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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 7/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “network element is configured to” as recited in claim 22.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-9, 11-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao (2019/0253917) in view of Talebi Fard et al. (2021/0219357).
As per claim 1, Dao teaches a communication method, wherein the method comprises: receiving a first request message from an application function network element, wherein the first request message comprises type information of a service flow, information about a target terminal group, and quality of service information of the service flow [Dao, paragraphs 100 and 0106-0107];
when the type information indicates that the service flow is an end-to-end service flow, obtaining quality of service decomposition information based on the information about the target terminal group [Dao, paragraphs 0157-0158 and 0329-0331];
decomposing the quality of service information of the service flow based on the quality of service decomposition information to obtain uplink quality of service information and downlink quality of service information [Dao, paragraphs 0186-0188]; and
triggering a network to configure a session of the ingress terminal based on the uplink quality of service information and to configure a session of the egress terminal based on the downlink quality of service information, wherein the session of the ingress terminal comprises a first quality of service flow for transmission of the service flow, and the session of the egress terminal comprises a second quality of service flow for transmission of the service flow [Dao, paragraphs 0437-0439].
But Dao fails to explicitly teach, however, Talebi Fard et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the information about the target terminal group comprises a group identifier identifying a terminal group that comprises an ingress terminal and an egress terminal [Talebi Fard et al., paragraphs 0298 and 0326];
wherein the quality of service decomposition information comprises access information of the ingress terminal in the terminal group and access information of the egress terminal in the terminal group [Talebi Fard et al., paragraph 0281].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dao with Talebi Fard et al. in order to enable implementation of enhanced features and functionalities in 5G systems.
As per claim 2, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the triggering a network to configure a session of the ingress terminal based on the uplink quality of service information and to configure a session of the egress terminal based on the downlink quality of service information comprises: sending a second request message, wherein the second request message comprises an address of the ingress terminal and the uplink quality of service information; and sending a third request message, wherein the third request message comprises an address of the egress terminal and the downlink quality of service information [Dao, paragraphs 0155-0156].
As per claim 3, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the second request message and the third request message further comprise local switching indication information, and the local switching indication information indicates that the service flow is transmitted through local switching or cross-user plane function network element switching [Dao, paragraph 0164].
As per claim 4, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the access information of the ingress terminal comprises location information of the ingress terminal, and wherein the access information of the egress terminal comprises location information of the egress terminal [Dao, paragraph 0172].
As per claim 5, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein; the quality of service information of the service flow comprises a latency requirement of the service flow; the uplink quality of service information comprises latency of the service flow in an uplink direction; the downlink quality of service information comprises latency of the service flow in a downlink direction; and a sum of the latency of the service flow in the uplink direction and the latency of the service flow in the downlink direction is less than or equal to the latency requirement of the service flow [Dao, paragraphs 0193-0194].
As per claim 6, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the access information of the ingress terminal comprises further comprises an identifier of an anchor user plane function network element corresponding to the session of the ingress terminal, the access information of the egress terminal further comprises an identifier of an anchor user plane function network element corresponding to the session of the egress terminal, the quality of service decomposition information further comprises a packet transmission period between the anchor user plane function network element corresponding to the session of the ingress terminal and the anchor user plane function network element corresponding to the session of the egress terminal [Dao, paragraphs 0029-0034].
As per claim 7, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein; the quality of service information of the service flow comprises a latency requirement of the service flow; the uplink quality of service information comprises latency of the service flow in an uplink direction; the downlink quality of service information comprises latency of the service flow in a downlink direction; and a sum of the latency of the service flow in the uplink direction, the latency of the service flow in the downlink direction, and the packet transmission period is less than or equal to the latency requirement of the service flow [Dao, paragraphs 0085-0086].
As per claim 8, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein: the first request message further comprises first event indication information, wherein the first event indication information indicates at least one of the following: monitoring for average latency, quality of service notification monitoring for a packet delay budget, quality of service notification monitoring for a guaranteed bit rate, or quality of service notification monitoring for a packet error rate; the second request message further comprises the first event indication information; and the third request message further comprises the first event indication information [Dao, paragraphs 0092-0094].
As per claim 9, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: receiving first notification information for the second request message, wherein the first notification information comprises at least one of the following: average latency of the service flow in an uplink direction, indication information indicating that a packet delay budget of the service flow in the uplink direction is no longer met, indication information indicating that a guaranteed bit rate of the service flow in the uplink direction is no longer met, or indication information indicating that a packet error rate of the service flow in the uplink direction is no longer met; receiving second notification information for the third request message, wherein the second notification information comprises at least one of the following: average latency of the service flow in a downlink direction, indication information indicating that a packet delay budget of the service flow in the downlink direction is no longer met, indication information indicating that a guaranteed bit rate of the service flow in the downlink direction is no longer met, or indication information indicating that a packet error rate of the service flow in the downlink direction is no longer met; and adjusting the uplink quality of service information based on the first notification information, adjusting the downlink quality of service information based on the second notification information, or adjusting the uplink quality of service information and the downlink quality of service information based on the first notification information and the second notification information [Dao, paragraphs 0127-0138].
As per claim 21, Dao-Talebi Fard teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the application function network element, the first request message [Dao, paragraph 0282].
Claims 11-19 and 22 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights