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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 20-23, 28, 33-34, 36, 39, 41 and 43 received on 9/25/2024 have been examined, of which claims 1, 20 and 33 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 33-34, 36 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites (line 4) “information or that a service flow”, which appears to be typographical error “information
Claims 33-34, 36 and 43 – recite “third policy” and “second entity”, without reciting any other entity or first entity and any other policy or first/second policy. Thus, the “third policy” and “second entity” are interpreted as “a policy” and “an entity” in broadest reasonable interpretation. It is noted that claims 20-22 and 41 recite substantially similar limitations with “second policy” and “first entity”, without reciting first policy or another entity and could also be interpreted as “a policy” and “an entity”. Thus, there is no differentiation between the two groups of claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 20-22, 33-34, 36, 39, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 20-22, 33-34, 36, 39, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 20, 33 is/are directed to abstract idea of mental process of determining policy based on parameter or informing about the policy. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims recite network function or network entity, which are considered as software function or general-purpose computer implementing the steps. Claims 39, 41, 43 recite general-purpose computer elements to carry out the method in claims 1, 20 and 33 respectively. Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 21-22, 34 and 36 recite further information specifying policy, function or parameter, without amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It is noted that claims 12, 17, 23 and 28 are considered to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount for significant more than judicial exception, thus not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recite “the first parameter”, which is preceded by two recitations of “a first parameter” in claim 7 and 1. It is unclear, which recitation is further limited.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 20-22, 33-34, 36, 39, 41, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiao et al. (US 20230179640).
Regarding claim 1, Qiao teaches a method for policy control (fig 20 and 23, synchronization of multiple service data flows and the procedures of a first network function), comprising:
determining a first policy by a first network function based on a first parameter (para 386: based on the information of the first message received from the UE and/or user subscription information and/or local policy, the first network function may determine a policy and charging control rule for the multiple SDFs/multiple packet flows/QoS flow(s), based on the flows synchronization request indication, the flow information, the requested HTC network slice; the HTC DNN, and/or the timestamp information, the first network function may determine at least one policy and charging control rule).
Regarding claim 20, Qiao teaches a method for policy control (fig 20 and 24, synchronization of multiple service data flows and the procedures of a second network function), comprising: receiving a second policy by a first entity, wherein the second policy is sent directly or indirectly by a first network function (para 395: the first network function may send a message (e.g. user plane session request) to the second network function. The user plane session request message may indicate requesting synchronization for service data flow(s)/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s). For example, the user plane session request message may comprise at least one information element: flows synchronization (request) indication, the at least one user plane rule, and/or time configuration information).
Regarding claim 33, Qiao teaches a method for policy control (fig 20 and 24, synchronization of multiple service data flows and the procedures of a second network function), comprising: receiving a third policy by a second entity, wherein the third policy is sent directly or indirectly by a first network function (para 395: the first network function may send a message (e.g. user plane session request) to the second network function. The user plane session request message may indicate requesting synchronization for service data flow(s)/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s). For example, the user plane session request message may comprise at least one information element: flows synchronization (request) indication, the at least one user plane rule, and/or time configuration information).
Regarding claim 2, Qiao further teaches wherein the first policy is configured for multi-flow coordination transmission or multi-flow coordination handling (para 386: the first network function may determine a policy and charging control rule for the multiple SDFs (service data flow)/multiple packet flows/QoS flow(s)).
Regarding claim 3, Qiao further teaches wherein the first policy is one or more of: a multi-flow network policy (para 386: based on the information of the first message received from the UE and/or user subscription information and/or local policy, the first network function may determine a policy and charging control rule for the multiple SDFs/multiple packet flows/QoS flow(s), the at least one policy and charging control rule may comprise at least one of: the flows synchronization request indication).
Regarding claim 4, Qiao further teaches wherein the first policy comprises at least one of information for indicating a flow association relationship (para 386: based on the flows synchronization request indication, the flow information, the requested HTC network slice; the HTC DNN, and/or the timestamp information, the first network function may determine at least one policy and charging control rule, the at least one policy and charging control rule may be applied to the requested HTC network slice).
Regarding claim 5, Qiao further teaches wherein the information for indicating the flow association relationship indicates at least one of information that a service flow is a flow in a multi-flow packet (para 385: the first message may comprise at least one of information elements: a requested holographic-type communication (HTC) network slice for the multiple SDFs/multiple packet flows/QoS flow(s); para 386: based on the flows synchronization request indication, the flow information, the requested HTC network slice; the HTC DNN, and/or the timestamp information, the first network function may determine at least one policy and charging control rule, the at least one policy and charging control rule may be applied to the requested HTC network slice).
Regarding claim 7, Qiao further teaches wherein the first policy is determined by the first network function based on a first parameter provided by a second network function (para 380: a first network function (NF) may receive a parameter indicating a request for synchronization of multiple data flows, the parameter may be received from, for example, a network participant associated with the multiple data flows (e.g., an application function associated with the multiple data flows);
wherein the second network function is one or a combination of an application function (AF) (para 380: the parameter may be received from, for example, a network participant associated with the multiple data flows (e.g., an application function associated with the multiple data flows);
wherein the first parameter comprises one or more of a policy requirement (para 380-381: a parameter indicating a request for synchronization of multiple data flows, the network entity may attempt to avoid discard and/or delay of any one flow associated with the synchronization request).
Regarding claim 9, Qiao further teaches wherein the first network function is one or more of: a policy control function (PCF) (para 380: a first network function (NF) may receive a parameter indicating a request for synchronization of multiple data flows, the first NF may be a control plane function e.g., SMF, PCF).
Regarding claim 21, Qiao further teaches wherein the second policy is configured for multi-flow coordination transmission or multi-flow coordination handling (para 395: the user plane session request message may indicate requesting synchronization for service data flow(s)/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s), the flows synchronization (request) indication in the user plane session request message may indicate that SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 1 need to be synchronized to the SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 2).
Regarding claim 22, Qiao further teaches wherein the second policy comprises one or more of: a multi-flow packet network policy (para 395: the user plane session request message may comprise user plane rule 1 and user plane rule 2, the flows synchronization (request) indication in the user plane session request message may indicate that SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 1 need to be synchronized to the SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 2).
Regarding claim 34, Qiao further teaches wherein the third policy is configured for multi-flow coordination transmission or multi-flow coordination handling (para 395: the user plane session request message may indicate requesting synchronization for service data flow(s)/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s), the flows synchronization (request) indication in the user plane session request message may indicate that SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 1 need to be synchronized to the SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 2).
Regarding claim 36, Qiao further teaches wherein the third policy comprises one or more of: a coordination network policy (para 395: the user plane session request message may comprise user plane rule 1 and user plane rule 2, the flows synchronization (request) indication in the user plane session request message may indicate that SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 1 need to be synchronized to the SDFs/packet flow(s)/QoS flow(s) matched to packet detection rule 2).
Regarding claim 39, Qiao teaches the method of claim 1.
Qiao further teaches a first network function (fig 14, CN 1430; para 361: CN deployment comprises one or more network functions), comprising: a processor (processing system 1431, fig 14; para 364: processing system comprises processor), configured to read a program in a memory (memory 1432, fig 14; para 362: memory 1432 may include instructions 1433), and perform the method according to claim 1 (fig 20, 23); and a transceiver, configured to receive and send data under a control of the processor (para 362: the CN deployment 1430 may also use the interface system 1437 to access an interface 1490, the CN deployment 1430 may use the interface 1490 to communicate with one or more data networks).
Regarding claim 41, Qiao teaches the method of claim 20.
Qiao further teaches a first entity (fig 14, CN 1430; para 361: CN deployment comprises one or more network functions), comprising: a processor (processing system 1431, fig 14; para 364: processing system comprises processor), configured to read a program in a memory (memory 1432, fig 14; para 362: memory 1432 may include instructions 1433), and perform the method according to claim 20 (fig 20, 24); and a transceiver, configured to receive and send data under a control of the processor (para 362: the CN deployment 1430 may also use the interface system 1437 to access an interface 1490. The CN deployment 1430 may use the interface 1490 to communicate with one or more data networks).
Regarding claim 43, Qiao teaches the method of claim 33.
Qiao further teaches a second entity (fig 14, CN 1430; para 361: CN deployment comprises one or more network functions), comprising: a processor (processing system 1431, fig 14; para 364: processing system comprises processor), configured to read a program in a memory (memory 1432, fig 14; para 362: memory 1432 may include instructions 1433), and perform the method according to claim 33 (fig 20, 24); a transceiver, configured to receive and send data under a control of the processor (para 362: the CN deployment 1430 may also use the interface system 1437 to access an interface 1490. The CN deployment 1430 may use the interface 1490 to communicate with one or more data networks).
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 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US 20230179640) in view of Wu et al. (US 20200383005)
Regarding claim 28, Qiao teaches the limitation of parent claim. Qiao teaches session establishment and updated policy, but does not teach messaging related to QoS or bitrate guarantee. Wu is directed to QoS flow control method and apparatus.
Wu further teaches receiving the second policy by the first entity in the case that a session is established and/or a session is updated (fig 18a, session established in S1201; para 528: Step S1202: When an AF network element determines to establish a service for the UE, the AF network element sends service information and at least two GBR QoS requirements to a PCF network element; S1205, fig 18a; para 535: in a process in which the UE establishes the QoS flow with the network, the SMF network element sends at least two QoS targets to an access network apparatus); and
sending by the first entity a second notification to the first network function (S1206-S1209, fig 18a; para 537: step S1207: the access network apparatus sends first indication information to an AMF network element);
wherein the first entity is one or more of an access network and an access and mobility management function (AMF) (RAN and AMF send first indication information in fig 18a);
wherein the second notification indicates (first indication information in S1207-S1209, fig 18a) one or more of:
information of being unable to currently guarantee a QoS of a first flow (para 537-538: the access network apparatus may add the first indication information to an N2 message, and send the N2 message to the AMF network element, the N2 SM information includes a QoS flow identifier (QFI) and the first indication information, and the first indication information is used to indicate that the first QoS target of the QoS flow cannot be met). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine synchronization of multiple data flows as taught by Qiao with QoS flow control as taught by Wu for the benefit of reducing impact on service in QoS flow as taught by Wu in Para 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 17 and 23 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 RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights