DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
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)(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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 12,513,084 to Yi.
Regarding Claim 1, Yi discloses a first network entity (102 – fig. 1 and 204 – fig. 2) comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Col. 2, lines 32-35); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (Col. 2, lines 32-45) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to:
receive a control message (i.e., access node receive request message for PDU session) indicating a packet data unit set-specific feature (i.e., indicator indicating MA-PDU session and parameters/policies related to a PDU session) associated with a packet data unit set (i.e., The policy, for example, may indicate one or more of: (a) to drop a PDU set if any PDU packet of the PDU set is dropped; (b) to not drop a PDU set, even if one or more PDU packets of the PDU set is dropped; (c) a PDU session of the XR application is based on a MA-PDU session; (d) the PDU session of the XR application is based on a replication of a MA-PDU session; and/or (e) a threshold value where the access node may be required or expected to drop the PDU set if a percentage of dropped PDU packets of the PDU set exceeds the threshold value.) (Col. 28, line 55 to Col. 29, line 46);
receive one or more packet data units of the packet data unit set (i.e., node 204 receives a first PDU of a particular PDU set 208 from source 202, and Col. 2, lines 35-39; Col. 10, lines 15-17 and Col. 11, lines 7-14);
output the one or more packet data units of the packet data unit set (i.e., node 204 sends the flagged PDU to its intended destination 206 according to the priority or other parameters indicated by the flag set; Col. 2, lines 44-45 and Col. 10, lines 27-30),
wherein a value of a congestion decision indicated by a congestion marking field of the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity is adjusted (i.e., change value of the packet’s ECN field) based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature associated with the packet data unit set(Yi teaches (Fig. 2: Step 212 and ¶Col. 9, Lines 38 – 45) an L4S-enabled application may indicate ECT(0) in the IP header of a PDU packet, which indicates that the particular PDU packet is to be delivered enabled with L4S priority. In this example, L4S marking unit 124 is further configured to, upon congestion detection (e.g., by the base station, network function, or user plane function (UPF) of node 102, in responding to detecting a congestion, for the PDU packet with ECT(0), may set or change a value of the packet's ECN field from ECT(0) (or ECT(00) to ETC(1) (or ETC(01))), thereby indicating that a congestion occurs for the PDU packet. Col. 11, lines 26-34 once the congestion is detected after reception of the first packet/PDU (i.e., after the first time), node 204 to change the ECN bit of subsequent packets/PDUs of that PDU set 208 from ECT(0) to ECT(1), the ECN bit of the subsequent packets does not change according to process 200).
The claimed congestion marking field maps to the reference’s ECN field / ECN bit / ECT value. The reference teaches that the value of that field is adjusted or maintained consistently for packets of the PDU set, based on a PDU set-level handling decision/feature:
the first packet’s marking/handling determines later packet marking/handling for that set;
PDU set policy/importance/replication/dropping configuration are set-level features affecting treatment of packets in the set.
Thus, the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted based at least in part on a packet data unit set-specific feature.
Claim 2, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
wherein, to receive the control message indicating the packet data unit set-specific feature, (i.e., access node receives request message for PDU session, and an indicator indicating MA-PDU session and parameters/policies related to a PDU session; Col. 10, lines 15-43) the one or more processors (Col. 2, lines 32-45) are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity (102 – fig. 1 and 204 – fig. 2) to:
receive an indication of a packet data unit set delay budget (Col. 9, lines 1-19: the wireless device transfer delay information e.g., of the PDU session or the bearer) associated with the packet data unit set (Col. 9, lines 29-31: PDU session with L4S functionality), wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted (i.e., change value of the packet’s ECN field) based at least in part on a function of the packet data unit set delay budget (Col. 29, lines 26-30: a jitter boundary or a latency boundary of a PDU set, above which the entire PDU set may be dropped if a measured jitter or a measured latency of the PDU set exceeds the boundary) for the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity (Yi discloses Col. 9, lines 50-63; Col. 10, lines 15-43 & Col. 11, lines 26-34 once the congestion is detected after reception of the first packet/PDU, node 204 to change the ECN bit of subsequent packets/PDUs of that PDU set 208 from ECT(0) to ECT(1), the ECN bit of the subsequent packets does not change according to process 200 .The claimed congestion marking field maps to the reference’s ECN field / ECN bit / ECT value. The reference teaches that the value of that field is adjusted or maintained consistently for packets of the PDU set, based on a PDU set-level handling decision/feature).
Claim 4, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
receive an indication of a deadline associated with the packet data unit set (Yi discloses (¶Col. 6, lines 6-10) the delay boundary which indicates the quality of services (QoS) across the multiple PDU packets delivered such that the latencies of the multiple packets are maintained with low jitter), wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted based at least in part on an amount of remaining time before the deadline for the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity (Yi discloses (¶Col. 7, line 10) to greatly enhance the quality of experience and mitigate the risk of dropping entire PDU sets, ECN tagging is adjusted (Fig. 2, ¶Col. 10, line 45 – 55 and ¶Col. 20, line 45 – 60) to minimize the round trip delay/packet drop rate by assigning high priority status to specific packets.)
Claim 5, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
receive an indication of one or more quality of service parameters associated with the packet data unit set (Yi discloses (¶Col. 9, lines 50 – 63) adapt QoS parameters of the PDU packet to the changing conditions e.g., detected congestion), wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted based at least in part on the one or more quality of service parameters (Yi discloses (¶Col. 42, lines 57 – 67 and ¶Col. 43, lines 1 – 5) enable ECN marking (and/or the L4S feature) to support the requirements of the QoS flow.)
Claim 6, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
receive an indication of pacing information associated with the packet data unit set, wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted based at least in part on the pacing information (Yi discloses (¶Col. 19, lines 15 – 45) ECN marking with the received indication of the data rate (i.e. pacing information), delay difference, round trip delay of QoS flows, estimated bandwidth and several other PDU set-based QoS parameters.)
Claim 7, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
adjust the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature (Yi discloses (¶Col. 42, lines 47 – 60) L4S feature with the XR application and QoS flow (e.g., and/or a PDU session) for the respective ECN marking.)
Claim 8, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
adjust a probability associated with indicating, via the congestion marking field, that congestion is experienced based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature (Yi discloses (¶Col. 45, line 62 – ¶Col. 46, line 2) if a congestion indication is received from one of the split paths (e.g., the 20% path), it may be desirable to configure the congestion indication based on the load and/or splitting percentage of that particular path (e.g., a 20% probability that the congestion indication is forwarded to the application server.)
Claim 9, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
indicate, via the congestion marking field, that congestion is experienced based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature (Yi discloses (¶Fig. 2, Process 200) node 204 receives a first PDU of a particular PDU set 208 from source 202, the node 204 sends the flagged PDU to its intended destination 206 according to the priority or other parameters indicated by the flag set, wherein a value of a congestion decision indicated by a congestion marking field of the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity is adjusted i.e., change value of the packet’s ECN field. Further, Yi teaches (¶Col. 9, Lines 38 – 45) in responding to detecting a congestion, for the PDU packet with ECT(0), changing a value of the packet's ECN field from ECT(0) (or ECT(00) to ETC(1) (or ETC(01))), thereby indicating that a congestion occurs for the PDU packet. Col. 11, lines 26-34 once the congestion is detected after reception of the first packet/PDU (i.e., after the first time), node 204 to change the ECN bit of subsequent packets/PDUs of that PDU set 208 from ECT(0) to ECT(1), the ECN bit of the subsequent packets does not change according to process 200). The claimed congestion marking field maps to the reference’s ECN field / ECN bit / ECT value. The reference teaches that the value of that field is adjusted or maintained consistently for packets of the PDU set, based on a PDU set-level handling decision/feature.)
Claim 10, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
refrain from indicating, via the congestion marking field, that congestion is experienced based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature (Yi discloses (¶Col. 11, line 18 – 25) in the case where node 204 did not set ECT(1) for the first packet/PDU, node 204 will not change the ECN bit field of the IP header of the second packet/PDU of that PDU set 208, even upon the later congestion detection/determination after receiving the first packet/PDU, but before all packets/PDUs of that PDU set 208 are received, processed, and delivered.)
Claim 11, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
receive a quality of service profile comprising an indication of the packet data unit set-specific feature (Yi discloses (¶Col. 9, line 60 – 62) receiving and adapting the QoS parameters of the PDU packet to the changing conditions e.g., detected congestion.)
Claim 12, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, it discloses:
select a marking policy associated with adjusting the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field of the one or more packet data units based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature (Yi discloses (¶Col. 16, line 13 – 17) ECN marking performed at a UPF or PSA, L4S for the PDU session may be enabled or disabled when the establishment of the PDU session is based on a policy of the network. Yi discloses (¶Col. 19, line 6 – 7 and 16 – 17) PCF is configured to generate policies including ECN marking. Yi further discloses (¶Col. 48, line 21 – 24) a PDU switching policy may be advantageously configured to switch to/from L4S-enabled from/to L4S-disabled, and/or to switch to/from a UPF-based ECN marking to an access network-based ECN marking.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 12,513,084 to Yi, and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0164640 to Ye et al. (hereinafter Ye).
Claim 3, Yi discloses all the elements of claim 1. Yi does not explicitly disclose to receive an indication of a packet data unit set size associated with the packet data unit set wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted based at least in part on a packet index for the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity. However, in an analogous art, Ye teaches:
receive an indication of a packet data unit set (Ye teaches ¶106 include receiving an actual packet, a virtual copy, and/or a representation of a packet (e.g., a count, a size, a reference number to a packet) size associated with the packet data unit set (Ye teaches (¶74) the network 320 monitors various parameters such as monitoring average data packet size) wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted (Ye teaches (¶74) comparing a data packet size with the average data packet size, and then setting the Explicit Congestion Notification-Echo (ECN-echo or ECE bit 460) to adjust and to slow down transmissions based on the packet sizes) based at least in part on a packet index for the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity (Ye teaches (¶108) packet size threshold can be determined based on packet sizes or packets in the queue. The threshold can be set as a value calculated from the packet sizes, such as a mean, medium, and/or average, (¶112) and a packet can be selected to be marked and/or dropped based on a packet size reaching or exceeding a threshold, (¶156) and determining to drop and/or mark packets with ECN is based on the size of packets being over a threshold.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine first network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to: receive a control message indicating a packet data unit set-specific feature associated with a packet data unit set; receive one or more packet data units of the packet data unit set; and output the one or more packet data units of the packet data unit set, wherein a value of a congestion decision indicated by a congestion marking field of the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity is adjusted based at least in part on the packet data unit set-specific feature associated with the packet data unit set, as disclosed by Yi, and receive an indication of a packet data unit set size associated with the packet data unit set wherein the value of the congestion decision indicated by the congestion marking field is adjusted based at least in part on a packet index for the one or more packet data units output by the first network entity, as taught by Ye, for the purpose of
implementing communications over a network with congestion control management, packet-size based priority management, and fairness management (¶88).
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 01/13/2026 with respect to the Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Hence, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is withdrawn. However, based on the arguments, the search is updated and two new references (US Patent No. 12,513,084 to Yi and US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0164640 to Ye) are being introduced for the 35 USC § 103 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/H. A. K./Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451