DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo (US 2021/0321298) and in view of Horn (US 2016/0057658) and in view of Jeon (US 2014/0119214) and in view of Kerr (US 2010/0002723).
Re Claim 1, Keskitalo discloses a network device network device associated with a wireless communication network, the network device comprising: a processor configured to ([0151], combination of processors):
determine an available data rate (ADR) associated with a data flow during which the ADR can be accommodated by the wireless communication network, wherein the ADR indicates a data rate capability of the wireless communication network with respect to transmission or reception of the data flow ([0086], determine that the data throughput (available data rate) exceeds a certain threshold and triggers the indication or requesting the forwarding or duplication).
Keskitalo does not disclose, however Horn discloses determine, based at least one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow, whether to report the one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow to at least one other device ([0105]-[0107], determine whether at least one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow should be reported); and
based on a determination to report the ADR ([0110]-[0112], determines which data flows to report. The data flow is evaluated based on the availability of resources.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo’s data flow indication with Horn’s measurement report which includes the data flow measurements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the devices to report the data flow to another device.
While Horn discloses determine, based at least one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow, whether to report the one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow to at least one other device, Keskitalo and Horn do not disclose, however Jeon discloses the report indicates ADR ([0090], The report message transmitter transmits a report message, In the report message, at least one among effective capacity, achievable throughput and available bandwidth.);
generate a report, wherein the report indicates at least one of the ADR or the time period ([0090], The report message transmitter transmits a report message, In the report message, at least one among effective capacity, achievable throughput and available bandwidth.); and
transmit the report to the at least one other device ([0089]-[0090], report message transmitter transmits a report message about network monitoring to the first terminal.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo and Horn’s reporting with Jeon’s reporting which includes the available data rate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the devices to notify the availability of the data rates and data flow to another device.
Keskitalo, Horn, and Jeon does not disclose, however Kerr discloses the time period during which the ADR can be accommodated ([0019], [0028], the profiles include information of a bandwidth available to the user based on the time of day measured by the clock. I.E. and when 50mb from 6am-10pm and select 100mb from 10p-6am.); and
information indicates at least one of the ADR and the time period ([0019], [0028], provided to the user is a profile that include information of a bandwidth available to the user based on the time of day measured by the clock. I.E. and when 50mb from 6am-10pm and select 100mb from 10p-6am.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo, Horn, and Leon’s report quality to include with Kerrs’s quality of adjusting bandwidth based on a time of day in order to determine the bandwidth available during a current time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of the reporting to include the given time period it is able to maintain the link quality for in order to improve efficiency by predicting the likelihood of the acceptable limits for the link quality.
Re claim 3, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Keskitalo for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Horn discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a request for the report ([0079], request SeNB to provide additional resources based on measurement reports). In addition, Dowdell discloses in [0057] querying the status of a link.
Re claim 4, Keskitalo discloses the condition that the transmission connection is above a certain threshold ([0086], the connection quality exceeds a certain threshold). One of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Keskitalo for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Horn discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to report the data flow or a service related to the data flow based further on a first threshold value, and wherein the determination to report the data flow or a service related to the data flow is made by the processor based at least on a condition that the data flow or a service related to the data flow is above the first threshold value ([0105]-[0107], determine whether at least one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow should be reported. In addition, Jeon discloses the report indicates ADR ([0090], The report message transmitter transmits a report message, in the report message, at least one among effective capacity, achievable throughput and available bandwidth.).
Re claim 10, Keskitalo discloses wherein the ADR is associated with a quality of service flow or a service data flow ([0086], determines that the quality of the connection on the device , data throughput (data rate), exceeds a certain threshold).
Re claim 12, Keskitalo discloses wherein the mobility information indicates an expected mobile or stationary state of the WTRU ([0034], [0063] the nodes maybe stationary or mobile RNs. Devices of a cellular network).
Re claim 13, Keskitalo discloses wherein the network device is a user plane function (UPF) of the wireless communication network ([0063],receiving user plane data from a network node of the cellular network).
Re claims 15, and 17 are similar to claims 1, 4, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 5-7, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo and in view of Horn and in view of Jeon (US and in view of Kerr and in view of Dowdell (US 2016/0105523).
Re claims 5 and 18, Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon, and Kerr one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Horn discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine whether to report the ADR based further on a second threshold value, and wherein the determination to report the ADR is made by the processor based on a further condition ([0105]-[0107], determine whether at least one of the data flow or a service related to the data flow should be reported).
Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon, and Kerr do not disclose, however, Dowdell discloses that a length of the time period exceeds the second threshold value ([0055], the quality of the link in the network predicts how long the present indication of available bandwidth over a given period of time (i.e, 5 minutes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo, Horn, Leon and Kerr’s available bandwidth to include with Dowdell’s predictability of available bandwidth within the acceptable limits for a certain period of time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of the reporting to include the prediction of how long the present indication of network status may be deemed as valid in order to improve efficiency by predicting the likelihood of the acceptable limits for the link quality.
Re claims 6 and 19, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Keskitalo and Horn and Jeon and Kerr for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 5 and 18. In addition, Dowdell discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive ADR reporting assistance information that indicates at least one of the first threshold value or the second threshold value ([0055], comparing against pre-set thresholds).
Re claim 7, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Keskitalo and Horn and Jeon and Kerr for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 6. In addition, Dowdell discloses wherein the ADR reporting assistance information further indicates a granularity for reporting the ADR ([0055], available bandwidth, average latency, link quality).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo in view of Horn in view of Jeon and in view of Kerr and in view of Demircin (US 2006/0095944).
Re claims 2 and 16, Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr does not disclose, however Demircin discloses wherein the ADR is greater than a guaranteed flow bit rate associated with the data flow and less than a maximum flow bit rate associated with the data flow ([0209], The effective throughput (flow bit rate) is always lower than the maximum throughput (bandwidth) that the channel can support).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr’s traffic measurement with Demircin’s flow bit rate determination which includes determining that the effective throughput is always lower than the maximum throughput (bandwidth). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the traffic used in a session to be less than the maximum bandwidth in order not to exceed the bandwidth of the data flow.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo in view of Horn in view of Jeon and in view of Kerr and in view of Qiao (US 2019/0215731).
Re claim 8, Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr does not disclose, however Qiao discloses wherein the ADR reporting assistance information is received from a session management function (SMF) of the wireless communication network ([0032], Session management function).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr’s traffic measurement with Qiao’s session management function which controls the traffic flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the traffic used in a session to be managed by a session manager.
Re claim 9, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 8. In addition, Qiao discloses wherein the ADR reporting assistance information is included in a quality of service (QoS) profile ([0064], QoS profile containing QoS parameters).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo in view of Horn in view of Jeon and in view of Kerr and in view of Mohanti (US 2026/0067716).
Re claims 11 and 20, Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr does not disclose, however Mohanti discloses and wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one of the ADR or the time period based on mobility information of a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) associated with the data flow ([0156], QoS thresholds can be dynamic based on the WTRU environment (objects around the WTRU, object characteristics, mobility, WTRU location, etc.) and WTRU behavior (e.g., WTRU mobility, WTRU direction, etc. )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr’s QoS characteristics with Mohanti’s QoS characteristics to include the MTRU mobility. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to allow the quality threshold to include WTRU location/mobility.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keskitalo in view of Horn in view of Jeon and in view of Kerr and in view of Centonza (US 2023/0231779).
Re claim 14, Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr does not disclose, however Centonza discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a validity of the report based on a mobility event detected by the network device, the processor further configured to send an indication of the validity of the report to the at least one other device ([0228] validity period of the QoE measurement report).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Keskitalo, Horn, Jeon and Kerr’s measurement report with Centonza’s measurement report which includes a validity period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings with one another in order to determine a period that the measurement report has validity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights