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 . This action is in response to the communication filed on 9/4/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of 17/675,602, filed 2/18/2022. The assignee of record is Cisco Technology, Inc. The listed inventor(s) is/are: Abraham, Jis; Nageswararao, Pavan Kumar Devulacheruvu; Pendela, Venkata Mohana Krishna Prasanna Anjaneyulu.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US 20200322834 A1, published 10/8/2020; hereinafter Hua) in view of Won et al. (US 20190313310 A1, published 10/10/2019; hereinafter Won).
For Claim 1, Hua teaches a method of restoring a mapping a quality of service (QoS) flow description and a bearer indicator (EBI) in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising (Please see screenshot of Hua Fig. 2 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
644
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
):
attaching, by the UE, to a wireless communication system using a first connection (Hua Fig. 1);
deleting, at the UE, an EBI mapping to the QoS flow description (Hua ¶ 0113 At S1416, a PDU session modification request message can be transmitted when there is neither an authorized QoS flow descriptions IE in the PDU session modification command message indicating a QoS flow description corresponding to the EBI in the mapped EPS bearer context, nor an existing QoS flow description at the UE 102 corresponding to the EBI included in the mapped EPS bearer context. The PDU session modification request message can include a mapped EPS bearer contexts IE to delete the mapped EPS bearer context (created at the UE 102) with the flow-association-missing error detected at S1412
Hua ¶ 0114 For example, the mapped EPS bearer contexts IE can include a mapped EPS bearer context entry indicating the erroneous mapped EPS bearer context (e.g., using the EBI) and including a “delete existing EPS bearer” operation code. Upon receiving the PDU session modification request, the 5GC 120 may understand the flow-association-missing error takes place with the mapped EPS bearer context indicated to the UE 102 at the S1410.);
receiving, at the UE, an update bearer modification request to update the QoS flow description (Hua ¶ 0115 At S1418, in response to S1416, the 5GC 120 can transmit a second PDU session modification command message to the UE 102 that can contain a mapped EPS bearer contexts IE to remove the erroneous mapped EPS bearer context. At S1420, the UE 102 can accordingly delete the erroneous mapped EPS bearer context in response to receiving the second PDU session modification request message. At S1422, the UE 102 can transmit a second PDU session modification complete message to the 5GC 120 to reply to the second PDU session modification request message).
Hua does not explicitly teach storing, at the UE, information in the update bearer modification request to map the EBI to the QoS flow description.
However, Won teaches storing, at the UE, information in the update bearer modification request to map the EBI to the QoS flow description (Won ¶ 0027 At 204, the UE 150A may store the received APN AMBR with other QoS information and session information. The UE 150A may store the association between a QoS flow, corresponding to an EPS bearer ID (EBI), and the EPS QoS parameters and the APN-AMBR mappings.
Please see screenshot of Won Fig. 2 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image2.png
564
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Won and Hua are analogous art because they are both related to 5G.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the storing techniques of Won with the system of Hua to support differentiation among different service data flows (Won ¶ 0003).
For Claim 2, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the EBI mapping to the QoS flow description is deleted when the EBI is not included in the QoS flow description and there is more than one QoS flow description available (Hua ¶ 0099 the QoS flow description entry 1231 can include a “modify existing QoS flow description” operation code in place of the “create new QoS flow description” operation code. Accordingly, the UE 102 can modify the existing QoS flow description 1237 by replacing a prior EBI=2 with the EBI=1 carried in the QoS flow description entry 1231. In this way, the QoS flow of QFI=a, which is originally associated with a mapped EPS bearer context having the EBI=2 (not shown), becomes associated with the newly created mapped EPS bearer context 1224 having the EBI=1).
For Claim 3, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the EBI mapping to the QoS flow description is deleted locally at the UE (Hua Claim 7 deleting the mapped EPS bearer context locally without receiving a second PDU session modification command message including a mapped EPS bearer contexts IE to delete the mapped EPS bearer context).
For Claim 4, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 1, wherein storing the EBI to the QoS flow description ensures that QoS information is maintained for inter-RAT handover (Hua ¶ 0031 UE 101 can perform a handover procedure to switch from the EPS to the 5GS).
For Claim 5, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in response to attaching receiving a create bearer request for establishing a service for the UE using the first connection (Hua Claim 1 receiving a “create new evolved packet system (EPS) bearer” operation code in a mapped EPS bearer contexts information element (IE) in a first protocol data unit (PDU) session modification command message for creating a mapped EPS bearer context at a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system; and when there is neither a quality of service (QoS) flow descriptions IE in the first PDU session modification command message indicating a QoS flow description corresponding to an EPS bearer identity (EBI) in the mapped EPS bearer context, nor an existing QoS flow description at the UE corresponding to the EBI included in the mapped EPS bearer context, sending a PDU session modification request message including a mapped EPS bearer contexts IE to delete the mapped EPS bearer context.).
For Claim 6, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the UE attaches to a 4G network for the first connection (Hua Fig. 1 ¶ 0025 LTE).
For Claim 7, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the update bearer modification request is for a second connection for the UE (Fig. 1).
For Claim 8, Hua-Won teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the second connection is to a 5G network (Hua Fig. 1).
For Claim(s) 9 & 17, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 10 & 18, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 11 & 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 12, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 13, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 14 & 20, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 15, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 16, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20140362829 A1, EPS BEARER SPLITTING FOR DUAL CONNECTIVITY DEVICES
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights