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 09/23/2024 has been considered by the Examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim status
Claims 1-20 are presented for the examination and remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-30 are objected to because method claims because they should apparently be dependent on claim 16, not 15. For examination purposes, these claims are treated as dependent on method claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1, 3, 5-7. 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testicioglu et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0118120 A1, (hereinafter Testicioglu) in view of Pelletier et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0242683 A1, (hereinafter Pelletier).
Regarding claim 1.
Testicioglu teaches a wireless communication device (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0029] appliance 140 and gateway 120 can be deployed as or executed on any type and form of specific computing device (e.g., such as the computing device of FIGS. 2A-2B) capable of communicating on any type and form of network described herein), comprising: an electronic processor (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0029] as shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, each computing device 200 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 221 and a main memory 222); and
a transceiver coupled to the electronic processor (note that here the term transceiver has been interpreted in light of the Applicant’s disclosure Para. [0033] as (a device, interface, wireless connection to receive and transmit messages or signals). Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0033] computing device 200 can include a network interface 218 to interface to a LAN, WAN, MAN, or the Internet through a variety of link including, but not limited to, standard telephone lines, LAN or WAN links (e.g., 802.11, T1, T3, 56 kb, X.25),…wireless connections (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Z-Wave, Zigbee), or some combination of any or all of the above…);
wherein the electronic processor is configured to: assign each of a first plurality of data packets a packet sequence number based on a time synchronization for a data link layer for a network context (Testicioglu teaches In Para. [0047] appliance 140 receiving a selective acknowledgment (SACK) indicating the sequence numbers of the packets received by data receiver 412. If the sequence numbers listed in the SACK do not include a sequence number of a transmitted packet, rate-based data transmission controller 350 can determine that the transmitted packet is lost…, and also Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0044] a combination of the duration of the certain time interval (i.e., a time synchronization) and the data sizes of data packets 405A-D, 406A-D, 407A-D, and 408A-D can reflect the rate of transmission and further the data packets (i.e., a first plurality of data packets) are carried over the data link layer via the Ethernet communication protocol,…, as narrated in Para. [0035] and further, Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0039] rate-based data transmission controller 350 can also determine a size of the data to be transmitted at the aforementioned transmission times by determining, for example, the payload size of the data packets and the number of data packets to be transmitted into the network, based on the network performance information).
Testicioglu does not explicitly teach transmit, via the transceiver, the first plurality of data packets for the network context during a rate-based packet window at or below a maximum packet transmission rate based on a time period and the rate-based packet window.
However, Pelletier teaches transmit, via the transceiver, the first plurality of data packets for the network context during a rate-based packet window at or below a maximum packet transmission rate based on a time period and the rate-based packet window (Pelletier teaches in Para. [0156] interface-traversing packet is subsequently transmitted over an interface, depicted by way of example as interface 24 in FIG. 9A and further, Pelletier teaches in Para. [0038] in FIG. 3 shows a typical example of a compressor (upper part) and a decompressor (lower part) operating using the secure reference principle. Compressed packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis), and the Secure Reference (SR) LSB sliding window is updated following specific events and further, Pelletier teaches [0039] the decompressor updates its sliding window of secure references when a packet is received for which the LSBs are less than earlier packets, indicating that it has been compressed with the reference that the decompressor has previously acknowledged). Therefore, Testicioglu and Pelletier are analogues arts and they are in the same field of endeavor as they both are directed to a rate-based packet processing in a sliding window.
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 interface-traversing packet is subsequently transmitted over an interface, depicted by way of example as interface 24 in FIG. 9A and packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis) ([0156] and [0038]) as taught, by Pelletier into the teachings of Testicioglu invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize the overhead and the impact on existing standards and architectures is reduced and robustness for cryptographic context is improved.
Regarding claim 3.
Testicioglu teaches wherein: a size of the time period is greater than the size of the rate-based packet window (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0060] about the congestion window based, transmission time and rate based data transmission. Also, see Para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 5.
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: derive the packet sequence number for each of the first plurality of data packets based on a leading edge of the rate-based packet window (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0047] the sequence numbers included in the acknowledgments, as well as the transmission times of the corresponding packets and further, Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0052] about the congestion window and Pelletier teaches further teaches in Para. [0038] compressed packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis), and the Secure Reference (SR) LSB sliding window is updated following specific events and further, Pelletier teaches [0043] the decompressor updates its sliding window of secure references when a packet is received for which the LSBs are less than earlier packets, indicating that it has been compressed with the reference that the decompressor has previously acknowledged).
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 interface-traversing packet is subsequently transmitted over an interface, depicted by way of example as interface 24 in FIG. 9A and packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis) ([0156] and [0038]) as taught, by Pelletier into the teachings of Testicioglu invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to perform specific operations on a portion of a packet handled by the node such that the functions are configured to employ a shared transaction for operating on the packet. The shared transaction is employed so that the packet has fewer overheads attributed to initial functions than the state in which shared transaction is not employed in performance of the operations.
Regarding claim 6.
Testicioglu teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a second plurality of data packets (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0006] appliance can also include a data transmission controller configured to receive second data packets, determine a rate of transmission, and determine, based on one or more criteria, whether a rate-based data transmission control is to be used to control a transmission of the second data packets); and
for each of the second plurality of data packets, abort the data packet when its packet sequence number is outside of the rate-based packet window (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0006] appliance can also include a data transmission controller configured to receive second data packets, and further, Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0001] network congestion can occur when a link or a network node (e.g., a router) is overloaded with a large number of data packets, which can lead to significant transmission delay. Moreover, significant data packet loss can result, as the network node is unable to process the data packets and is forced to drop (i.e., abort) them).
Regarding claim 7.
Testicioglu teaches wherein: the second plurality of data packets are received based on a second rate-based packet window (Testicioglu teaches [0065] if appliance 140 determines that rate-based data transmission control is to be used (in step 615), in step 620 appliance 140 can queue the set of second data packets at, for example, packet engine 320…, the rate of transmission can also be determined based on the RTT and congestion window size information included in the received TCP characteristics. Also, see Para. [0067] and [0072]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 10.
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier further teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a first data packet having a first packet sequence number (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0047] the sequence numbers included in the acknowledgments, as well as the transmission times of the corresponding packets and further, Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0052] about the congestion window and Pelletier teaches further teaches in Para. Compressed packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis) Pelletier further teaches in Para. [0018] a Sequence Number to uniquely identify individual packets. Fields in header compression are normally compressed based on a function of the Sequence Number (SN));
receive, via the transceiver, a second data packet having a second packet sequence number (Testicioglu teaches [0065] if appliance 140 determines that rate-based data transmission control is to be used (in step 615), in step 620 appliance 140 can queue the set of second data packets at, for example, packet engine 320…, and further, Pelletier teaches in Para. [0151]
using a sequence number as shared information, the sequence number being used by the encryption function for a session key derivation. In the second mode, only the (original uncompressed) portion that will be compressed need be covered by the checksum, inclusive of sequence number information);
abort the second data packet when the second packet sequence number matches the first sequence number (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0006] appliance can also include a data transmission controller configured to receive second data packets, and further, Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0001] network congestion can occur when a link or a network node (e.g., a router) is overloaded with a large number of data packets, which can lead to significant transmission delay. Moreover, significant data packet loss can result, as the network node is unable to process the data packets and is forced to drop (i.e., abort) them); and
pass the data packet to an application when the second packet sequence number does not match the first sequence number (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0049] if the sequence numbers listed in the SACK do not include a sequence number of a transmitted packet, rate-based data transmission controller 350 can determine that the transmitted packet is lost. Another possible indication of packet loss can be that appliance 140 fails to receive an acknowledgment for a transmitted packet within a certain amount of time after the transmission and further, Pelletier teaches in Para. [0181] if the sequence number MSN is a sequence number that is part of the original uncompressed IP header, then the sequence number MSN should be covered by the checksum in the manner shown by the corresponding illustration in FIG. 26. On the other hand, if the sequence number MSN is generated by the compression algorithm and does not occur in the original uncompressed IP header).
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 using the method of the sequence number MSN is a sequence number that is part of the original uncompressed IP header ([0018]) as taught, by Pelletier into the teachings of a sequence number of a transmitted packet, rate-based data transmission controller 350 can determine that the transmitted packet is lost ([0049]) as taught, by Testicioglu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the appliance improves rate-based data transmission control to allow data to be transmitted over the network at a rate to improve actual network performance, thus mitigating overloading and underutilization of network due to incorrect determination of network congestion under legacy transmission control protocol congestion control mechanisms. The appliance ensures transmission of data to be less affected by bandwidth and latency variation, out-of-order packets and stretch acknowledgments.
Regarding claim 11.
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier further teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: for one of the first plurality of data packets, segment the packet into a plurality of packet segments, each of the plurality of packet segments having a packet membership identifier identical to the packet sequence number assigned to the one of the first plurality of data packet and a position identifier (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0047] the sequence numbers included in the acknowledgments, as well as the transmission times of the corresponding packets and further, Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0052] about the congestion window and Pelletier further teaches in Para. Compressed packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis), and the Secure Reference (SR) LSB sliding window is updated following specific events and further, Pelletier teaches [0043] the decompressor updates its sliding window of secure references when a packet is received for which the LSBs are less than earlier packets, indicating that it has been compressed with the reference that the decompressor has previously acknowledged and further, Pelletier teaches compressed header format type identification (packet type identifier) as narrated in Para. [0223]); and
transmit, via the transceiver, the plurality of packet segments during the rate-based packet window based on the number of packet segments and the maximum packet transmission rate (Pelletier teaches in Para. [0038] in FIG. 3 shows a typical example of a compressor (upper part) and a decompressor (lower part) operating using the secure reference principle. Compressed packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis), and the Secure Reference (SR) LSB sliding window is updated following specific events and further, Pelletier teaches [0039] the decompressor updates its sliding window of secure references when a packet is received for which the LSBs are less than earlier packets, indicating that it has been compressed with the reference that the decompressor has previously acknowledged).
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 interface-traversing packet is subsequently transmitted over an interface, depicted by way of example as interface 24 in FIG. 9A and packets are exchanged over time (Sequence axis) ([0156] and [0038]) as taught, by Pelletier into the teachings of Testicioglu invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to minimize the overhead and the impact on existing standards and architectures is reduced and robustness for cryptographic context is improved.
Regarding claim 15.
Testicioglu teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: shift the rate-based packet window forward as time progresses based on the maximum packet transmission rate (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0082] a packet loss is due to network congestion, and the corresponding changes in the congestion window size, under legacy TCP congestion control mechanisms. The transmission rate of data can then be maintained in light of random packet loss, and both overloading and underutilization of the network can be avoided).
Regarding claim 16.
Claim 16 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 1 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18.
Claim 18 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 3 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20.
Claim 20 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 5 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21.
Claim 21 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 6 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 22.
Claim 22 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 7 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 25.
Claim 25 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 10 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 26.
Claim 26 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 11 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 30.
Claim 30 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 15 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2, 4, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testicioglu in view of Pelletier further in view of Dong et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0174539 A1, (hereinafter Dong).
Regarding claim 2. Testicioglu in view of Pelletier teaches the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier does not explicitly teach wherein: the network context is one selected from a group consisting of a physical carrier, a bearer channel, and a pair of wireless communication devices.
However, Dong teaches wherein: the network context is one selected from a group consisting of a physical carrier, a bearer channel, and a pair of wireless communication devices (Dong teaches in Para. [0025] MME 220 (i.e., Mobility Management Entity) may include one or more computation and communication devices that perform operations to register UE 205 with the EPS, to establish bearer channels associated with a session with UE 205, to hand off UE 205 from the EPS to another network, to hand off UE 205 from the other network to the EPS, and/or to perform other operations. Here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and therefore, the prior art of record addressed limitation of one of the selected network context “a bearer channel”.)
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 selecting a bearer channel ([0025]) as taught, by Dong into the teachings of Testicioglu in view of Pelletier invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to service discovery functionality allow network functions and UEs connected to the network to determine where and how to access existing network functions, and present the service based interface Nnrf. Unified data storage allow for a consolidated view of network information that can be used to ensure that the most relevant information can be made available to different network functions from a single resource.
Regarding claim 4. Testicioglu in view of Pelletier teaches the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to: determine the rate-based packet window based on a desired quality of service level for the network context.
However, Dong teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: determine the rate-based packet window based on a desired quality of service level for the network context (Dong teaches in Para. [0066] performance requirements (e.g., as determined based on a comparison of Quality of Service (“QoS”)…, associated with UE 205 to the actual QoS being provided to UE 205) and further Dong teaches in Para,. [0068] if UE 205 uses an average of 200 MHz (e.g., due to carrier aggregation) over a given time window (e.g., within a past week, a past month, etc.),).
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 determining a QoS ([0066]) as taught, by Dong into the teachings of Testicioglu invention. One would have been motivated to do soi in order to data storage allow for a consolidated view of network information that can be used to ensure that the most relevant information can be made available to different network functions from a single resource.
Regarding claim 17.
Claim 17 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 2 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19.
Claim 19 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 4 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8, 9 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testicioglu in view of Pelletier further in view of Yang. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0080463 A1, (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 8. Testicioglu in view of Pelletier teaches the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Testicioglu further teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a second plurality of data packets (Testicioglu teaches [0065] if appliance 140 determines that rate-based data transmission control is to be used (in step 615), in step 620 appliance 140 can queue the set of second data packets at, for example, packet engine 320…, the rate of transmission can also be determined based on the RTT and congestion window size information included in the received TCP characteristics. Also, see Para. [0067] and [0072]-[0073]).
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier does not explicitly teach determine a subset of the second plurality of data packets having a packet sequence number inside of the rate-based packet window; and for each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets, pass the data packet to an application based on its packet sequence number.
However, Yang teaches determine a subset of the second plurality of data packets having a packet sequence number inside of the rate-based packet window (Yang teaches in Para. [0085] the packet sequence numbers are divided into two subsets: A={1, 3, 5, . . . , 2n-1} and B={2, 4, 6, . . . , 2n}, and A is taken as the sending packet sequence number set of unit 511, B is taken as the sending packet sequence number set of unit 512…, when the unit 512 sends a packet for the first time, it fills a sequence number 2 into the packet and computes that the next sequence number is 4…, and the sliding window 522 will be used for performing packet validity detection); and
for each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets, pass the data packet to an application based on its packet sequence number (Yang teaches in Para. [0085] A is taken as the sending packet sequence number set of unit 511, B is taken as the sending packet sequence number set of unit 512. At the same time, a receiving party 520 determines that the sliding window 521 of the set A has a left border of 1 and an overall width of n, and the sliding window 522 of the set B has a left border of 2 and an overall width of n, according to the packet sequence number set of unit 511 and unit 512).
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 sending packet sequence number set of unit 512. At the same time ([0085]) as taught, by Yang into the teachings of Testicioglu in view of in view of Pelletier invention. One would have been motivated to do soi in order to the message sequence numbers are previously divided into several non-overlapping sub-aggregates whose amounts equal the amounts of element from transmission side; each sub-aggregate is allocated to an element; in term of each sub-aggregate, the receiving side determines the sliding window, and records the corresponding relation between the sliding window and sub-aggregate of sequence number.
Regarding claim 9.
Pelletier further teaches wherein: for each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets where the ordered delivery bit is set, pass the data packet to an application based on its packet sequence number (Pelletier teaches in Para. [0045] for each packet that it processes. The cryptographic context update normally relies heavily on guarantees of in-order delivery, very low probability for residual bit errors when sequencing information and other ciphering is carried over a link; it normally has no means to verify the outcome of the deciphering process).
Testicioglu does not explicitly teach wherein: each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets has an ordered delivery bit; and the electronic processor is configured to: and for each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets where the ordered delivery bit is not set, pass the data packet to an application upon receipt, regardless of its packet sequence number.
However, Pelletier further in view of Yang teaches wherein: each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets has an ordered delivery bit (Pelletier teaches in Para. [0045] for each packet that it processes. The cryptographic context update normally relies heavily on guarantees of in-order delivery, very low probability for residual bit and further, Yang teaches in Para. [0085] the packet sequence numbers are divided into two subsets: A={1, 3, 5, . . . , 2n-1} and B={2, 4, 6, . . . , 2n}, and A is taken as the sending packet sequence number set of unit 511, B is taken as the sending packet sequence number set of unit 512…,); and the electronic processor is configured to: and for each of the subset of the second plurality of data packets where the ordered delivery bit is not set, pass the data packet to an application upon receipt, regardless of its packet sequence number (Pelletier teaches in Para. [0045] for each packet that it processes. The cryptographic context update normally relies heavily on guarantees of in-order delivery, very low probability for residual bit errors when sequencing information and other ciphering is carried over a link; it normally has no means to verify the outcome of the deciphering process and further, Yang teaches in Para. [0017] each subset is assigned to a unit of the sending party; and a receiving party records a correlation between each sequence number subset and a sliding window).
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 subset sequence number in a packet ([0085]) as taught, by Yang into the teachings of Testicioglu in view of in view of Pelletier invention. One would have been motivated to do soi in order to sequence number of message from transmission side, the receiving side decides if the said message is a legal message. The invention also discloses a message transmission device, a message receiving device and a message sequence number detecting system thereof, and the receiving side determines the sliding window, and records the corresponding relation between the sliding window and sub-aggregate of sequence number in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 23.
Claim 23 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 8 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 24.
Claim 24 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 9 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13, 14, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testicioglu in view of Pelletier further in view of Dao et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0174539 A1, (hereinafter Dao).
Regarding claim 13. Testicioglu in view of Pelletier teaches the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Testicioglu in view of Pelletier does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to: determine the maximum packet transmission rate based on at least one selected from the group consisting of a packet delay budget, a signaling overhead efficiency, and a device memory usage.
However, Dao teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: determine the maximum packet transmission rate based on at least one selected from the group consisting of a packet delay budget, a signaling overhead efficiency, and a device memory usage (Dao teaches in Para. [0095] an end-to-end packet delay budget (E2E PDB) parameter, which is the packet delay budget for sending packets (or Protocol Data Unit (PDU)) of QoS flows, for example the delay critical (i.e. URLLC) GBR QoS flows, in the mobile wireless networks, such as 5G and 4G networks. Here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and therefore, the prior art of record addressed limitation of “a packet delay budget”).
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 using packet delay budget (E2E PDB) parameter ([0095]) as taught, by Dao into the teachings of Testicioglu in view of in view of Pelletier invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the service operation allows an AF to provide, update, delete application level information to the PCF and another consumer, such as SMF, communicates with the PCF by using Policy Control service to obtain and install the new policy, and policy updates according to the information provided by the AF.
Regarding claim 14. Testicioglu in view of Pelletier teaches the wireless communication device of claim 1.
Testicioglu in view of Dao teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to: determine the size of the rate-based packet window based on at least one selected from the group consisting of a packet delay budget, a signaling overhead efficiency, and a device memory usage (Testicioglu teaches in Para. [0039] rate-based data transmission controller 350 can determine one or more… Rate-based data transmission controller 350 can also determine a size of the data to be transmitted at the aforementioned transmission times by determining, for example, the payload size of the data packets and further Dao teaches in Para. [0095] an end-to-end packet delay budget (E2E PDB) parameter, which is the packet delay budget for sending packets (or Protocol Data Unit (PDU)) of QoS flows. Here, the claim lists features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art and therefore, the prior art of record addressed limitation of “a packet delay budget”).
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 using packet delay budget (E2E PDB) parameter ([0095]) as taught, by Dao into the teachings of Testicioglu in view of in view of Pelletier invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to the service operation allows an AF to provide, update, delete application level information to the PCF and another consumer, such as SMF, communicates with the PCF by using Policy Control service to obtain and install the new policy, and policy updates according to the information provided by the AF.
Regarding claim 28.
Claim 28 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 13 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 29.
Claim 29 incorporates substantively all the limitation of claim 14 in a method form and is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 27 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 BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETSADIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/BERHANU SHITAYEWOLDETADIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2455