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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 02/20/2025.
Claims 1-14 are cancelled. Claims 15-34 are newly added.
Claims 15-34 present for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 01/10/2025 and 05/29/2025 is/are considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 15, 18-20, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hande et al. (US 2023/0231788 A1), hereinafter Hande.
Regarding claim 15, Hande discloses
A method, comprising:
determining, by an application server, a first transmission delay, wherein the first transmission delay represents a round-trip transmission latency requirement of service data in a network ([0070]: the application server 210 may specify an RTT latency requirement to the network 205 based on the application (e.g., the latency-sensitive application)); and
sending, by the application server, the first transmission delay to a policy control network element ([0070]: the application server 210 may specify an RTT latency requirement to the network 205 based on the application (e.g., the latency-sensitive application)), wherein the first transmission delay is used by the policy control network element to determine, based on the first transmission delay, delay budget information for transmitting the service data, and the delay budget information indicates an uplink transmission delay budget or a downlink transmission delay budget ([0037]: the wireless communications entity may determine a downlink delay budget value based on a difference between the RTT latency requirement (e.g., specified by an application server) and the determined uplink latency).
Regarding claim 18, Hande discloses the method as described in claim 15. Hande further discloses
before sending, by the application server, the first transmission delay to the policy control network element, determining, by the application server, that the first transmission delay is greater than or equal to a transmission delay threshold ([0070]: the user experience of the application may be degraded if the RTT exceeds a threshold (e.g., 20 ms) and, accordingly, the application server may specify an RTT latency requirement to the network 205 such that the threshold may be satisfied).
Regarding claim 19, Hande discloses the method as described in claim 15. Hande further discloses
the delay budget information indicates the uplink transmission delay budget and the downlink transmission delay budget ([0023]: determining an uplink delay budget value that corresponds to the time window; & [0024]: determining a downlink delay budget value for a downlink message responsive to the uplink message).
Regarding claim 20, Hande discloses
obtaining, by a policy control network element, a first transmission delay, wherein the first transmission delay represents a round-trip transmission latency requirement of service data in a network ([0073]: the network 205, such as the base station or the network core, may receive an RTT latency requirement 225 from the application server 210 via a communicating link 220 (e.g., a backhaul link));
determining, by the policy control network element based on the first transmission delay, delay budget information for transmitting the service data, wherein the delay budget information indicates an uplink transmission delay budget or a downlink transmission delay budget ([0073]: the network 205 may identify a one one-way directional delay budget (e.g., a downlink delay budget or an uplink delay budget) that satisfies the RTT latency requirement 225 for an application (e.g., a latency-sensitive application) of an application server (e.g., hosted by the application server 210)); and
sending, by the policy control network element, the delay budget information to a session management network element ([0080]: the network core 307-a may transmit a modified delay budget value 335-a based on traffic congestion information).
Regarding claim 22, Hande discloses the method as described in claim 20. Hande further discloses
obtaining, by the policy control network element, network transmission delay information, wherein the network transmission delay information indicates an uplink transmission delay supported by the network or a downlink transmission delay supported by the network ([0037]: the wireless communications entity may receive an uplink message and determine (e.g., measure) an uplink latency associated with the received uplink message); and
determining, by the policy control network element based on the first transmission delay and the network transmission delay information, the delay budget information for transmitting the service data ([0037]: the wireless communications entity may determine a downlink delay budget value for downlink messages to be transmitted in response to the received uplink message based on the determined uplink latency; the wireless communications entity may determine a downlink delay budget value based on a difference between the RTT latency requirement (e.g., specified by an application server) and the determined uplink latency).
Regarding claim 27, Hande discloses the method as described in claim 20. Hande further discloses
determining, by the policy control network element according to the first transmission delay and a delay allocation policy, the delay budget information for transmitting the service data, wherein the delay allocation policy indicates an association relationship between the uplink transmission delay budget and the downlink transmission delay budget ([0070]: determine delay budgets for uplink traffic and downlink traffic based on the specified RTT latency requirement; for example, the network 205 may specify delay budgets for uplink traffic and downlink traffic via one-way packet delay budgets (PDBs); in some examples, a downlink delay budget value may be specified via a downlink PDB value and an uplink delay budget value may be specified via an uplink PDB value).
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of claim 28 are rejected in the analysis of claim 15 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 31, the limitations of claim 31 are rejected in the analysis of claim 18 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 32, the limitations of claim 32 are rejected in the analysis of claim 20 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 34, the limitations of claim 34 are rejected in the analysis of claim 22 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hande in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0014178 A1), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 21, Hande discloses the method as described in claim 20. Hande further discloses
sending, by the policy control network element, the first transmission delay to a network data analytics network element ([0081]: the application server 310-b may specify an RTT latency requirement to the network core 307-b and the network core 307-b may forward the specified RTT latency requirement to the base station 306-b); and
wherein the delay budget information is determined based on the first transmission delay ([0081]: the base station 306-b may split the RTT latency requirement 325-c into the downlink delay budget value and the uplink delay budget value).
Hande does not explicitly disclose
receiving, by the policy control network element, the delay budget information from the network data analytics network element.
However, Xu discloses
receiving, by the policy control network element, the delay budget information from the network data analytics network element ([0017]: the first terminal receives the packet delay budget adjustment information sent by the first network device or the second terminal, and then adjusts the size of the jitter buffer based on the received packet delay budget adjustment information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Xu in Hande because Hande discloses forward round-trip time (RTT) latency requirement to other device ([0081]) and Xu further suggests receive packet delay budget adjustment information ([0017]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Xu in the Hande system in order to ensure high quality of service.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations of claim 33 are rejected in the analysis of claim 21 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hande in view of So et al. (US 2017/0141880 A1), hereinafter So.
Regarding claim 23, Hande discloses the method as described in claim 20. Hande further discloses
obtaining, by the policy control network element, network transmission delay information, wherein the network transmission delay information indicates an uplink transmission delay supported by the network or a downlink transmission delay supported by the network ([0013]: receiving an uplink message from the UE, the uplink message associated with an uplink latency).
Hande does not explicitly disclose
determining, by the policy control network element, a second transmission delay based on the network transmission delay information, wherein the second transmission delay is a round-trip transmission latency currently supported by the network.
However, So discloses
determining, by the policy control network element, a second transmission delay based on the network transmission delay information, wherein the second transmission delay is a round-trip transmission latency currently supported by the network ([0054]: determines a new Round Trip Time (RTT) value; the new RTT value is determined on the basis of the new propagation delay time (D1) value and new uplink delay time (D2) value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of So in Hande because Hande discloses identify an round-trip time (RTT) latency requirement ([0007]) and So further sugests determine a new Round Trip Time value ([0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of So in the Hande system in order to optimize network performance.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hande in view of So, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0119922 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 24, Hande and So disclose the method as described in claim 23. Hande and So do not explicitly disclose
before determining, by the policy control network element, the second transmission delay based on the network transmission delay information, determining, by the policy control network element based on the network transmission delay information, that the network cannot support the first transmission delay.
However, Zhang discloses
before determining, by the policy control network element, the second transmission delay based on the network transmission delay information, determining, by the policy control network element based on the network transmission delay information, that the network cannot support the first transmission delay ([0028]: determining whether the first latency satisfies the second latency constraint requirement, and if determining that the first latency does not satisfy the second latency constraint requirement, adjusting the at least one configuration parameter of the shaper based on the second latency constraint requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Zhang in Hande and So because Hande and So disclose identify a one-way directional delay budget that satisfies the round-trip time latency requirement (Hande: abstract) and Zhang further suggests determine the first latency does not satisfy the second latency constraint requirement, adjust configuration parameter ([0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Zhang in the Hande and So system in order to improve network service quality as suggested by Zhang ([0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, 25, 26, 29, and 30 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inaba (US 2006/0025153 A1). Calculating the RTT from a delay profile of the uplink.
Milne et al. (US 2012/0005716 A1). Estimates the actual delay for uplink and downlink and the estimated actual network delays are used in the roundtrip communication ([0042]).
Fang (US 2016/0295601 A1). The uplink and downlink time relationships are associated to obtain an uplink-downlink time correspondence (the local time of the coordinator, uplink transmit frame N+subframe n, downlink receive frame M+subframe m), and subtraction is performed between the uplink and downlink time to obtain an RTT delay ([0114]).
Wang et al. (US 2019/0059096 A1). The network determines that certain traffic fails to meet certain requirements on QoS, e.g., latency requirements ([0122]).
Park et al. (US 2024/0381379 A1). If an SL HARQ NACK occurs when a receiving UE receives a PSCCH/PSSCH (TB) transmitted by a transmitting UE, the receiving UE may calculate the remaining PDB for the TB in which the NACK occurred and may not (re)start an SL DRX inactivity timer if it determines that the remaining PDB will not be satisfied even if it receives a retransmitted TB by transmitting an SL HARQ NACK to the transmitting UE ([0146]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. 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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
01/09/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447