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 § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 27, 29, 30, 32-36, 38, 39, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manithara Vamanan et al. (US 20230069008) in view of CHEN et al. (US 20240306043).
Regarding claims 27 and 36, Manithara Vamanan teaches receiving a first message (Fig. 6, AF request) comprising first information including service requirements for a data flow ([0107] In 620, the application server 618 may provide a Nnef_ TrafficInfluence_create message to the NEF 616, which may provide SDF packet filter parameters including the enhancements to separate IP packets with the same IP 5-tuple for potentially different QoS handling);
determining, based on the second information, one or more policy and charging control (PCC) rules for a packet data unit (PDU) session of the data flow, wherein the one or more PCC rules are associated with the data flow; and transmitting a second message comprising third information indicating the one or more PCC rules associated with the data flow (Fig. 6 and [0107] In 626, PCC rules may be distributed to the SMF if there are PDU sessions impacted by the AF request).
However, Manithara Vamanan does not expressly teach second information indicating that the data flow is associated with a multi-modal data set. CHEN teaches Fig. 11 and [0033] the multi-modal QoS requirements of all terminals are sent to the network together via the AF. That is, the multi-modal QoS requirements of all terminals are sent to a policy control function (PCF) through a network exposure function (NEF) for the PCF to perform policy control uniformly, to satisfy the multi-modal QoS requirements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with CHEN in order to integrate and process multi-modal information to achieve better interaction experience ([0003], CHEN).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, Manithara Vamanan does not teach, however, CHEN teaches at least one other data flow is part of the multi-modal data set (Fig. 11 and [0033] the multi-modal QoS requirements of all terminals are sent to the network together via the AF. That is, the multi-modal QoS requirements of all terminals are sent to a policy control function (PCF) through a network exposure function (NEF) for the PCF to perform policy control uniformly, to satisfy the multi-modal QoS requirements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with CHEN in order to integrate and process multi-modal information to achieve better interaction experience ([0003], CHEN).
Regarding claims 30 and 39, Manithara Vamanan does not teach, however, CHEN teaches wherein the data flow is associated with a first WTRU, wherein the at least one other data flow of the multi-modal data set is associated with a second WTRU, and wherein the first WTRU is different from the second WTRU (Fig. 11 and [0033] the multi-modal QoS requirements of all terminals are sent to the network together via the AF. That is, the multi-modal QoS requirements of all terminals are sent to a policy control function (PCF) through a network exposure function (NEF) for the PCF to perform policy control uniformly, to satisfy the multi-modal QoS requirements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with CHEN in order to integrate and process multi-modal information to achieve better interaction experience ([0003], CHEN).
Regarding claims 32 and 41, Manithara Vamanan teaches wherein the second message is transmitted to a session management function (SMF) network element (Fig. 6 and [0107] In 626, PCC rules may be distributed to the SMF if there are PDU sessions impacted by the AF request).
Regarding claims 33 and 42, Manithara Vamanan teaches the first message is received from an application function (AF) network element (Fig. 6 and [0107] In 626, PCC rules may be distributed to the SMF if there are PDU sessions impacted by the AF request).
Regarding claims 34 and 43, Manithara Vamanan teaches, wherein the first message is received from the AF via a network exposure function (NEF) network element (Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 35 and 44, Manithara Vamanan teaches wherein the network node is a policy control function (PCF) network element (Fig. 6).
Claims 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manithara Vamanan et al. (US 20230069008) modified by CHEN et al. (US 20240306043), further in view of HONG (US 20230262752)
Regarding claims 31 and 40, neither Manithara Vamanan nor CHEN expressly teaches the second information is a multi-modal data set identifier. HONG teaches [0063] the ID may be temporarily allocated for the multimodal service when there are output data of the multi-modal service to be transmitted that needs to be sent to multiple terminals of the multi-modal service. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with HONG in order to sending a paging signaling to one or more terminals of a multi-modal service ([0004], HONG).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 and 37 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights