DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-30 are pending.
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 .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is maintaining the rejection(s) using the same grounds for rejection and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant presents the following argument(s) [in italics]:
… Huang does not teach or suggest an application-specific quality of service information via an SDP offer. Nor does Huang teach or suggest any threshold quality of service parameters. Indeed, mere mention of exchanging a quality of service parameter via offer/answer signaling is not sufficient to teach or suggest an SDP offer that includes both an application identifier associated with the application and an indication of an application- specific threshold quality of service parameter.…
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
Huang disclosed (re. Claim 1) an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a session description protocol (SDP) offer for an application associated with a data channel, (Huang-Figure 8,Paragraph 72,Paragraph 132,client 13 encapsulates a media stream parameter of the client 13 into offer (Offer) SDP signaling, and sends the offer SDP signaling to the client 23 by using the signaling server.) the SDP offer comprising one or more indications of a threshold quality of service associated with the application;(Huang-Paragraph 73, QoS parameter used for audio/video communication may also be exchanged by using the offer/answer signaling)
While Huang substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huang does not disclose (re. Claim 1) an SDP offer comprising an application identifier associated with the application.
While Huang substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huang does not disclose (re. Claim 1) the SDP response authorizing a quality of service resource that satisfies the threshold quality of service.
Belling Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67,Paragraph 82 disclosed wherein SDP offer contains data channels for BFCP and MSRP sub-protocols.
Belling disclosed (re. Claim 1) an SDP offer comprising an application identifier associated with the application. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP”)
Huang and Belling are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Belling into Huang. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable enhanced media plane optimization in web real time communication scenarios.(Belling-Paragraph 111)
Castro Paragraph 3 disclosed wherein criteria such as the QoS subscription information may be used together with policy rules such as, service-based, subscription-based, or pre-defined PCRF internal policies to derive the authorized QoS to be enforced for a service data flow.
Castro disclosed (re. Claim 1) the SDP response authorizing a quality of service resource that satisfies the threshold quality of service.( Castro-Paragraph 3,criteria such as the QoS subscription information may be used together with policy rules such as, service-based, subscription-based, or pre-defined PCRF internal policies to derive the authorized QoS to be enforced for a service data flow.)
Huang,Belling and Castro are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Castro into Huang-Belling. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable enforcing QoS control according to the QoS authorised by the PCRF.(Castro-Paragraph 9)
The Applicant presents the following argument(s) [in italics]:
…by referring to separate references as being allegedly relevant to the features … as recited in independent claim 1, the rejection of independent claim 1 relies on improper dissection of the features of the claim and an improper evaluation of those features of isolation. But the features of independent claim 1 are specifically linked by at least the "application associated with a data channel." Thus, the features of independent claim 1 must be considered as a whole, which does not support the isolation of these features or the piecemeal combination of the references set forth in the rejection of independent claim 1…
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Huang and Belling are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Belling into Huang. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable enhanced media plane optimization in web real time communication scenarios.(Belling-Paragraph 111)
Huang,Belling and Castro are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Castro into Huang-Belling. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable enforcing QoS control according to the QoS authorised by the PCRF.(Castro-Paragraph 9)
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from PCT Application PCT/CN2022/090906 filed May 5, 2022.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is May 5, 2022.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,10-15,17-20, 22-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPUB 2019/0379735) further in view of Belling (USPGPUB 2018/0316732) further in view of Castro (USPGPUB 2015/0172471)
Regarding Claim 1
Huang Figure 8,Paragraph 72,Paragraph 132 disclosed wherein client 13 encapsulates a media stream parameter of the client 13 into offer (Offer) SDP signaling, and sends the offer SDP signaling to the client 23 by using the signaling server. The client 23 establishes answer (Answer) SDP signaling that includes a media stream parameter of the client 23, and transmits the answer SDP signaling to the answer (Answer) SDP signaling by using the signaling server. In this way, both the client 13 and the client 23 learn of the media stream parameter of each other.
Huang disclosed (re. Claim 1) an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a session description protocol (SDP) offer for an application associated with a data channel, (Huang-Figure 8,Paragraph 72,Paragraph 132,client 13 encapsulates a media stream parameter of the client 13 into offer (Offer) SDP signaling, and sends the offer SDP signaling to the client 23 by using the signaling server.) the SDP offer comprising one or more indications of a threshold quality of service associated with the application;(Huang-Paragraph 73, QoS parameter used for audio/video communication may also be exchanged by using the offer/answer signaling)
receive an SDP response for the application associated with the data channel based at least in part on transmission of the SDP offer, (Huang-Paragraph 72, Paragraph 132,client 23 establishes answer (Answer) SDP signaling that includes a media stream parameter of the client 23, and transmits the answer SDP signaling to the answer (Answer) SDP signaling); and
transmit a response confirmation based at least in part on reception of the SDP response.(Huang-Figure 8,Paragraph 74, client 13 encapsulates the network parameter into ICE candidate (Candidate) signaling, and transmits the ICE candidate signaling to the client 23 through transit by using the signaling server.)
While Huang substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huang does not disclose (re. Claim 1) an SDP offer comprising an application identifier associated with the application.
While Huang substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huang does not disclose (re. Claim 1) the SDP response authorizing a quality of service resource that satisfies the threshold quality of service.
Belling Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67,Paragraph 82 disclosed wherein SDP offer contains data channels for BFCP and MSRP sub-protocols.
Belling disclosed (re. Claim 1) an SDP offer comprising an application identifier associated with the application. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP”)
Huang and Belling are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Belling into Huang. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable enhanced media plane optimization in web real time communication scenarios.(Belling-Paragraph 111)
Castro Paragraph 3 disclosed wherein criteria such as the QoS subscription information may be used together with policy rules such as, service-based, subscription-based, or pre-defined PCRF internal policies to derive the authorized QoS to be enforced for a service data flow.
Castro disclosed (re. Claim 1) the SDP response authorizing a quality of service resource that satisfies the threshold quality of service.( Castro-Paragraph 3,criteria such as the QoS subscription information may be used together with policy rules such as, service-based, subscription-based, or pre-defined PCRF internal policies to derive the authorized QoS to be enforced for a service data flow.)
Huang,Belling and Castro are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Castro into Huang-Belling. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable enforcing QoS control according to the QoS authorised by the PCRF.(Castro-Paragraph 9)
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 (re. a network device) recites substantially similar claim limitations as Claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23
Claim 23 (re. method) recites substantially similar claim limitations as Claim 1. Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 26
Claim 26 (re. method) recites substantially similar claim limitations as Claim 1. Claim 26 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2,14,28
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 2,14,28) initiate communication by the application on the data channel in an internet protocol multimedia subsystem session based at least in part on outputting the SDP response and according to the threshold quality of service.(Castro-Paragraph 17,Figure 2,Paragraph 18, Both the originating PCEF (A21) and the terminating PCEF (A22) then initiate the establishment of a dedicated IP-CAN bearer for the service over the access network currently used by the corresponding UE. As a result, the voice call between UE A and UE B is provided over the established bearers.)
Regarding Claim 3,24
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 3,24) wherein the application identifier comprises a label indicating a name of the data channel. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Regarding Claim 4,18,24
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 4,18,24) wherein the application identifier comprises a media level attribute of a data channel map associated with the data channel. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Regarding Claim 5,19,24
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 5,19,24) wherein the application identifier comprises a media level attribute of a data channel sub-protocol attribute associated with the data channel. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Regarding Claim 6,20
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 6,20) wherein the application identifier comprises: a public land mobile network identifier, a data channel application provider, a data channel application number allocated by a network provider, a data channel application name (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Regarding Claim 7,22,25
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 7,22,25) wherein the threshold quality of service comprises: a threshold packet loss for the application,(Huang-Paragraph 218, control audio/video encoding quality and data transmission quality (such as a transmission speed and a packet loss rate) to an expected level) a threshold latency for the application, or both.
Regarding Claim 11,27
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 11,27) authorize a quality of service resource that satisfies the threshold quality of service, wherein outputting the SDP response is based at least in part on the authorizing.(Castro-Paragraph 3,criteria such as the QoS subscription information may be used together with policy rules such as, service-based, subscription-based, or pre-defined PCRF internal policies to derive the authorized QoS to be enforced for a service data flow.)
Regarding Claim 12
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 12) forward the SDP offer to a second UE; (Huang-Figure 8,Paragraph 72,Paragraph 132,client 13 encapsulates a media stream parameter of the client 13 into offer (Offer) SDP signaling, and sends the offer SDP signaling to the client 23 by using the signaling server.) and obtain the SDP response from the second UE. (Huang-Paragraph 72, Paragraph 132,client 23 establishes answer (Answer) SDP signaling that includes a media stream parameter of the client 23, and transmits the answer SDP signaling to the answer (Answer) SDP signaling)
Regarding Claim 13
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 13) forward the SDP response obtained from the second UE to the first UE. (Huang-Paragraph 72, Paragraph 132,client 23 establishes answer (Answer) SDP signaling that includes a media stream parameter of the client 23, and transmits the answer SDP signaling to the answer (Answer) SDP signaling)
Regarding Claim 15,29
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 15,29) generate charging information associated with the application for the internet protocol multimedia subsystem session (Castro-Paragraph 11, The OCS provides authorization for the usage of network resources based on the provisioned data and the user activity information it receives from PCEF. This authorization must be granted by the OCS prior to the actual resource usage. When receiving a network resource usage request, the network assembles the relevant charging information and generates a charging event towards the OCS in real-time) based at least in part on the application identifier.(Castro-Paragraph 17, The P-CSCF in the terminating network also initiates establishment of an AF session by sending an AAR message to a PCRF in the terminating network over an Rx interface (Applicant2). These AAR messages include service information such as an application identifier (i.e. in an AF-Application-Identifier AVP), the codecs negotiated by UE A and UE B (i.e. taken from the SDP answer), and the flow information (i.e. in a Flow-Description AVP).)
Regarding Claim 17
Huang-Belling-Castro disclosed (re. Claim 17) wherein the application identifier comprises a label indicating a name of the data channel. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Claim(s) 16,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPUB 2019/0379735) further in view of Belling (USPGPUB 2018/0316732) further in view of Castro (USPGPUB 2015/0172471) further in view of Wu (USPGPUB 20090089208)
Regarding Claim 16,30
While Huang-Belling-Castro substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huang-Belling-Castro does not disclose (re. Claim 16,30) provide the charging information to a service provider associated with the first UE.
Wu Paragraph 57,Paragraph 58,Paragraph 74 disclosed wherein the called IMS/SIP Core requests the IMS charging information collecting function to start charging, and sends the CDR of the called UE carrying the SID to the IMS charging information collecting function. The IMS charging information collecting function opens the CDR and starts to record actions performed by the called UE with the called IMS/SIP Core during the current multi-party service.
Wu disclosed (re. Claim 16,30) provide the charging information to a service provider associated with the first UE.(Wu-Paragraph 57, the IMS charging information collecting function opens the CDR and starts to record actions performed by the calling UE with the calling IMS/SIP Core during the current multi-party service, Paragraph 58,Paragraph 74, the called IMS/SIP Core requests the IMS charging information collecting function to start charging, and sends the CDR of the called UE carrying the SID to the IMS charging information collecting function. The IMS charging information collecting function opens the CDR and starts to record actions performed by the called UE with the called IMS/SIP Core during the current multi-party service.)
Huang,Belling and Wu are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Wu into Huang-Belling. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement a charging correlation process in a simple way and to greatly improve charging accuracy.(Wu-Paragraph 12)
Claim(s) 8-9,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPUB 2019/0379735) further in view of Belling (USPGPUB 2018/0316732) further in view of Castro (USPGPUB 2015/0172471) further in view of Giaretta (US Patent 10015102)
Regarding Claim 9,21
While Huang-Belling-Castro substantially disclosed the claimed invention Huang-Belling-Castro does not disclose (re. Claim 9,21) receive a data channel application package associated with the application, the data channel application package comprising the application identifier
Giaretta Column 4 Lines 50-55 disclosed wherein network operator can configure a list of applications the device needs to report traffic information for. When one of these applications starts communicating with the network, the device can send information describing the traffic generated by the application. This information allows identification of the traffic for this instance of the application for this device. In this way the network operator may easily and accurately identify traffic on a per-device/per-application level.
Giaretta disclosed (re. Claim 9,21) receive a data channel application package associated with the application, the data channel application package comprising the application identifier.(Giaretta-Column 14 Lines 1-10, the processor 202 configures and loads a pre-load library. The pre-load library 218 includes a subset of the networking functions that are provided in the networking library 220 typically used by applications to assess communication networks. The networking functions in the pre-load library 218 are configured to intercept networking function calls from applications executing at a device.)
Huang,Belling and Giaretta are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding IMS session negotiation and session establishment. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Giaretta into Huang-Belling. The motivation for the said combination would have been to allow network operator to easily and accurately identify traffic on a per-device/per-application level.( Giaretta-Column 4 Lines 50-55)
Huang-Belling-Castro-Giaretta disclosed (re. Claim 9,21) include the application identifier in the SDP offer based at least in part on the data channel application package. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Regarding Claim 8
Huang-Belling disclosed (re. Claim 8) receive an indication of the application identifier in connection with installation of the application at the UE; (Giaretta-Column 9 Lines 30-40, reporting engine 211 may be further configured to determine whether the application is included in the reporting and generate a traffic descriptor and application identifier for an application included in the reporting rules…the pre-load library 218 include one or more additional function calls to the reporting engine 211 to perform the determination and reporting.)
and include the application identifier in the SDP offer based at least in part on the indication. (Belling-Paragraph 58,Paragraph 66-67, m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel, a=dcmap:0 subprotocol=“BFCP”; label=“BFCP” )
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/GREG C BENGZON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights