DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 09/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites in part “wherein the MSCI indicates that the group of media streams is related to coordination transmission and associate with at least one of a policy for the application or a quality of service (QoS) parameter for the group of media streams.”, however it seems the intent was to state “is associated” such that the MSCI is associated with a policy or a QoS parameter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, they recite in part “identifying, by the UPF node, at least one packet from the plurality of packets”.
The limitation as drafted above is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for generic computer components and extra solution activities. That is, other than “receiving, by a user plane function (UPF) node from an application server, a plurality of packets;… wherein the at least one packet belongs to a session group of media streams for coordinated transmission, and wherein the at least one packet comprises a same value of a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI); and sending, by the UPF node to a base station, the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission.”, the claim comprises limitations that can be performed in the human mind, and/or using pen and paper. In this case a person can reasonably identify a particular packet out of a set of packets based on an identifier. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components and extra solution activities, then it falls within mental processes grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional limitations of “receiving, by a user plane function (UPF) node from an application server, a plurality of packets;… wherein the at least one packet belongs to a session group of media streams for coordinated transmission, and wherein the at least one packet comprises a same value of a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI); and sending, by the UPF node to a base station, the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission.” And “A device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device”. Regarding the hardware elements, UPF, application server, device, processor and CRM, these are all well known computer and networking elements recited as performing routine activities. Regarding the receiving and sending steps, these are merely extra solution activities that are performed to obtain the data to perform the abstract idea, and sending the result of the abstract idea. The limitations of “wherein the at least one packet belongs to a session group of media streams for coordinated transmission, and wherein the at least one packet comprises a same value of a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI)”, under broadest reasonable interpretation describe flows of related streams based on an identifier i.e. to the same destination, and are well known in the art. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements of “receiving, by a user plane function (UPF) node from an application server, a plurality of packets;… wherein the at least one packet belongs to a session group of media streams for coordinated transmission, and wherein the at least one packet comprises a same value of a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI); and sending, by the UPF node to a base station, the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission.” And “A device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computer elements, well known features of packets, and extra solution activities. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic/well known elements and extra solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 4-10, 14-17, they recite in part “wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: identifying, by the UPF node, the at least one packet based on the MSCI and application identification information.”, “wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: identifying, by the UPF node, the at least one packet based on the MSCI and importance information of the at least one packet”
The limitations as drafted above is a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for generic computer components. That is, other than “wherein the application identification information comprises a 3-tuple of a source address, a source port, and a protocol type indicated in the at least one packet.”, “wherein the application identification information comprises a serving network slice selection assistance identifier (S-NSSAI) or a data network access identifier (DNAI)”, “wherein the session group of media streams share a common clock”, “wherein the coordinated transmission is performed based on a common configured policy comprising a drop policy or a delay policy”, “wherein the session group of media streams comprises an audio stream of a same media, a video stream of the same media, or a haptics stream of the same media”, the claim comprises limitations that can be performed in the human mind but for generic computer components. In this case, a person can reasonable identify a particular packet based on identification and other types of information. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components and extra solution activities, then it falls within mental processes grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims only recite the additional elements of “wherein the application identification information comprises a 3-tuple of a source address, a source port, and a protocol type indicated in the at least one packet.”, “wherein the application identification information comprises a serving network slice selection assistance identifier (S-NSSAI) or a data network access identifier (DNAI)”, “wherein the session group of media streams share a common clock”, “wherein the coordinated transmission is performed based on a common configured policy comprising a drop policy or a delay policy”, “wherein the session group of media streams comprises an audio stream of a same media, a video stream of the same media, or a haptics stream of the same media”. Regarding the 3-tuple information and application identification information, these types of information is generic information that is often associated with packets, for example in headers. Regarding the common clock and session group of media streams limitation, it is well known for audio and video streams of the same media to be synchronized to a clock. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements of “wherein the application identification information comprises a 3-tuple of a source address, a source port, and a protocol type indicated in the at least one packet.”, “wherein the application identification information comprises a serving network slice selection assistance identifier (S-NSSAI) or a data network access identifier (DNAI)”, “wherein the session group of media streams share a common clock”, “wherein the coordinated transmission is performed based on a common configured policy comprising a drop policy or a delay policy”, “wherein the session group of media streams comprises an audio stream of a same media, a video stream of the same media, or a haptics stream of the same media” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computer elements, well known features of packets, and extra solution activities. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic/well known elements and extra solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18 and 19 they recites in part “identifying, by an application server, a group of media streams of an application wherein the group of media streams is related to coordination transmission; assigning, by the application server, a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI) to the group of media streams, wherein the MSCI indicates that the group of media streams is related to coordination transmission and associate with at least one of a policy.. or a … parameter for the group of media streams”
That is, other than “a policy for the application or a quality of service (QoS) parameter for the group of media streams”, and an application server, group of media stream and coordinated transmission, and “sending, by the application server to a user plane function (UPF) node, a plurality of packets each including a same value of the MSCI.” the claim comprises limitations that can be performed in the human mind, and/or using pen and paper. In this case a person can reasonably identify a set of related data, assign a label based on the its relation, and associate with it a rule/policy. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components and extra solution activities, then it falls within mental processes grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional limitations of “a policy for the application or a quality of service (QoS) parameter for the group of media streams”, and an application server, group of media stream and coordinated transmission. Regarding the association step. Regarding “a policy for the application or a quality of service (QoS) parameter for the group of media streams”, it is well known for media streams to have QoS requirements and to be enforced with policies. Regarding the application server, it is a generic and well-known network element recited as performing routine activities. Regarding the group of media stream and coordinated transmission, media streams are well known in the art as well as coordinated transmission, such as streams having the same destination address. Regarding “sending, by the application server to a user plane function (UPF) node, a plurality of packets each including a same value of the MSCI.”, it is an extra solution activity that sends the result of the abstract idea to a well- known network element UPF. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the elements of “a policy for the application or a quality of service (QoS) parameter for the group of media streams”, and an application server, group of media stream and coordinated transmission and “sending, by the application server to a user plane function (UPF) node, a plurality of packets each including a same value of the MSCI.” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computer elements, well known features of packets, and extra solution activities. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic/well known elements and extra solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 2020/0404538 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu discloses A method, comprising: receiving, by a user plane function (UPF) node from an application server, a plurality of packets (Zhu: para.0012 “In an aspect, an apparatus for wireless communication includes at least one processor of an application server configured to: cause a transmitter of the application server to transmit, to a UPF, at least one file of at least one burst of files destined for an application associated with a UE, wherein the at least one file is transmitted in one or more PDUs, and wherein a header of each PDU of the one or more transmitted PDUs includes a file identifier and a file type of the at least one file and a burst identifier of the at least one burst” para.0100 “Note that a file is a set of one or more data packets (e.g., RLC PDUs, PDCP PDUs) that is jointly processed by an application, such as an XR application. A file is broken into Internet protocol (IP) packets depending on the maximum transmission unit (MTU) settings on the IP stack interfacing with the XR application.” The UPF receives PDUs, i.e. plurality of packets, for an XR application from the application server.);
identifying, by the UPF node, at least one packet from the plurality of packets, wherein the at least one packet belongs to a session group of media streams for coordinated transmission (Zhu: para.0113 “The UPF 780 identifies the application identifier of the application to which the data flow is destined based on one or more Application Detection Rules specified in the applicable standard. …The UPF 780 may derive the file identifier, burst identifier, and file type for the files of the data flow based on the application identifier. More specifically, the file identifier, file type, and burst identifier are included in the TCP/UDP port or IPv6 flow label, and the UPF 780 needs to know the mapping between the traffic identifiers and the port/label. This mapping is the traffic detection rule. The UPF 780 can then include this information in the GTP-U headers of downlink data packets destined for the UE 704 (which may correspond to any of the UEs described herein).” The UPF identifies packets that belong to a session group of media streams based on file identifier or burst identifier that identifies a plurality of streams of files associated with a burst for an application. Para.0008 “at least one file of at least one burst of files destined for an application associated with a UE,”), and
wherein the at least one packet comprises a same value of a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI) (Zhu: para.0008 “ transmitting, to a user plane function (UPF), at least one file of at least one burst of files destined for an application associated with a UE, wherein the at least one file is transmitted in one or more PDUs, and wherein a header of each PDU of the one or more transmitted PDUs includes a file identifier and a file type of the at least one file and a burst identifier of the at least one burst” each packet for a burst of PDUs comprises the file identifier or burst identifier the PDU is associated to.); and
sending, by the UPF node to a base station, the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission (Zhu: para.0105 “The UPF 680 includes the file identifier, the burst identifier, and the file type of each file in the data flow in the general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) user plane (GTP-U) header of the downlink PDUs of the data flow. The UPF 680 encoding the traffic identifiers and forwarding the data flow to the RAN 602 may be considered as the UPF 680 enforcing the QoS profile on the data flow.” Para.0044 “The base stations 102 may collectively form a RAN and interface with a core network 170” After including the packet information into a GTP-U header, the packets are forwarded to the RAN).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu discloses claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: identifying, by the UPF node, the at least one packet based on the MSCI and application identification information (Zhu: para.0113 “The UPF 780 identifies the application identifier of the application to which the data flow is destined based on one or more Application Detection Rules specified in the applicable standard. …The UPF 780 may derive the file identifier, burst identifier, and file type for the files of the data flow based on the application identifier. More specifically, the file identifier, file type, and burst identifier are included in the TCP/UDP port or IPv6 flow label, and the UPF 780 needs to know the mapping between the traffic identifiers and the port/label. This mapping is the traffic detection rule. The UPF 780 can then include this information in the GTP-U headers of downlink data packets destined for the UE 704 (which may correspond to any of the UEs described herein).” The UPF identifies packets that belong to a session group of media streams based on file identifier as well as application identifier).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu discloses claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: identifying, by the UPF node, the at least one packet based on the MSCI and importance information of the at least one packet (Zhu: para.0105 “In an aspect, the AMF/SMF 650 sends the file-level QoS policy rule(s) and any other needed file detection information to the UPF 680. Alternatively, the UPF 680 may receive the file detection information from an operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM) function (not shown). The UPF 680 receiving the data flow and the file information for the data flow may be considered as the UPF 680 configuring a QoS profile for the data flow. The UPF 680 then sends the data flow and the file information for the data flow to the RAN 602 serving the UE 604.” para.0113 “The UPF 780 identifies the application identifier of the application to which the data flow is destined based on one or more Application Detection Rules specified in the applicable standard. …The UPF 780 may derive the file identifier, burst identifier, and file type for the files of the data flow based on the application identifier. More specifically, the file identifier, file type, and burst identifier are included in the TCP/UDP port or IPv6 flow label, and the UPF 780 needs to know the mapping between the traffic identifiers and the port/label. This mapping is the traffic detection rule. The UPF 780 can then include this information in the GTP-U headers of downlink data packets destined for the UE 704 (which may correspond to any of the UEs described herein).” The UPF identifies packets that belong to a session group of media streams based on file identifier, as well as importance information, i.e. the QoS policy rule that would apply to the packet. The QoS policy rule represents an importance of the packet based on file type, para.0102 “Because XR applications specify the requirements for files rather than packets, file level retransmission is important to ensure the service quality for the XR application.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhu discloses claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses wherein the coordinated transmission is performed based on a common configured policy comprising a drop policy or a delay policy (Zhu: Table 2 para.0094 “XR applications require a high bit rate, high reliability (e.g., a PER less than or equal to 10−3), and low latency (e.g., a PDB between 5 ms and 25 ms) wireless connectivity. As such, XR applications would benefit from a 5Q1 of 80 or higher.” Para.0156 “Example 25: The method of any one of examples 1 through 24, wherein the one or more file-level QoS parameters include at least the file identifier, the file type, a file error rate (FER), a file delay budget (FDB), and a file discard timer for each type of file of the one or more files.” Packets of a particular type share a delay policy. Therefore coordinated transmission is performed based on a file delay budget).
Regarding Claim 11, 14, 16 and 17 it teaches all of the same elements as claim 1, 4, 7, 9 but in A device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device to: (Zhu: para.0037), therefore the supporting rationale for the rejection to claim 1, 4, 7, 9 applies equally as well to that of claim 11, 14, 16 and 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhu discloses A method, comprising: identifying, by an application server, a group of media streams of an application, wherein the group of media streams is related to coordination transmission (Zhu: para.0103 “When the application server (i.e., the AF 670 and the DN 690) generates a downlink data flow (e.g., data flow 500) to send to an application client 662 associated with a UE 604 (e.g., an XR application running on the UE 604 or an XR device connected to the UE 604, such as XR device 162), the application server signals the file identifier, burst identifier, and file type (collectively referred to as “file information,” “traffic identifiers,” or the like) for each file and burst of files in the data flow to the core network (e.g., the core network illustrated in FIG. 2A or 2B).” the application server generates a downlink data flow for group of media streams for an application, i.e. each file for the application is considered an individual stream, for coordinated transmission to a client.);
assigning, by the application server, a media stream coordination identifier (MSCI) to the group of media streams, wherein the MSCI indicates that the group of media streams is related to coordination transmission (Zhu: para.0103 “When the application server (i.e., the AF 670 and the DN 690) generates a downlink data flow (e.g., data flow 500) to send to an application client 662 associated with a UE 604 (e.g., an XR application running on the UE 604 or an XR device connected to the UE 604, such as XR device 162), the application server signals the file identifier, burst identifier, and file type (collectively referred to as “file information,” “traffic identifiers,” or the like) for each file and burst of files in the data flow to the core network (e.g., the core network illustrated in FIG. 2A or 2B). Specifically, the DN 690 (which may correspond to the DN 290 in FIG. 2A or the application server 285 in FIG. 2B) signals the traffic identifiers to the UPF 680 (which may correspond to the UPF 280 in FIG. 2A) over the user plane N6 interface, in addition to the data flow itself.” Para.0012 “cause a transmitter of the application server to transmit, to a UPF, at least one file of at least one burst of files destined for an application associated with a UE, wherein the at least one file is transmitted in one or more PDUs, and wherein a header of each PDU of the one or more transmitted PDUs includes a file identifier and a file type of the at least one file and a burst identifier of the at least one burst” burst identifier or file identifier is assigned to each packet of the group of media streams. The file and burst identifiers are related to coordinated transmission, i.e. for a single application.) and
associate with at least one of a policy for the application or a quality of service (QoS) parameter for the group of media streams (Zhu: para.0099 “The present disclosure provides techniques for a cellular data network, such as a 5G system, to be “file aware” in order to apply the correct QoS policy to a data flow of files. That is, the disclosed techniques enable a cellular data network to know which packets belong to which file and/or burst of files destined for a particular high bandwidth and/or low latency application associated with a particular UE, such as an XR application, and to apply the appropriate QoS requirements to the data flow.” The file and burst identifiers are associated with QoS requirements for the streams, see also para.0104.).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhu discloses claim 18 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses sending, by the application server to a user plane function (UPF) node, a plurality of packets each including a same value of the MSCI (Zhu: para.0008 “ transmitting, to a user plane function (UPF), at least one file of at least one burst of files destined for an application associated with a UE, wherein the at least one file is transmitted in one or more PDUs, and wherein a header of each PDU of the one or more transmitted PDUs includes a file identifier and a file type of the at least one file and a burst identifier of the at least one burst” Para.0012 “cause a transmitter of the application server to transmit, to a UPF, at least one file of at least one burst of files destined for an application associated with a UE, wherein the at least one file is transmitted in one or more PDUs, and wherein a header of each PDU of the one or more transmitted PDUs includes a file identifier and a file type of the at least one file and a burst identifier of the at least one burst” each packet for a burst of PDUs comprises the file identifier or burst identifier the PDU is associated to, therefore a plurality of packets for the same file and/or burst would have the same MSCI.).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 2020/0404538 A1) in view of Kahn et al. (hereinafter Kahn, US 2023/0319638 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu discloses claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses adding, by the UPF node, the MSCI to a general packet radio service (GRPS) tunneling protocol (GTP)-user plane (GTP-U) header of the at least one packet (Zhu: para.0105 “In an aspect, the AMF/SMF 650 sends the file-level QoS policy rule(s) and any other needed file detection information to the UPF 680…. The UPF 680 receiving the data flow and the file information for the data flow may be considered as the UPF 680 configuring a QoS profile for the data flow. The UPF 680 then sends the data flow and the file information for the data flow to the RAN 602 serving the UE 604. The UPF 680 includes the file identifier, the burst identifier, and the file type of each file in the data flow in the general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) user plane (GTP-U) header of the downlink PDUs of the data flow. The UPF 680 encoding the traffic identifiers and forwarding the data flow to the RAN 602 may be considered as the UPF 680 enforcing the QoS profile on the data flow.” The MSCI, such as the file identifier or burst identifier for the packets are inserted); and
wherein sending the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission comprises: sending the at least one packet with the GTP-U header comprising the MSCI (Zhu: para.0105 “The UPF 680 includes the file identifier, the burst identifier, and the file type of each file in the data flow in the general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) user plane (GTP-U) header of the downlink PDUs of the data flow. The UPF 680 encoding the traffic identifiers and forwarding the data flow to the RAN 602 may be considered as the UPF 680 enforcing the QoS profile on the data flow.” After encoding the identifiers into the GTP-U header, the packets are forwarded.).
However Zhu does not explicitly disclose adding, by the UPF node, the MSCI to a general packet radio service (GRPS) tunneling protocol (GTP)-user plane (GTP-U) extension header of the at least one packet; and wherein sending the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission comprises: sending the at least one packet with the GTP-U extension header comprising the MSCI, in other words, Zhu does not explicitly state which part of the GTP-U header this information is inserted into.
Kahn discloses adding, by the UPF node, the MSCI to a general packet radio service (GRPS) tunneling protocol (GTP)-user plane (GTP-U) extension header of the at least one packet (Kahn: para.0038 “FIG. 3 illustrates a table of an example general packet radio system (GPRS) tunneling protocol user plane (GTP-U) extension header with PDU set classification marking for a packet, according to certain example embodiments. According to certain example embodiments, in the UPF, PDU-set GTP-U extension header fields may convey the results of classification to the NG-RAN.” The classification information of the PDUs are inserted into the GTP-U extension header fields.); and
wherein sending the at least one packet for the coordinated transmission comprises: sending the at least one packet with the GTP-U extension header comprising the MSCI (Kahn: para.0038 “FIG. 3 illustrates a table of an example general packet radio system (GPRS) tunneling protocol user plane (GTP-U) extension header with PDU set classification marking for a packet, according to certain example embodiments. According to certain example embodiments, in the UPF, PDU-set GTP-U extension header fields may convey the results of classification to the NG-RAN.” As seen in Fig. 1, the DL packets that have been classified are sent from the UPF to the NG-RAN, i.e. comprising the GTP-U extension headers.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Kahn in order to perform the simple substitution of an unspecified part of the GTP-U header with the GTP-U extension header.
The simple substitution of (GTP-U header) for another (GTP-U extension header) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely providing the base station with information regarding the classification of the PDU (Zhu: para.0105, Kahn: para.0038).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhu discloses claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: obtaining, by the UPF node, the MSCI from a real time protocol (RTP) header (Zhu: para.0103 “ Alternatively or additionally, the application server can use the fragmentation unit header in the RTP packets of the data flow to convey the traffic identifiers to the UPF 680” the UPF may obtain the traffic identifiers from the RTP header.), a corresponding transmission control protocol (TCP) optional header, or a corresponding user datagram protocol (UDP) optional header.
However Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: obtaining, by the UPF node, the MSCI from a real time protocol (RTP) extension header, a corresponding transmission control protocol (TCP) optional header, or a corresponding user datagram protocol (UDP) optional header.
Kahn discloses wherein identifying the at least one packet from the plurality of packets comprises: obtaining, by the UPF node, the MSCI from a real time protocol (RTP) extension header (Kahn: Fig. 1 UPF comprising the media unit identification, para.0028 “ Additionally, media unit identification may utilize techniques such as deep packet inspection (DPI), examination of real-time transport protocol (RTP) extension headers, and artificial intelligence (AI)/machine-learning (ML) to determine the media units associated with a packet” para.0028 “For instance, media unit identification may provide media specific information (i.e., the type of frame (I-frame vs P-frame, the temporal or spatial layer associated with the packet), the application conveyed by the packet, etc.) necessary for classification of packets according to the PDU sets to which the packets belong.”the RTP extension header may be examined to obtain the identification for the media packet),
a corresponding transmission control protocol (TCP) optional header, or
a corresponding user datagram protocol (UDP) optional header.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Kahn in order to perform the simple substitution of an unspecified part of the RTP header with the RTP extension header.
The simple substitution of (RTP header) for another (RTP extension header) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely the UPF obtaining information regarding classification of the packet (Zhu: para.0103, Kahn: para.0028).
Regarding Claims 12-13, they do not teach nor further define over the limitations of claims 2-3, therefore the supporting rationale for the rejections to claims 2-3 apply equally as well to that of claims 12-13.
Regarding Claim 20, Zhu discloses claim 19 as set forth above.
Zhu further discloses wherein the MSCI is carried in a a real time protocol (RTP) header (Zhu: para.0103 “Alternatively or additionally, the application server can use the fragmentation unit header in the RTP packets of the data flow to convey the traffic identifiers to the UPF 680” the UPF may obtain the traffic identifiers from the RTP header.), a corresponding transmission control protocol (TCP) optional header, or a corresponding user datagram protocol (UDP) optional header.
However Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the MSCI is carried in a real time protocol (RTP) extension header, a corresponding transmission control protocol (TCP) optional header, or a corresponding user datagram protocol (UDP) optional header..
Kahn discloses wherein the MSCI is carried in a real time protocol (RTP) extension header, (Kahn: Fig. 1 UPF comprising the media unit identification, para.0028 “ Additionally, media unit identification may utilize techniques such as deep packet inspection (DPI), examination of real-time transport protocol (RTP) extension headers, and artificial intelligence (AI)/machine-learning (ML) to determine the media units associated with a packet” para.0028 “For instance, media unit identification may provide media specific information (i.e., the type of frame (I-frame vs P-frame, the temporal or spatial layer associated with the packet), the application conveyed by the packet, etc.) necessary for classification of packets according to the PDU sets to which the packets belong.” the RTP extension header may be used to store information regarding media units of a packet),
a corresponding transmission control protocol (TCP) optional header, or a corresponding user datagram protocol (UDP) optional header.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Kahn in order to perform the simple substitution of an unspecified part of the RTP header with the RTP extension header.
The simple substitution of (RTP header) for another (RTP extension header) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely the UPF obtaining information regarding classification of the packet (Zhu: para.0103, Kahn: para.0028).
Claim(s) 5-6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 2020/0404538 A1) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter Li, US 2018/0192471 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu discloses claim 4 as set forth above.
However Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the application identification information comprises a 3-tuple of a source address, a source port, and a protocol type indicated in the at least one packet.
Li discloses wherein the application identification information comprises a 3-tuple of a source address, a source port, and a protocol type indicated in the at least one packet (Li: para.0649 “support a plurality of different applications and UPFs…In implementations where a traffic steering profile is per DNAI specific, the traffic steering profile can indicate a transport address such as IP address and port number or a network address such as Ethernet address, associated with the DNAI and other traffic routing parameters to be used by the UPFs associated with the DNAI for routing traffic to the DNAI. The traffic steering profile may also indicate the DNAI itself by means of an identifier.” Para.0245 “The traffic steering at the branching UPF or the UL CL UPF may be based on the destination IP address, the destination port number, the source IP address, or a combination of any of them.” Para.0351…0352 “In case of IP traffic, in some embodiments traffic filtering information (e.g., IP 5-tuple which may contain source and destination addresses as well as port numbers at each of the source and destination, as well as a protocol being used) may be included…. In an embodiment, the N6 traffic routing parameters may be configured in UPFs for supporting the traffic steering mechanism or implementation in the local DN.” The UPF further uses a tuple of source address, source port and protocol to identify packets for applications when packet steering.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Li in order to incorporate wherein the application identification information comprises a 3-tuple of a source address, a source port, and a protocol type indicated in the at least one packet
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because of the expected benefit of improved path efficiency for steering application PDUs (Li: para.0145).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu discloses claim 4 as set forth above.
However Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein the application identification information comprises a serving network slice selection assistance identifier (S-NSSAI) or a data network access identifier (DNAI).
Li discloses wherein the application identification information comprises a serving network slice selection assistance identifier (S-NSSAI) or a data network access identifier (DNAI) (Li: para.0649 “support a plurality of different applications and UPFs…In implementations where a traffic steering profile is per DNAI specific, the traffic steering profile can indicate a transport address such as IP address and port number or a network address such as Ethernet address, associated with the DNAI and other traffic routing parameters to be used by the UPFs associated with the DNAI for routing traffic to the DNAI. The traffic steering profile may also indicate the DNAI itself by means of an identifier.” The UPF further uses a tuple of source address, source port and protocol to identify packets for applications when packet steering.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Li in order to incorporate wherein the application identification information comprises a serving network slice selection assistance identifier (S-NSSAI) or a data network access identifier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because of the expected benefit of improved path efficiency for steering application PDUs (Li: para.0145).
Regarding Claim 15, it does not teach nor further define over the limitations of claim 6, therefore the supporting rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies equally as well to that of claim 15.
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 2020/0404538 A1) in view of Bosworth (US 12,627,642 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhu disclose claim 1 as set forth above.
While Zhu discloses XR, VR, audio and video streams which typically require some level of a coordinated clock for playback, Zhu does not explicitly state wherein the session group of media streams share a common clock.
Bosworth discloses wherein the session group of media streams share a common clock (Bosworth: col. 10 line 66-col.11 line 34 “The client computing devices and the server computing devices 306a-306b may be in operative communication to separate portions of otherwise integrated content of the XR or communication environment. As an example, the integrated content can be separated into audio, video, and/or XR animation streams as well as sensitive (e.g., encrypted) and non-sensitive (e.g., non-encrypted) streams. The separation of the integrated content can be performed via keyframing or tagging and can be based on contextual information such as correlations between XR elements in the environment. As an example, based on audio from a conversation being sensitive, an audio stream can be part of an encrypted channel, a mouth animation stream from one of the user representations involved in the conversation can be part of a different encrypted channel, and an eye animation stream may be an unencrypted channel. The various streams/channels can be recombined at the corresponding client computing devices with the synchronized clock mechanism being configured to ensure that the various channels are recombined accurately and effectively.” The various streams for the XR content may share a common clock via the synchronized clock mechanism.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Bosworth in order to incorporate wherein the session group of media streams share a common clock.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because of the expected benefit of proper presentation of distributed XR stream content of various channels (Bosworth: col. 10 line 66-col.11 line 34).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhu discloses claim 1 as set forth above.
However, while Zhu discloses in para.0033, para.0088-0088 regarding the types of data being sent such as XR data, which has audio and video elements, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the session group of media streams comprises an audio stream of a same media, a video stream of the same media
Bosworth discloses wherein the session group of media streams comprises an audio stream of a same media, a video stream of the same media (Bosworth: col. 10 line 66-col.11 line 34 “The client computing devices and the server computing devices 306a-306b may be in operative communication to separate portions of otherwise integrated content of the XR or communication environment. As an example, the integrated content can be separated into audio, video, and/or XR animation streams as well as sensitive (e.g., encrypted) and non-sensitive (e.g., non-encrypted) streams. The separation of the integrated content can be performed via keyframing or tagging and can be based on contextual information such as correlations between XR elements in the environment. As an example, based on audio from a conversation being sensitive, an audio stream can be part of an encrypted channel, a mouth animation stream from one of the user representations involved in the conversation can be part of a different encrypted channel, and an eye animation stream may be an unencrypted channel. The various streams/channels can be recombined at the corresponding client computing devices with the synchronized clock mechanism being configured to ensure that the various channels are recombined accurately and effectively.” The various streams of audio and video for the XR content are separated into different channels when transmitted but coordinated and recombined for presentation.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhu with Bosworth in order to incorporate wherein the session group of media streams comprises an audio stream of a same media, a video stream of the same media, and apply the methods of Zhu that are applied to XR streams to the separate XR streams of Bosworth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because of the expected benefit of proper presentation of distributed XR stream content of various channels (Bosworth: col. 10 line 66-col.11 line 34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lei et al. US 2023/0083441 A1 para.0003 XR, para.0135 UPF and GTP-U channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUI H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-R, M-F alternating.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 5712725863. 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.
/EUI H KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights