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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
No claims have been amended, canceled or added.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 14—Applicant argues that cited prior art, DI GIROLAMO et al, fail to teach the features: "receive a data unit with an associated QoS flow identifier corresponding to one of the QoS flows in the linked QoS flow (LQF) group; select, based on the associated QoS flow identifier, an active linked QoS flow (LQF) for the data unit; and transmit the data unit over the selected active linked QoS flow (LQF)"; because DI GIROLAMO et al “is based on a co-dependent trigger-and-response model rather than a group of mutually exclusive alternatives”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the independent claims states “receiving linked quality of service (QoS) flow (LQF) configuration information indicating any of (emphasis added)…”, so based on this language, only one of the (1), (2) and (3) clauses are required in the limitation; thus the “(2) mutually exclusive” clause is optional. Secondly, DI GIROLAMO et al teach receiving an indication of QoS flow grouped for, connected mode discontinuous reception, CDRX, configuration and information about linked QoS flows and selection of a CDRX configuration based on the metrics or events (paras 0118, 0120, 0153), wherein each QoS flow may be identified by a QoS Flow Identifier (QFI), and each QoS flow may be associated with a QoS profile, where the QoS profile may be used by the WTRU, the RAN node, and the UPF to determine how to treat the PDUs carried in the QoS flows (paras 0165-169). DI GIROLAMO et al further teach determining when to transmit uplink based on transmission occasion and QoS characteristics of a QoS flow for transmitting data during active time (paras 0092-97, 0190), where the reception or transmission of a data unit with a QoS flow ID indicates that traffic is of a certain type (para 0172) for selecting a linked QoS flow to use for transmission of selected data units based on the associated parameters (para 0185) with a QoS parameter may specify how the RAN node treats over-the-air retransmission for the QoS flow or that the RAN node may not allow any over-the-air retransmissions (para 0177).
Applicant’s argument that, DI GIROLAMO et al is “based on a co-dependent trigger-and-response model rather than a group of mutually exclusive alternatives” is moot based on the actual claim language. The argument that the “term "active" in this context implies that other flows within the group are inactive, enabling the RAN to perform accurate admission control. The specification confirms this understanding, explaining that the LQF group is for managing flows that "are not active at the same time…” is a proposed implication preferred by Applicant, but not actually evident by the claim language and thus cannot be read into the claim language. This intended context of the term “active” has not been established by the actual language, since “active” is a broad term that does not necessarily mean all of the other flows in the group are inactive. There is no statement in the claim that clearly specifies: mutually exclusive alternatives as a requirement, the extent/context of active, which/how many flows are inactive, or enabling RAN performing admission control. The claims have been examined and rejected based the actual language presented in the claim limitations. Therefore, the rejection under the cited prior art adequately fulfills the functionality of the clam language and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection under FAMA et al for dependent claims 5, 12-13 and 18-19—Applicant argues that cited prior art, FAMA et al “is not from the same field of endeavor…is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by the invention”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. FAMA et al is relied on as a secondary reference for employing monitors related to the QoS flow and circuitry to limit a rate of change related to the mutually exclusive indication, wherein the mutually exclusive indication references the (2) optional clause of the independent claims. FAMA et al teach delta threshold for the rate of change between the prior and current metric and monitoring to count the number of periods, objects and blocks along with an LQF cycle count threshold (col.4 lines 51-63, col.6 line 57-col.7 line 3, col.7 line 55-col.8 line 44, col.11 lines 41-61). The features of monitoring packets associated with QoS flows and limiting a rate of change between the flows based on a delta threshold are adequately taught and suggested by the combination of teachings from DI GIROLAMO et al in view of FAMA et al. Therefore, the claim language remains unpatentable and the rejection under the cited prior art is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
II. 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.
III. CLAIMS 1-4, 6-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DI GIROLAMO et al (US 2025/0212048).
Per claim 14, DI GIROLAMO et al teach a method, implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving linked quality of service (QoS) flow (LQF) configuration information indicating any of (1) one or more QoS flows (2) a mutually exclusive indication indicating that the QoS flows are used mutually exclusively, and (3) an identifier associated with a linked QoS flow (LQF) group comprising the QoS flows [paras 0025, 0092, 0153, 0169, 0196—receiving an indication of QoS flow grouped for CDRX configuration, QOS flow identifiers associated with a QOS profile, LQFs identified by QOS identifiers, separate information associated with each QOS rule of the PDU session];
setting up the QoS flows based on the linked QoS flow (LQF) configuration information [paras 0180, 0184-185—setting up QOS flows based on information, characteristics and parameters from the LQF and generating packets of QOS flows];
receiving a data unit comprising an urgency indicator indicating an urgency associated with the data unit and a QoS flow in the linked QoS flow (LQF) group, or receiving a data unit comprising a QoS flow identifier associated with a QoS flow in the linked QoS flow (LQF) group [paras 0109, 0161, 0172-174—priority indication of the packet data unit carried over the QOS flow, QOS parameters and characteristics tied to a QOS flow identifying level of granularity within the system, indication of flow priority or traffic type in the flow];
selecting an active linked QoS flow (LQF), based on the urgency indicator or the QoS flow identifier [paras 0092-93, 0118, 0153—selecting CDRX configuration in the connected mode during the active time of LQF based on the metrics, events and QOS indication]; and
transmitting the data unit over the active linked QoS flow (LQF) [paras 0092, 0118, 0161, 0190—transmitting data during the active time over the LQF based on preferred transmission occasions and QOS characteristics of a QOS flow].
Claims 1 and 8 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 14, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 15, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the method of claim 14, wherein the data unit comprises an uplink protocol data unit (PDU) or a downlink protocol data unit (PDU) [paras 0006-9, 0085, 0087-90—uplink and downlink data, uplink and downlink packet delay budget (PDB), uplink extended reality media (XRM) data].
Claims 7 and 9 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 15, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 16, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the method of claim 14, wherein the linked QoS flow (LQF) configuration information further indicates characteristics associated with the linked QoS flow (LQF) group comprising any of: a linked QoS flow (LQF) transition timing, a priority associated with each of the QoS flows, and a degraded mode indication [paras 0092, 0159, 0161, 0172-175, 0205, 0216—round trip time (RTT), priority indication associated with QOS flow, frame rate increase/decrease, decreasing the downlink PDB, measurement of the time difference between the transmission and reception of associated data].
Claims 2 and 10 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 16, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 17, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the method of claim 16, wherein the selecting of the active linked QoS flow (LQF) is further based on the characteristics associated with the linked QoS flow (LQF) group [paras 0092, 0109-110, 0115-116, 0164—QOS parameters and characteristics of a QOS flow associated with the linked flows].
Claims 3 and 11 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 17, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the network element of claim 1, wherein, on condition that the selected active linked QoS flow (LQF) is determined to be invalid, the circuitry is configured to: send an error indication to another network element; drop the data unit; or select a currently active linked QoS flow (LQF) [paras 0110, 0120, 0124, 0127, 0136, 0176—error indication, discarding PDUs and provision of LQF].
Per claim 6, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the network element of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to perform access control operations using the linked quality of service (QoS) flow (LQF) configuration information [paras 0028, 0030, 0092—enabling users access to the content and resources, providing access to linked QOS flows].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
IV. 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.
V. CLAIMS 5, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DI GIROLAMO et al (US 2025/0212048) in view of FAMA et al (USPN 11,367,026).
Per claim 18, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the method of claim 14, as applied above, and dynamically changing the PDB of the LQFs based on measured packet delay, changing/updating data flows per application, updated on/active time duration [paras 0181, 0203-206], yet fail to explicitly teach the method “comprising, based on the mutually exclusive indication, limiting a rate of change between active linked QoS flows (LQFs)”.
However, FAMA et al teach a delta threshold for the rate of change between the prior and current metric [col.11 lines 41-61]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of DI GIROLAMO et al with FAMA et al for the purpose of provisioning a limit to the rate of change between the LQFs, parameters including rate of change thresholds are well-known in the art.
Claim 12 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 18, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 19, DI GIROLAMO et al teach the method of claim 14, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the method “comprising updating one or more counters related to the linked QoS flow (LQF) group, wherein the one or more counters are configured to monitor a number of packets or bytes associated with the one of the QoS flows in the linked QoS flow (LQF) group”.
FAMA et al teach monitoring to count the number of periods, objects and blocks along with an LQF cycle count threshold [col.4 lines 51-63, col.6 line 57-col.7 line 3, col.7 line 55-col.8 line 44, col.11 lines 41-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of DI GIROLAMO et al with FAMA et al for the purpose of provisioning counters and monitoring related to the LQF group. Counters updated and configured to monitor a number of objects or packets are well-known in the art.
Claims 5 and 13 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 19, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
VI. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0203675, US 2024/0357618, US 2023/0156858, WO 2024/167892.
VII. 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 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.
VIII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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 Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights