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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2025 was filed after the filing of the instant application on 09/18/2024. The submission follows 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-20, 22, 24-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vesterinen et al. (US 2018/0115927 A1), hereinafter, “Vesterinen”.
Regarding claim 1, Vesterinen discloses: A wireless station (STA) (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064], where “UE 132” equivalent to “STA”), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code (Vesterinen: fig 5, para [0076], where “UE 102” equivalent to “STA”, and the UE includes processor 504, memory 506 and where, memory stores codes), the processing system configured to cause the wireless STA to (Vesterinen: fig 5, para [0076], where “UE 102” equivalent to “STA”, and the UE includes processor 504, where, the UE configured to):
communicate with a first wireless access point (AP) policies (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0061] and [0064], where “Source BS 134” equivalent to “first wireless access point (AP)”) via a first communication flow (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064], where in step 410 “Data transfer/wireless service by source BS” (equivalent to “first communication flow”), and, “Source BS 134” equivalent to “first wireless access point (AP)”), according to one or more first quality of service (QoS) (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0061] and [0064], where “the apparatus may further include means (502A/502B, 504, FIG. 5) for determining, by the source base station, a current QoS policy profile of the plurality of QoS policy profiles (equivalent to “first QoS”) that is used by the source base station to provide service to the user device before a handover”),
transmit, to the first wireless AP, a first roaming message indicating an intent of the wireless STA to roam from a first service area associated with the first wireless AP to a second service area associated with a second wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, “Target BS 138” equivalent to “second service area”, and at step 412, “... At 412, the user device may measure signals (e.g., received signal strength or signal quality) received from one or more base stations, and may send a measurement reports to source BS 134. which may indicate (e.g., based on received signal quality or received signal strength) a handover to target BS 138/target cell 140 at the step 414. ... ")); and
communicate, in accordance with the first roaming message, with the second wireless AP via a second communication flow according to one or more second QoS policies AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426, para [0032], where, “According to an example implementation, the QoS policy profile selected by the target BS 138/target cell 140 may be the same or may be different from the current QoS policy profile that is/was used by the source BS 134/source cell 136 to provide service to the user device 132, e.g., because the cell congestion or radio resource availability status may be different at the target BS 138/target cell 140 as compared to the source BS 134/source cell 136”);
the one or more second QoS policies being in accordance with the QoS context established for the first communication flow (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426 “Data transfer/wireless service by target BS/cell using “selected QoS policy” equivalent to “second QoS policy”)” equivalent to “second communication flow”, para [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding wireless communication of the first AP, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a memory and a processor and a control signalling. However, Vesterinen discloses the memory, processor and control signalling (Vesterinen: fig 5 and para [0076]).
Regarding claim 22, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding wireless communication of the first AP, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a memory and a processor. However, Vesterinen discloses the memory and the processor (Vesterinen: fig 5 and para [0076]).
Regarding claim 30, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding wireless communication of the wireless station (STA), and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claims 2, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the processing system (Vesterinen: fig 5, processor 504, para [0076]), is further configured to cause the wireless STA to receive, from the first wireless AP, a second roaming message indicating an acknowledgement of the intent of the wireless STA to roam from the first service area associated with the first wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 3, step 310, para [0053], where, “FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating operation of a source base station according to an example implementation. Operation 310 may include sending, by a source base station associated with a source cell to a target base station associated with a target cell as part of a handover preparation for a user device, a plurality of Quality of Service (QoS) policy profiles for the user device”), to the second service area associated with the second wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 3-4, step 310, para [0053], where, target BS 138 equivalent to “second wireless AP”), wherein communicating with the second wireless AP via the second communication flow is in accordance with the second roaming message (Vesterinen: fig 3-4, step 310, para [0053], where, receive hand over preparation message is equivalent to “second roaming message”).
Regarding claims 3, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the wireless STA to associate with the first wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 5, para [0076], where “UE 102” equivalent to “STA”, and the UE includes processor 504, memory 506 and where, memory stores codes), wherein communicating via the first communication flow is in accordance with associating with the first wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426, para [0032], where, “According to an example implementation, the QoS policy profile selected by the target BS 138/target cell 140 may be the same or may be different from the current QoS policy profile that is/was used by the source BS 134/source cell 136 to provide service to the user device 132, e.g., because the cell congestion or radio resource availability status may be different at the target BS 138/target cell 140 as compared to the source BS 134/source cell 136”).
Regarding claims 4, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the wireless STA to communicate, with the first wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0061] and [0064], where “Source BS 134” equivalent to “first wireless access point (AP)”), one or more stream classification service (SCS) messages to establish the QoS context for the first communication flow (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426 “Data transfer/wireless service by target BS/cell using “selected QoS policy” equivalent to “second QoS policy”)” equivalent to “second communication flow”, para [0032]);
wherein communicating via the first communication flow is in accordance with communicating the one or more SCS messages (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426, para [0064], where, “user device 132 may establish a connection with source BS 134. At 410, data transfer (receiving data via downlink radio resources and transmitting data via uplink resources to source BS 134) may be provided as part of the wireless service provided to user device 132 by source BS 134. At 412, the user device may measure signals (e.g., received signal strength or signal quality) received from one or more base station”).
Regarding claims 5, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the QoS context established for the first communication flow is in accordance with one or more service level agreement (SLA) administration configurations (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064], where, at step 426 “Data transfer/wireless service by target BS/cell using “selected QoS policy” equivalent to “second QoS policy”)” equivalent to “second communication flow”, para [0032]).
Regarding claims 6, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the first roaming message comprises an identifier associated with the second wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 3-4, step 310, para [0053], where, target BS 138 equivalent to “second wireless AP”), and communicating with the second wireless AP over the second communication flow is in accordance with the first roaming message comprising the identifier associated with the second wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0061] and [0064], where “the apparatus may further include means (502A/502B, 504, FIG. 5) for determining, by the source base station, a current QoS policy profile of the plurality of QoS policy profiles (equivalent to “first QoS”) that is used by the source base station to provide service to the user device before a handover”).
Regarding claims 7, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the QoS context comprises one or more of one or more key performance indicators (KPIs), one or more latency metrics, one or more delay bounds, one or more throughput metrics, one or more stream classification service (SCS) parameters, or a combination thereof (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426, para [0022], where, “a radio resource may include time frequency resources, such as physical resource blocks, one or more OFDM symbols, etc., which may be allocated to a user device for uplink or downlink transmission, for example. DEM 155 may update QoS policy profiles for one or more user devices based on various factors or criteria, e.g., in order to allocate network resources and provide a desired service quality to one or more user devices, e.g., which may include providing a higher (or minimum) service quality (higher QoS) to user devices having a premium service subscription, for example, or to provide a minimum service quality to user devices of specific categories, (e.g., such as emergency user devices, such as for fire, police, rescue personnel users/user devices)”).
Regarding claims 9, 20 and 28, Vesterinen disclose: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP are associated with the same internet protocol (IP) sub-network (Vesterinen: fig 4, at step 426, para [0022], where, “based on one or more measurement reports received by source BS 134 from user device 132, a handover (or cell change procedure) may be performed for user device 132 to handover user device 132 from source cell 136/source BS 134 to target cell 140/target BS 138”).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Vesterinen disclose: wherein determining that the wireless STA is to roam is in accordance with analyzing one or more signals communicated between the wireless STA and the first wireless AP, in accordance with performing a load balancing procedure at the first wireless AP, in accordance with determining a quantity of failures associated with satisfying service level agreements (SLAs) associated with the first communication flow, or a combination thereof (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0061] and [0064], where “the apparatus may further include means (502A/502B, 504, FIG. 5) for determining, by the source base station, a current QoS policy profile of the plurality of QoS policy profiles (equivalent to “first QoS”) that is used by the source base station to provide service to the user device before a handover”).
Regarding claims 11, 14 and 15, Vesterinen disclose: wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to transmit, to the wireless STA and in accordance with determining that the wireless STA is to roam (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064], where, “Target BS 138” equivalent to “second service area”, and at step 412, “... At 412, the user device may measure signals (e.g., received signal strength or signal quality) received from one or more base stations, and may send a measurement reports to source BS 134. which may indicate (e.g., based on received signal quality or received signal strength) a handover to target BS 138/target cell 140 at the step 414. ... ")); a first roaming message indicating for the wireless STA to roam from the first service area associated with the first wireless AP to the second service area associated with the second wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064] where, “Target BS 138” equivalent to “second service area”, and at step 412, “... At 412, the user device may measure signals (e.g., received signal strength or signal quality) received from one or more base stations, and may send a measurement reports to source BS 134. which may indicate (e.g., based on received signal quality or received signal strength) a handover to target BS 138/target cell 140 at the step 414. ... ")); wherein transmitting the QoS context to the second wireless AP is in accordance with transmitting the first roaming message (Vesterinen: fig 3-4, step 310, para [0053], where, receive hand over preparation message is equivalent to “second roaming message”).
Regarding claims 17-19 and 26-27, Vesterinen disclose: wherein the control signaling indicating the QoS context is broadcasted to two or more APs, and the two or more APs are neighbor APs to the first wireless AP, the two or more APs comprising the second wireless AP (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064]-[0065] where, “The UE/user device context, e.g., sent in the handover request at 416, may also include additional information, such as, for example, an indication of a current QoS policy profile (of the plurality/group of QoS policy profiles) that is currently used by the source BS 134/source cell 136 to provide service to the user device 132, and/or an indication of a current resource usage by the user device 132 in the source BS 134/source cell 136 (e.g., indicating an amount or percentage of radio resources in the source cell 136 that are used by or allocated to the user device 132 to provide service to the user device 132). The user device/UE context may include additional information”).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Vesterinen disclose: wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to adjust one or more parameters of the QoS context in accordance with the hop count, wherein applying the one or more QoS policies for the second communication flow is in accordance with adjusting the one or more parameters of the QoS context (Vesterinen: fig 4, para [0064] where, “At 418, in response to the handover request at 416, the target BS 138/target cell 140 may store the UE context for user device 132. The target BS 138/target cell 140 may perform cell admission control for the user device 132 to determine if target BS 138/target cell 140 has sufficient resources to accommodate a handover of user device 132 from source cell 136 to target cell 140. For example, the target BS 138/target cell 140 may determine a radio resource availability status”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 8, 12, 21 and 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesterinen et al. (US 2018/0115927 A1), hereinafter, “Vesterinen” in view of Ranganath et al (US 2024/0259879 A1), hereinafter, “Ranganath”.
Regarding claim 8, Vesterinen discloses: The wireless STA of claim 1 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), Vesterinen does not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more first QoS policies comprise a first scheduling priority associated with the first communication flow, and the one or more second QoS policies comprise a second scheduling priority associated with the second communication flow.
Ranganath teaches: wherein the one or more first QoS policies comprise a first scheduling priority associated with the first communication flow, and the one or more second QoS policies comprise a second scheduling priority associated with the second communication flow (Ranganath: fig 14, para [0250], where, “priority handling between UEs by means of dynamic scheduling; priority handling between logical channels of one UE by means of logical channel prioritization; priority handling between overlapping resources of one UE”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Vesterinen with the teaching of Ranganath, to incorporate “wherein the one or more first QoS policies comprise a first scheduling priority associated with the first communication flow, and the one or more second QoS policies comprise a second scheduling priority associated with the second communication flow” in order to move xApps 410 to appropriate nodes or move to a safer set of FRUs; dynamically increasing or decreasing power and/or frequency levels for xApps 410 that require higher or lower compute capabilities based on E2 data (Ranganath: para [0096]);
Regarding claim 12, Vesterinen modified by Ranganath disclose: The first wireless AP of claim 11 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein determining the classification associated with the communication flow is in accordance with one of a machine learning model, an artificial intelligence model, or both (Ranganath: para [0048], where, “in the non-RT RIC) are able to receive and act on highly reliable data from modular CUs and/or DUs in a standardized format over the A1 interface (e.g., interface 3c10). Messages generated from ML/AI-enabled policies and AI/ML-based training models in the non-RT RIC are conveyed to the near-RT RIC 3c14 (e.g., as trained model(s) 3c23) via the A1 interface (e.g., interface 3c10)”).
Regarding claims 21, Vesterinen modified by Ranganath disclose: The first wireless AP of claim 10 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the one or more first QoS policies comprise a first scheduling priority associated with the first communication flow (Ranganath: fig 14, para [0250], where, “priority handling between UEs by means of dynamic scheduling; priority handling between logical channels of one UE by means of logical channel prioritization; priority handling between overlapping resources of one UE”).
Regarding claim 29, Vesterinen modified by Ranganath disclose: The first wireless AP of claim 22 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), wherein the one or more QoS policies comprise a scheduling priority associated with the second communication flow (Ranganath: fig 14, para [0250], where, “priority handling between UEs by means of dynamic scheduling; priority handling between logical channels of one UE by means of logical channel prioritization; priority handling between overlapping resources of one UE”).
Claim 23, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesterinen et al. (US 2018/0115927 A1), hereinafter, “Vesterinen” in view of Zhang et al (US 2018/0123911 A1), hereinafter, “Zhang”.
Regarding claims 23, Vesterinen disclose: The first wireless AP of claim 22 (Vesterinen: fig 4, UE 132 equivalent to “STA”), Vesterinen does not explicitly teach: wherein the control signaling further indicates a hop count associated with the second communication flow, the hop count being in accordance with the quantity of communication links between the wireless STA and a server.
Zhang teaches: wherein the control signaling further indicates a hop count associated with the second communication flow, the hop count being in accordance with the quantity of communication links between the wireless STA and a server (Zhang: Para [0096], Table 6, where, “the join operation of some performance metrics (e.g., hop count, QoS bandwidth, etc.) is straightforward. For example, the performance metric of hop count is joined by summing up per-hop count 1. As another example, the performance metric of QoS bandwidth is joined by computing the minimum bandwidth assignment in QoS policies along the path”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Vesterinen with the teaching of Zhang, to incorporate “wherein the control signaling further indicates a hop count associated with the second communication flow, the hop count being in accordance with the quantity of communication links between the wireless STA and a server” in order to prevent denial-of-service (DoS) attack to the DPI. Thus, flow f220 of this tenant, which happens to be a UDP flow, experiences a maximum rate of 50 Mbps (Zhang: para [0028]).
Conclusion
Prior Art considered but not used:
Bernardos; Carlos Jesus et al. (US 20260101258 A1), “METHODS, ARCHITECTURES, APPARATUSES AND SYSTEMS FOR ENABLING TERMINAL MOBILITY IN SINGLE DOMAIN RELIABLE AND AVAILABLE NETWORKS”.
TRIVEDI; Uday DHIRENDRAKUMAR et. al. (US 20120281532 A1), “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SELECTING A QUALITY-OF-SERVICE POLICY IN A UNIVERSAL PLUG AND PLAY HOME NETWORK ENVIRONMENT”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights