service (QoS) associated with the data session in an event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met” (see ¶¶ [0089] and [0101]; when the terminal has a PDU Session (data session) created, service requirements and alternative service requirements are associated with the session, where service requirement may include a requested QoS reference or requested QoS parameters (i.e., quality of service (QoS) associated with the data session); when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., in an event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met), the NG-RAN can change (i.e., modify) the existing QoS profile value (i.e., modify a quality of service (QoS) associated with the data session); thus, determining to modify a quality of service (QoS) associated with the data session in an event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met).
Regarding claim 2, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the step of determining whether the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met includes: determining, by the processor, whether an energy consumption associated with the data session reaches a first threshold; determining, by the processor, whether a carbon emission associated with the data session reaches a second threshold; determining, by the processor, whether a renewable energy usage associated with the data session reaches a third threshold; or determining, by the processor, whether an eco-rating score associated with the data session reaches a fourth threshold” (see ¶ [0101]; when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., determining whether an energy consumption associated with the data session reaches a first threshold)).
Regarding claim 3, Baek teaches the method of claim 2 and further teaches “wherein the eco-rating score indicates at least one of: an energy efficiency level; an energy consumption level; a carbon intensity, carbon efficiency, carbon emission, or carbon footprint level; and a renewable or clean energy level” (see ¶ [0101]; energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit teaches eco-rating score that indicates an energy consumption level).
Regarding claim 4, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the data session includes a packet data unit (PDU) session, and the step of determining to modify the QoS associated with the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met includes: determining, by the processor, to modify the QoS of a QoS flow associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met; determining, by the processor, to modify the QoS of the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met; or determining, by the processor, to modify the QoS of a slice associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met” (see ¶¶ [0101] and [0102]; when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met), the NG-RAN can change (i.e., modify) the existing QoS profile value to an alternative QoS profile value if the QoS profile corresponding to the QoS flow includes an energy saving support indication or if an energy saving support indication is assigned to the QoS flow; when the energy saving support indication is applied per PDU Session, the alternative QoS profile value can be changed (i.e., modify) to the QoS profile value instead of the existing QoS profile value for the QoS flows corresponding to the PDU Session (i.e., modify the QoS of a QoS flow associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met)).
Regarding claim 5, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the data session includes a packet data unit (PDU) session, and the step of determining to modify the QoS associated with the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met includes: determining, by the processor, to modify at least one of a packet error rate (PER), a packet delay budget (PDB) and a flow bit rate of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met” (see ¶¶ [0090], [0091], and [0101]; QoS parameters may include some or all of the Priority, Maximum Burst Size, Packet delay budget (PDB), Maximum bit rate, Guaranteed bit rate, or Packet error rate (PER); when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met), the NG-RAN can change the existing QoS profile value to an alternative QoS profile value; changing to an alternative QoS profile value also changes the QoS parameters packet error rate (PER) or a packet delay budget (PDB) of the QoS; thus, modifying at least one of a packet error rate (PER), a packet delay budget (PDB) and a flow bit rate of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met).
Regarding claim 7, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “receiving, by the processor, the eco-friendly condition from a network entity” (see ¶ [0092]; AF can transmit (i.e., apparatus receiving) alternative service requirements along with the service requirement as service requirements that can replace the existing service requirement to relatively reduce energy consumption when the limit on energy consumption allowed in a 5G network, for example, NG-RAN, is exceeded or is about to be exceeded; to reduce energy consumption, an energy saving support indication can be transmitted to indicate that the service data flow can apply an alternative service requirement instead of a service requirement; thus, apparatus receives the eco-friendly condition from a network entity).
Regarding claim 8, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “transmitting, by the processor, an indication of whether the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met” (see ¶ [0105]; when applying energy saving to a QoS flow, the NG-RAN determines whether an alternative QoS profile can be satisfied in order of preference priority among alternative QoS profiles, selects an alternative QoS profile that matches the NG-RAN, and notifies the application server (AF or AS) that the QoS profile has been changed to the selected alternative QoS profile; notifying (i.e., transmitting) AF of change in QoS profile when energy consumption condition is met teaches transmitting an indication of whether the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met).
Regarding claim 10, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “releasing, by the processor, the data session or a QoS flow of the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met; determining, by the processor, to modify the data session or the QoS flow of the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met; or deregistering, by the processor, a user equipment (UE) in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met” (see ¶ [0143]; if the energy consumption for the corresponding QoS flow exceeds the energy limit—that is, if it becomes difficult to provide the minimum energy consumption value, or if the maximum allowable limit of energy consumption is exceeded or approaches the limit of the maximum allowable limit—then the NG-RAN can change the QoS flow for the terminals receiving service through the NG-RAN to an alternative QoS profile value instead of the existing QoS profile value; thus, determining, by the processor, to modify the data session or the QoS flow of the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met).
Regarding claim 11, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the apparatus includes a user equipment (UE), and the method further comprises: releasing, by the processor, the data session or a QoS flow of the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met; determining, by the processor, to modify the data session or the QoS flow of the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met; or deregistering, by the processor, from a network entity in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met” (see ¶¶ [0101 and [0103]; when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met), the NG-RAN can change (i.e., modify) the existing QoS profile value to an alternative QoS profile value for terminals receiving service through the NG-RAN; if the alternative QoS profile includes a PDU Set QoS parameter, the NG-RAN that supports PDU Set handling applies the PDB as PSDB and the PER as PSER among the items of the alternative QoS profile; changing (i.e., modifying) QoS profile modifies the data session or the QoS flow of the data session and the such change to QoS profile will be communicated to the terminal, thus the user equipment (UE) determines to modify the data session or the QoS flow of the data session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met).
Regarding claim 12, Baek teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches “transmitting, by the processor, an indication of whether the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met to a user equipment (UE)” (see ¶ [0101]; when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN exceeds or approaches a limit (i.e., in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met), the NG-RAN can change the existing QoS profile value to an alternative QoS profile value for terminals; the alternative QoS profile will be communicated to the terminal, thus, teaches transmitting an indication of whether the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met to a user equipment (UE)).
Regarding claims 13-16, 19, and 20, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11. Claims 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek.
Regarding claim 6, Baek teaches the method of claim 5, and as described above teaches the step of “determining to modify at least one of the PER, the PDB and the flow bit rate of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met” of claim 6. Baek ¶¶ [0090], [0091], and [0101].
While Baek does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the above step “includes at least one step of: determining, by the processor, to increase at least one of the PER and the PDB of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met; and determining, by the processor, to decrease the flow bit rate of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met” of claim 6, Baek does describe “when the energy consumption of the NG-RAN provided through O&M, etc., as in step 9, exceeds or approaches a limit [i.e., the eco-friendly condition is met] , the NG-RAN can change the existing QoS profile value to an alternative QoS profile value for terminals receiving service through the NG-RAN if the QoS profile corresponding to the QoS flow includes an energy saving support indication or if an energy saving support indication is assigned to the QoS flow” and “when the energy saving support indication is applied per PDU Session [i.e., the eco-friendly condition is associated with the PDU session], the alternative QoS profile value can be changed to the QoS profile value instead of the existing QoS profile value for the QoS flows corresponding to the PDU Session.” Baek, ¶¶ [0101] and [0102]. Additionally, Baek further describes “in the case of an NG-RAN that supports PDU Set handling, when selecting an alternative QoS profile as described above, the alternative QoS profile is selected by changing the included PDU Set QoS parameter or the PER value or PDB value of the PDU Set QoS parameter of the alternative PDU Set QoS profile to a PSER or PSDB value.” Baek, ¶ [0106].
Given at least the above teachings of Baek, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize changing recognize changing packet error rate (PER) of the QoS can comprise increasing the PER since increasing PER is a power saving mechanism to reduce energy consumption, and thereby satisfy the energy consumption limit. Therefore, Baek teaches the limitation of “the above step “includes at least one step of: determining, by the processor, to increase at least one of the PER and the PDB of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met; and determining, by the processor, to decrease the flow bit rate of the QoS associated with the PDU session in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the PDU session is met” of claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Baek to change PER by increasing the PER in order to satisfy the energy consumption limit. The suggestion to do so would have been to have associated QoS values that can reduce energy consumption when energy consumption limit is exceeded (see ¶ [0008] of Baek).
Regarding claim 17, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 6 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 6. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Filin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0107406 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Baek teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the apparatus includes a radio access network (RAN)” and “in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met”(see ¶ [0101]; the NG-RAN (i.e., a radio access network (RAN)) can change the existing QoS profile value to an alternative QoS profile value for terminals receiving service through the NG-RAN if the QoS profile corresponding to the QoS flow includes an energy saving support indication or if an energy saving support indication is assigned to the QoS flow, when the energy consumption exceeds or approaches the limit (i.e., in the event that the eco-friendly condition associated with the data session is met)).
Baek does not explicitly disclose “reconfiguring, by the processor, a radio resource control (RRC) connection . . .; or releasing, by the processor, the RRC connection” of claim 9. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Filin teaches “reconfiguring, by the processor, a radio resource control (RRC) connection . . .; or releasing, by the processor, the RRC connection” (see ¶ [0286]; first base station may determine whether to perform a handover of a wireless device, for example, based on an amount of energy consumption (e.g., when eco-friendly condition is met) ; a handover of a wireless device teaches at the least a reconfiguring of a radio resource control (RRC) connection or releasing the RRC connection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Baek to incorporate the teachings of Filin to reconfigure or release RRC connection when eco-friendly condition is met. The suggestion to do so would have been to save overall energy consumption in a network (see ¶ [0004] of Filin).
Regarding claim 18, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 9 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 9. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baek et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0388923 A1) teaches updating QoS based on energy state/consumption of device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights