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 28-41 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 submitted 07/22/2025 is attached to the instant office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0430209 A1 (foreign priority date of Mar. 4, 2022) to Ke (hereinafter “Ke”)
Regarding Claim 28 and 34, Ke teaches A network node and method associated with network node for managing QoS flow, comprising: (Figure 2 and [0224], discloses a QoS control method applied to a first communication device, including a RAN network element)
a processor configured to: (Figure 13 and [0964], discloses a communication device with processor and memory)
determine a round-trip (RT) latency requirement based on a quality of service (QoS) parameter; ([0225]-[0228], discloses the first communication device obtains first information including first QoS configuration information. [0234], discloses the first QoS configuration information includes at least one of the following: a delay budget of a data tunnel (i.e. QoS parameter). [0235], discloses the first QoS configuration information includes second indication information being used to indicate the first round trip delay budget being a value twice the delay budget of the data tunnel (i.e. determine a RT latency requirement based on a QoS parameter), and the first round trip delay budget being the sum of the first uplink delay budget and the first downlink delay budget).
based on the RT latency requirement, determine a first packet delay budget (PDB) value associated with a first QoS flow and a second PDB value associated with a second QoS flow, ([0167], discloses a delay budget of a data tunnel in QoS configuration information of a first data tunnel represents an uplink delay budget (such as a first uplink delay budget, a second uplink delay budget, and a third uplink delay budget) and/or a downlink delay budget (such as a first downlink delay budget, a second downlink delay budget, and a third downlink delay budget), and the uplink delay budget is the same as the downlink delay budget. [0287]-[0288], further discloses a first condition including at least one of a the first uplink delay exceeding ½ a first round trip delay budget and a first downlink delay exceeding ½ a first round trip delay budget (i.e. determining first PDB and second PDB based on RT latency requirement))
wherein the first PDB value and the second PDB value are each equal to half of the RT latency requirement; ([0143] and [0167], discloses the uplink delay budget is the same as the downlink delay budget. [0235], discloses the first QoS configuration information includes second indication information being used to indicate the first round trip delay budget being a value twice the delay budget of the data tunnel (i.e. first PDB value and second PDB value are each equal to half of the RT latency requirement), and the first round trip delay budget being the sum of the first uplink delay budget and the first downlink delay budget). [0287]-[0288], further discloses a first condition including at least one of a the first uplink delay exceeding ½ a first round trip delay budget and a first downlink delay exceeding ½ a first round trip delay budget)
receive, from a user plane function (UPF), a first packet delay measurement associated with the first QoS flow and a second packet delay measurement associated with the second QoS flow; and ([0582], discloses The anchor gateway (for example, a UPF network element) cooperates with the RAN network element to perform delay measurement or monitoring (for example, the UPF network element transmits a downlink measurement packet (i.e. receive from a UPF a first packet delay measurement/second packet delay measurement ) to notify the RAN network element only when discovering that the uplink delay is excessive. [0583]-[0585], discloses The RAN network clement or the UPF network element may start the delay monitoring only in a case that a first condition is met, including the first uplink delay (i.e. first packet delay) exceeds one of the following: a delay budget of a data tunnel, ½ a first round trip delay budget, and a first uplink delay budget; the first downlink delay (i.e. second packet delay) exceeds one of the following: a delay budget of a data tunnel, ½ a first round trip delay budget, and a first downlink delay budget;)
adjust the first PDB value and the second PDB value based on at least one of the first packet delay measurement or the second packet delay measurement. ([0238], discloses the first communication device performs a first operation according to the first information, including performing a delay monitoring operation or performing delay guarantee according to the delay monitoring result and/or the first QoS configuration information. [0245], discloses the “delay guarantee” refers to adjusting a delay budget so that the delay does not exceed the delay budget. For example, the round trip delay needs to be guaranteed. When the round trip delay budget is determined, and when an uplink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the uplink delay budget, the uplink delay budget may be appropriately increased (i.e. adjust the first PDB value based on first packet delay measurement) and the downlink delay budget may be decreased (i.e. adjust the second PDB value based on the first packet delay measurement), so that the overall round trip delay does not exceed the round trip delay budget. Vice versa, when a downlink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the downlink delay budget, the downlink delay budget may be appropriately increased (i.e. adjust second PDB value based on the second packet delay measurement) and the uplink delay budget decreased (i.e. adjust first PDB value based on second packet delay measurement), so that the overall round trip delay does not exceed the round trip delay budget.)
Regarding Claim 30, Ke teaches The network node of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to:
modify at least one of a QoS profile, a QoS rule, or a service data flow (SDF) template based on the adjustment of the first PDB value and the second PDB value. (([0225]-[0228], discloses the first communication device obtains first information including first QoS configuration information. [0234], discloses the first QoS configuration information includes at least one of the following: a delay budget of a data tunnel (i.e. QoS parameter).) [0245], discloses. When the round trip delay budget is determined, and when an uplink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the uplink delay budget, the uplink delay budget may be appropriately increased and the downlink delay budget may be decrease, so that the overall round trip delay does not exceed the round trip delay budget. Examiner notes that modifying the initial delay budget outlined in QoS configuration information to increase or decrease based on delay monitoring results is analogous to modifying a QoS profile based on the adjustment of the first PDB value and second PDB value)
Regarding Claim 32, Ke teaches The network node of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the first packet delay measurement is above a threshold; and based on the first packet delay measurement being above the threshold, increase the first PDB value and decrease the second PDB value. ([0245], discloses When the round trip delay budget is determined, and when an uplink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the uplink delay budget (i.e. determine first packet delay measurement is above a threshold), the uplink delay budget may be appropriately increased (i.e. increase the first PDB value) and the downlink delay budget may be decreased (i.e. decrease the second PDB value))
Regarding Claim 34, Ke teaches The network node of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the second packet delay measurement is above a threshold; and based on the second packet delay measurement being above the threshold, increase the second PDB value and decrease the first PDB value. ([0245], discloses when a downlink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the downlink delay budget (i.e. determine second packet delay measurement is above a threshold), the downlink delay budget may be appropriately increased (i.e. increase the second PDB value) and the uplink delay budget decreased (i.e. decrease the first PDB value))
Claims 37, 39, 41 are rejected as having the same limitations as claims 30, 32, 34, respectively, except the claims are in method format.
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 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.
Claim(s) 29, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke in view of US 2023/0231788 A1 to Hande et al. (hereinafter “Hande”)
Regarding Claim 29, Ke teaches The network node of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Ke teaches adjusting the first and second PDB values, but does not explicitly teach send the adjusted first PDB value and the adjusted second PDB value to at least one of: a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the UPF, or a radio access node (RAN) node.
However, the concept of transmitting adjusted PDB values to another entity is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Hande discloses in [0078], the application servers 310, the base stations 306, or the network cores 307 (e.g., a wireless communications entity) may modify the initial downlink delay budget value or the uplink delay budget value (i.e. adjusting the first and second PDB values). [0082], discloses the application server 310-c may transmit an indication of a modified value of a one-way directional delay budget (e.g., one or more modified delay budget values 335) to the base station 306-c via the network core 307-c. (i.e. sending the adjusted first and second PDB values to a RAN node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ke include the above limitations as suggested by Hande, to support improvements to power consumption, reliability of wireless communications, user experience, and higher data rates as indicated in [0039] of Hande.
Claim 36 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 29 above, except the claim is in method format.
Claim(s) 31, 33, 38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke.
Regarding Claim 31, Ke teaches the network node of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Ke does not explicitly teach determine the first packet delay measurement is below a threshold; and based on the first packet delay measurement being below the threshold, decrease the first PDB value and increase the second PDB value.
However, Ke discloses in [0245], the “delay guarantee” refers to adjusting a delay budget so that the delay does not exceed the delay budget. For example, the round trip delay needs to be guaranteed. When the round trip delay budget is determined, and when an uplink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the uplink delay budget, the uplink delay budget may be appropriately increased and the downlink delay budget may be decreased, so that the overall round trip delay does not exceed the round trip delay budget. [0143], further discloses an example in which an uplink packet to be transmitted in a gaming service is relatively small, and a delay budget can be reduced by transmitting the uplink packet to a server as soon as possible. Examiner notes that when an uplink delay monitoring result is relatively small, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of determining to reduce the uplink delay budget and increase the downlink delay budget, as this allows for flexibly reusing unnecessary delay budget in the uplink for the downlink, while guaranteeing the round trip delay budget is not exceeded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ke to include the above limitations as this allows for flexibly reusing excess uplink delay budget in the downlink, while guaranteeing the round trip delay budget is not exceeded.
Regarding Claim 33, Ke teaches The network node of claim 28, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Ke does not explicitly teach determine the second packet delay measurement is below a threshold; and based on the second packet delay measurement being below the threshold, decrease the second PDB value and increase the first PDB value.
However, Ke discloses in [0245], the “delay guarantee” refers to adjusting a delay budget so that the delay does not exceed the delay budget. For example, the round trip delay needs to be guaranteed…when a downlink delay monitoring result is relatively large and exceeds the downlink delay budget, the downlink delay budget may be appropriately increased and the uplink delay budget decreased, so that the overall round trip delay does not exceed the round trip delay budget. [0143], further discloses an example in which an uplink packet to be transmitted in a gaming service is relatively small, and a delay budget can be reduced by transmitting the uplink packet to a server as soon as possible. Examiner notes that when an downlink delay monitoring result is relatively small, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of determining to reduce the downlink delay budget and increase the uplink delay budget, as this allows for flexibly reusing unnecessary delay budget in the downlink for the uplink, while guaranteeing the round trip delay budget is not exceeded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ke to include the above limitations as this allows for flexibly reusing excess downlink delay budget in the uplink, while guaranteeing the round trip delay budget is not exceeded.
Claim 38 and 40 are rejected for having the same limitations as claim 31 and 33 above, respectively, except the claims are in method format.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0179559 A1 to Xu, directed to determining uplink and downlink PDB based on a total round trip QoS parameter.
US 2022/0159504 A1 to Wei et al, directed to a RAN node adjusting QoS profile and sending QoS profile adjustment to the core network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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 at (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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights