DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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, 8-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Boggia et al (US PG Pub 2020/0099990 A1) hereinafter Boggia.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly the apparatus of claims 10 and 14: A method for wireless communication, applicable to a core network device, the method comprising:
determining first information of each of a plurality of data sets; ([0094 - 0103]The proxy server 130 inspects each data packet to identify the type of video frame (I, P, or B) by extracting information from the H264 packet header. This “type” constitutes “first information” of a data set. A processor and memory is described in Fig 1a)
and transmitting the first information of each of the plurality of data sets to an access network device; ([0094 - 0103] proxy server 130 inspects each data packet to identify the type of video frame (I, P, or B) by extracting information from the H264 packet header. This “type” constitutes “first information” of a data set.)
wherein the first information of each of the plurality of data sets is configured to determine importance and/or an association relationship of the plurality of data sets, ([0077 - 0086], [0105 - 0108] frame type directly determines importance: I-frames are most important (used to decode P/B frames); loss of I-frame data means the entire GOP cannot be decoded. Classification into I/P/B establishes importance hierarchy)
such that the access network device is capable of scheduling air interface resources based on the importance and/or the association relationship of the plurality of data sets. ([0112 - 0125], FIG. 2, scheduler 160 at the base station assigns radio resources (time/frequency) by prioritizing radio bearers whose head-of-line packets correspond to I-frames (first priority group P1 served before second priority group P2)
Regarding claim 2 and similarly the apparatus of claims 11 and 15: The method according to claim 1, wherein: the core network device is a user-plane core network device; ([0075] content server 110 provides the video stream, user-plane data) and determining the first information of each of the plurality of data sets comprises: determining the first information of each of the plurality of data sets based on application layer packet header information of each of the plurality of data sets. ([0094 - 0103] proxy server 130 operates at the application layer of the base station; it extracts frame type by reading the H264 packet header (first byte/header of the H264 packet indicates frame type).)
Regarding claim 3 and similarly the apparatus of claims 12 and 16: The method according to claim 2, wherein the application layer packet header information of each of the plurality of data sets comprises the first information of the each of the plurality of data sets. ([0100 - 0103] according to H264 standard, the first byte of a H264 packet (also referred to as header) is used to indicate the type of frame. The application layer packet header itself contains the frame type information directly.)
Regarding claim 4 and similarly the apparatus of claims 13 and 17: The method according to claim 2, wherein prior to transmitting the first information of each of the plurality of data sets to the access network device, the method further comprises:
adding the first information of each of the plurality of data sets to a packet header other than an Internet Protocol (IP) packet header of the each of the plurality of data sets. ([0098 - 0103] proxy server labels each data packet with a label indicative of the frame type. This label is added to the data packet (beyond the original IP headers) for delivery to the scheduler.)
Regarding claim 8 and similarly the apparatus of claim 20: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information of each of the plurality of data sets comprises any one of: a type of the each of the plurality of data sets, an importance level of the each of the plurality of data sets, a period of a data set sequence to which the each of the plurality of data sets belongs, or a data size of the each of the plurality of data sets. ([0077 - 0082], [0105 - 0108] frame type (I, P, B) is explicitly the classification criterion)
Regarding claim 9: The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of data sets comprises a video frame or a coded slice. ([0077 - 0083], [0100 - 0103] each data packet DP comprises data corresponding to at least a portion of an encoded video frame. The H264 packets store compressed video frames. A single H264 packet can be a video frame or a coded)
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 5-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggia et al (US PG Pub 2020/0099990 A1) hereinafter Boggia, in view of Yang et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0156748 A1) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 5 and similarly the apparatus of claim 18, Boggia fails to disclose the following limitations which are taught by Yang: The method according to claim 4, wherein adding the first information of each of the plurality of data sets to the packet header other than the IP packet header of the each of the plurality of data sets comprises: adding the first information of the each of the plurality of data sets to a general packet radio service (GPRS) Tunneling Protocol (GTP) packet header of the each of the plurality of data sets. ([0097 - 0107], [0117 - 0119], FIG. 3, embedding priority information in the GTP header (in TEID or sequence number field)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified packet headers disclosed by Boggia to include the priority level of in the header of the GTP of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because placing the priority level in the header increases efficiency by reducing the need for further processing in order to determine a communication priority, as evidenced by Yang, [0097].
Regarding claim 6 and similarly the apparatus of claim 19, Boggia fails to disclose the following limitations which are taught by Yang: The method according to claim 2, wherein the user-plane core network device is a user-plane function (UPF). ([0076], [0119] Teaches PGW as the user-plane gateway. In 5G, PGW functionality is equivalent to UPF.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified architecture disclosed by Boggia to include PGW of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the PGW is a fundamental part of 5G networks, as evidenced by Yang, [0076].
Regarding claim 7, Boggia fails to disclose the following limitations which are taught by Yang: The method according to claim 1, wherein:
the core network device is a first control-plane core network device; ([0074 - 0076], [0109] MME is a control-plane core network entity that determines and embeds priority in GTP-C messages)
and determining the first information of each of the plurality of data sets comprises:
actively determining the first information of each of the plurality of data sets; or
receiving a request message from a second control-plane core network device, and determining the first information of each of the plurality of data sets in response to the request message. ([0109 - 0112], [0114 - 0115] MME actively determines priority (based on operator policies, ARP, QCI) and embeds it in GTP-C messages. SGW may use the same priority from MME or set a different values)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified architecture disclosed by Boggia to include PGW of Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of setting a specific flag indicating priority information reduces processing time and improves efficiency as evidenced by Yang, [0109].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Jensen whose telephone number is (571)270-5443. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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.
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.
NICHOLAS JENSEN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights