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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: line recites, “the WTRU of claim 2”, it should be the WTRU of claim 12”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 11510108. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims in the pending application are transparently found in US 11510108 with obvious wording variations. See below for claim by claim mapping:
Claim 2: A method performed by a wireless transmit/ receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: determining a quality of seivice (QoS) Flow Identifier (QFI) for one or more packets associated with a service based on application layer information and QoS policy configuration information; transmitting the QFI to a radio access network base station via a Uu interface; and transmitting and/or receiving the one or more packets corresponding to the QFI, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU via a PCS interface.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 1 determines a QFI from application information and QoS policy, transmits corresponding data to another WTRU over PCS, and reports the QFI to the RAN. That data supplies the service packets; transmission satisfies "and/or." The claim does not name Uu. Using the WTRU-to-RAN Uu connection for its required report is an obvious implementation illustrated by Figure 3 and column 17, lines 4-11, and Figure 6 in column 18, allowing the base station to identify the PCS flow.
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 2 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 2 incorporates claim 1 and expressly includes geographic information in the policy; claim 1 receives that policy from a network. The analysis for pending claim 2 applies.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the seivice is a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 11,510,108 B2. The supporting V2X embodiment uses reference claim l's QFI, PCS, and reporting operations for V2X packets (Figures 3, 5, and 6; columns 15 and 17-18). Selecting that described service would have been obvious to provide its packets with selected QoS treatment. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 5: The method of claim 2, wherein the radio access network base station comprises a next generation Node B (gNB).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 4 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 4 incorporates claim 1 and identifies a gNB for QFI transmission. Using that gNB for claim l's required RAN report is an obvious implementation illustrated by Figure 6 in column 18. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 6: The method of claim 2, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 5 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 5 incorporates claim 1 and expressly includes an application identifier in the application layer information. The pending claim 2 analysis applies to the inherited QFI, PCS, and reporting operations.
Claim 7: The method of claim 2, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 6 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 6 incorporates claim 1 and expressly includes a provider service identifier in the application layer information. The pending claim 2 analysis applies to the inherited QFI, PCS, and reporting operations.
Claim 8: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more packets comprise unicast data.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 7 incorporates claim 1 and expressly requires unicast data. Transmitting those packets satisfies the pending "and/or" alternative. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 9: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU in accordance with scheduling information received from the radio access network base station.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 1 supplies the inherited QFI, PCS, and reporting operations. Its supporting embodiment describes RAN-controlled scheduling through a gNB or eNode-B and QFI use in a network-scheduled mode (column 16, lines 25--42). Receiving and following that base station's scheduling information would have been an obvious way to use the assigned transmission resources. Pending claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 10: The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 1 selects a QFI using application information and QoS policy. Its embodiment selects QFI
rather than PPPP using those inputs (Figure 5; column 17, lines 29--47; column 18, lines 4-24). Determining that flow-based QoS is used would have been obvious to provide the configured flow treatment. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 11: The method of claim 2, wherein the QoS policy configuration information comprises bit rate information.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 11,510,108 B2. The supporting embodiment supplies a maximum PCS bit rate through policy provisioning and uses it to derive and adjust the QFI (column 16, lines 53--59; column 17, lines 55-60). Including that rate in the received Qos policy would have been an obvious implementation of reference claim 1’s policy-based QFI degermation, keeping PCS traffic within its configured limit. Pending claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 12: A wireless transmit/ receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor configured to: determine a quality of service (QoS) Flow Identifier (QFI) for one or more packets associated with a service based on application layer information and QoS policy configuration information; transmit the QFI to a radio access network base station via a Uu interface; and transmit and/or receive the one or more packets corresponding to the QFI, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU via a PCS interface.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 10 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 10 requires circuitry determining a QFI from application information and QoS policy, a transmitter sending corresponding data to another WTRU over PCS, and QFI reporting to the RAN. Configuring a processor for those determining and transmitting functions predictably implements the claimed circuitry and controls; Figure 1B discloses the WTRU processor. Using Uu for the required report is the implementation explained for pending claim 2. Transmission satisfies both “transmit and/or receive” and “transmitted to and/or received from.”
Claim 13: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 11 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 11 incorporates claim 10 and expressly includes geographic information in the policy; claim 10 receives that policy from a network. The processor and Uu analysis for pending claim 12 applies.
Claim 14: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the service is a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 10 of US 11,510,108 B2. The supporting V2X embodiment uses reference claim lO's QFI, PCS, and reporting operations for V2X packets (Figures 3, 5, and 6; columns 15 and 17-18). Configuring the WTRU for that described service would have been obvious to provide its selected QoS treatment. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 15: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the radio access network base station comprises a next generation Node B (gNB). Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 13 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 13 incorporates claim 10 and specifies a gNB for information corresponding to the QFI; claim 10 already reports the QFI to the RAN. Using that gNB for the report is the obvious implementation illustrated by Figure 6 in column 18. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 16: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the application layer information
comprises an application identifier.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 14 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 14 incorporates claim 10 and expressly includes an application identifier in the application layer information. The pending claim 12 analysis applies to the inherited processor, QFI, PCS, and reporting operations.
Claim 17: The WTRU of claim 2, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 15 of US 11,510,108 B2. Issued claim 15 incorporates claim 10 and expressly includes a provider service identifier. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 18: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the one or more packets comprise unicast data.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 16 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 16 incorporates claim 10 and expressly requires unicast data. Transmitting that data satisfies the pending transmitting alternatives. The processor and Uu analysis for pending claim 12 applies.
Claim 19: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU in accordance with scheduling information received from the radio access network base station.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 10 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 10 supplies the inherited operations. Its supporting embodiment describes RAN-controlled, gNB/eNode-B scheduling and QFI use in a network-scheduled mode (column 16, lines 25-42). Configuring the processor to receive and follow the base station's scheduling information would have been an obvious way to use the assigned PCS transmission resources. Pending claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 20: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 10 of US 11,510,108 B2. Reference claim 10 determines a QFI using application information and QoS policy. Its embodiment selects QFI using those inputs (Figure 5; column 17, lines 29-47; column 18, lines 4-24). Configuring the processor to determine that flow-based QoS is used would have been obvious to provide the configured flow treatment. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 21: The WfRU of claim 12, wherein the QoS policy configuration information comprises bit rate information.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 10 of US 11,510,108 B2. The supporting embodiment supplies a maximwn PCS bit rate through policy provisioning and uses it to derive and adjust the QFI (column 16, lines 53-59; column 17, lines 55-60). Configuring the processor to use that rate as part of the received QoS policy would have been an obvious implementation of reference claim lO's QFI determination, enforcing the PCS
traffic limit. Pending claim 12 analysis applies.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US 12238586 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims in the pending application are transparently found in US 12238586 B2 with obvious wording variations. See below for claim by claim mapping:
Claim 2: A method perlonned by a wireless transmit/ receive unit (WfRU), the method comprising: determining a quality of service (QoS) Flow Identifier (QFI) for one or more packets associated with a service based on application layer information and QoS policy configuration information; transmitting the QFI to a radio access network base station via a Uu interlace; and transmitting and/or receiving the one or more packets corresponding to the QFI, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WfRU via a PCS interlace.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7 obtains V2X application information, receives network policy mapping a service identifier to flow-based QoS parameters, applies the associated mechanism to device-to-device communications, and reports information indicative of those parameters to the RAN. Its supporting embodiment selects QFI from application information and policy and sends corresponding service packets over PCS (column 17, lines 48-54; column 18, lines 1-8; Figure 5). Figure 6 permits reporting the QFI to the RAN in combination with PCS communication (column 18, lines 41-50); Uu signaling is described in column 17, lines 9-15. Selecting that disclosed QFI implementation and reporting it through Uu would have been obvious to identify the selected flow and its associated treatment to the RAN. For non-standard QFIs, configuration associates QoS parameters with each QFI (column 16, lines 14-19). Reporting that QFI thus indicates the associated flow treatment without equating the identifier with the parameters. PCS transmission satisfies "and/or"; V2X falls within "service."
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 9 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 9 incorporates claim 7 and associates the V2X identifier with geography, but does not expressly put geographic information in policy. Column 16, lines 20-29, provisions geographic mappings through QoS configuration or policy. Including those mappings in the received policy would have been obvious to select geographically applicable treatment. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the service is a vehicle-to-everything
(V2X) service.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7 expressly identifies a V2X service and thus supplies the added limitation. The QFI, Uu, and PCS implementation analysis for pending claim 2 applies.
Claim 5: The method of claim 2, wherein the radio access network base station comprises a next generation Node B (gNB).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 11 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 11 incorporates claim 7 and receives policy through a gNB; the pending limitation instead concerns the QFI report's destination. Using that gNB for the required RAN report would have been obvious, as illustrated by Figure 6 in column 18. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 6: The method of claim 2, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7 uses application information and a V2X policy mapping. Column 17, lines 18-29, includes an application identifier in the information. Using that identifier to select the service's policy and QFI would have been an obvious implementation of the claimed mapping. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 7: The method of claim 2, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatntory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7 maps a V2X service identifier to flow parameters. The supporting PSID embodiment maps that identifier for QFI selection (column 15, lines 34-65; Figure 4A; column 17). Selecting it would have been obvious to obtain the provider's assigned flow trea1ment. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 8: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more packets comprise unicast data.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7 applies per-flow QoS to device-to-device V2X communication. Figure 7 in column 19 transmits service packets over unicast PCS under QFI treatment. Selecting that unicast mode would have been obvious for delivery to the target WTRU. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 9: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU in accordance with scheduling information received from the radio access network base station.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7's per-flow communication is implemented in a RAN-controlled, gNB/eNode-B-scheduled mode (column 16, lines 29-46). Receiving and following the controlling base station's scheduling information would have been an obvious way to transmit the service packets on its assigned PCS resources. This satisfies the transmitting alternative. Pending claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 10: The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 7 applies mapped per-flow QoS. Figure 5 in columns 17-18 first determines whether to use QFI from application information and policy. Making that determination would have been an obvious implementation ensuring that the selected trea1ment matches the service and policy. Claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 11: The method of claim 2, wherein the QoS policy configuration information comprises bit rate information.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 7 of US 12,238,586 B2. The supporting embodiment provides a maximum PCS bit rate through policy provisioning and uses the received rate to derive and adjust QFI (column 16, lines 57-64; column 17, lines 58-64). Including that rate in reference claim Ts received service policy would have been an obvious implementation of its configured per-flow trea1ment, keeping PCS traffic within the configured limit. Pending claim 2 analysis applies.
Claim 12: A wireless transmit/ receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor configured to: determine a quality of service (QoS) Flow Identifier (QFI) for one or more packets associated with a service based on application layer information and QoS policy configuration information; transmit the QFI to a radio access ne.twork base station via a Uu interface; and transmit and/or receive the one or more packets corresponding to the QFI, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU via a PCS interface.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 1 configures a processor and niemory to obtain V2X application information, receive policy mappings, apply per-flow QoS to device-to-device communications, and report mapped-parameter information to the RAN. Its supporting embodiment selects QFI from application information and policy, sends PCS service packets, and reports QFI to the RAN while using PCS (column 17, lines 48-54; column 18, lines 1-8 and 41-50; Figures 5 and 6). Configuring the processor for that disclosed implementation and reporting the QFI through Uu would have been obvious to identify the flow and its associated trea1ment, as explained for pending claim 2. QFI identifies the flow rather than an individual QoS parameter. PCS transmission satisfies the pending transmitting alternatives.
Claim 13: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 3 of US 12238586 B2. Reference claim 3 incorporates claim 1 and associates the V2X identifier with geography. Column 16, lines 20-29. provisions geographic mappings through QoS configuration or policy. Including those mappings in the received policy would have been obvious to select geographically applicable flow treatment. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 14: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the service is a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 1 expressly identifies a V2X service and thus supplies the added limitation. The processor, QFI, Uu, and PCS implementation analysis for pending claim 12 applies.
Claim 15: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the radio access network base station comprises a next generation Node B (gNB).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 5 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 5 incorporates claim 1 and receives policy through a gNB. Using that gNB for the required RAN report would have been obvious to identify the service's flow to the serving base station; Figure 6 in column 18 reports QFI to a gNB. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 16: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 1 uses application information and a service-policy mapping. Column 17, lines 18-29, includes an application identifier in that information. Using it to select the service's policy and QFI would have been an obvious implementation of the claimed mapping. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 17: The WTRU of claim 2, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least issued claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2, with its supporting PSID embodiment in columns 15 and 17 and Figure 4A, supports selecting the provider service identifier to obtain its configured flow treatment. Pending claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 18: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the one or more packets comprise unicast data.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 1 applies per-flow QoS to device-to-device V2X communication. Figure 7 in column 19 transmits packets over unicast PCS under QFI treatment. Configuring that mode would have been obvious for delivery to the target WTRU. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 19: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU in accordance with scheduling information received from the radio access network base station.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim l's per-flow communication is implemented in a RAN-controlled, gNB/eNode-B-scheduled mode (column 16, lines 29--46). Configuring the processor to receive and follow that base station's scheduling information would have been an obvious way to transmit service packets on its assigned PCS resources. This satisfies the transmitting alternative. Pending claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 20: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. Reference claim 1 applies mapped per-flow QoS. Figure 5 in columns 17-18 selects QFI using application information and policy. Configuring the processor to make that determination before applying treatment would have been an obvious implementation ensuring the packets use the policy-specified treatment. Claim 12 analysis applies.
Claim 21: The WTRU of claim 12, wherein the QoS policy configuration information comprises bit rate information.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of US 12,238,586 B2. The supporting embodiment provides a maximum PCS bit rate through policy provisioning and uses the received rate to derive and adjust QFI (column 16, lines 57-64; column 17, lines 58-64). Configuring the processor to use that rate within reference claim l's received policy would have been an obvious implementation of the configured per-flow
treatment, enforcing the PCS traffic limit. Pending claim 12 analysis applies.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 20190239112, hereinafter “Rao”) and further in view of Dao (US 20170359749, hereinafter “Dao”).
Regarding claim 2, Rao discloses,
A method performed by a wireless transmit/ receive unit (WTRU) (vehicle UE 204A corresponds to the WTRU ([0054] and Figure 2), the method comprising:
determining a quality of service (QoS) Flow Identifier (QFI) for one or more packets associated with a service based on application layer information and QoS policy configuration information (Rao describes service priority information “obtained from upper layers” and reliability determined through “a configured mapping” of service identifiers. The resulting QoS requirements may be represented by QFI ([0086]). Also, [0087] and Figure 3, describes service and QoS processing within the UE. These passages supply the application information and configured QoS requirements underlying the determination.)
transmitting the QFI to a radio access network base station via a Uu interface (Rao describes a UE sending an RRC sidelink: configuration request to the RAN containing “QoS indicators indicative of one or more supported services” [0202]. Paragraph [0071] identifies QFl as an available QoS indicator. Paragraph [0054], Figure 2, identifies the UE-to-gNB radio link 206 as Uu. Thus, selecting QFI as the reported indicator provides the claimed reporting over Uu);
transmitting and/or receiving the one or more packets corresponding to the QFI, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU via a PCS interface (Rao associates QFl-marked application packets with configured sidelink bearers ([0089]-[0094], Figure 3). The UEs “communicate directly with each other via a sidelink”, identified as PC5 link 208 ([0054], Figure 2).
Rao does not expressly describe selecting the packet's QFI by applying configured rules to application information, or expressly connect that selected QFI to the reported indicator.
Regarding the first limitation, Dao supplies the configured-rule selection mechanism. QoS authorization uses (“operator policies and application requirements input 502 from the service layer” [0073], Figure 5. Paragraphs [0087]-[0089] further identify application service information and QoS configuration inputs. The UE classifies and marks traffic “based on QoS rules” containing a QFl and packet-filter criteria ([0104] and Figure 7). It classifies packets against the applicable template and marks them “using the QFI in the corresponding QoS rule” [0107] and Figure 7. The UE selects an assigned QFl; the SMF allocates it and supplies the rules [0105]).
It would have been obvious to apply Dao's configured-rule selection mechanism to Rao's application/service information to determine the corresponding packet QFl, then include that selected QFI in Rao's RRC QoS report. This would classify service packets consistently with configured QoS requirements and identify the same flow to the base station for sidelink resource configuration. This modification supplies the claimed determination and connects its resulting QFI to the Uu report.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), further Rao discloses, wherein the service is a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service (see, figures 2-3 and [0086]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), further Rao discloses, wherein the radio access network base station comprises a next generation Node B (gNB) (As may be seen in FIG. 2, an Access Point 202 (which may, for example, be provided as a gNB, [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), further Rao discloses, wherein the one or more packets comprise unicast data (Sidelink communications involving one-to-one communications between a transmitting UE and a receiving UEs may be referred to as unicast, [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), further Rao discloses, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU in accordance with scheduling information received from the radio access network base station (The RAN node (gNB) determines the CCs and resources for sidelink transmission based on the traffic volume, reported CBR and sidelink channel CQI of CCs used all Mode 3 and Mode 4 V-UEs in its coverage area; Step 812: If PD is required, the RAN node (gNB) activates multiple CCs and provides the SL grants. The activation of CCs for PD may be performed semi-statically via RRC or dynamically via MAC CE for sidelink CCs, Fig. steps 810-814 and [128]-[130]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), in addition Dao discloses, wherein the QoS policy configuration information comprises bit rate information (Each QoS flow (GBR and Non-GBR) may be associated with QoS parameters, such as a 5G QoS Indicator (5QI), an Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), a Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR)—UL and DL, a Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)—UL and DL, and a Notification control [0096]).
Regarding claim 12, Rao discloses,
A wireless transmit/ receive unit (WTRU) (vehicle UE 204A corresponds to the WTRU ([0054] and Figure 2), a processor configured to:
determine a quality of service (QoS) Flow Identifier (QFI) for one or more packets associated with a service based on application layer information and QoS policy configuration information (Rao describes service priority information “obtained from upper layers” and reliability determined through “a configured mapping” of service identifiers. The resulting QoS requirements may be represented by QFI ([0086]). Also, [0087] and Figure 3, describes service and QoS processing within the UE. These passages supply the application information and configured QoS requirements underlying the determination.)
transmit the QFI to a radio access network base station via a Uu interface (Rao describes a UE sending an RRC sidelink: configuration request to the RAN containing “QoS indicators indicative of one or more supported services” [0202]. Paragraph [0071] identifies QFl as an available QoS indicator. Paragraph [0054], Figure 2, identifies the UE-to-gNB radio link 206 as Uu. Thus, selecting QFI as the reported indicator provides the claimed reporting over Uu);
transmit and/or receiving the one or more packets corresponding to the QFI, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU via a PCS interface (Rao associates QFl-marked application packets with configured sidelink bearers ([0089]-[0094], Figure 3). The UEs “communicate directly with each other via a sidelink”, identified as PC5 link 208 ([0054], Figure 2).
Rao does not expressly describe selecting the packet's QFI by applying configured rules to application information, or expressly connect that selected QFI to the reported indicator.
Regarding the first limitation, Dao supplies the configured-rule selection mechanism. QoS authorization uses (“operator policies and application requirements input 502 from the service layer” [0073], Figure 5. Paragraphs [0087]-[0089] further identify application service information and QoS configuration inputs. The UE classifies and marks traffic “based on QoS rules” containing a QFl and packet-filter criteria ([0104] and Figure 7). It classifies packets against the applicable template and marks them “using the QFI in the corresponding QoS rule” [0107] and Figure 7. The UE selects an assigned QFl; the SMF allocates it and supplies the rules [0105]).
It would have been obvious to apply Dao's configured-rule selection mechanism to Rao's application/service information to determine the corresponding packet QFl, then include that selected QFI in Rao's RRC QoS report. This would classify service packets consistently with configured QoS requirements and identify the same flow to the base station for sidelink resource configuration. This modification supplies the claimed determination and connects its resulting QFI to the Uu report.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), further Rao discloses, wherein the service is a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) service (see, figures 2-3 and [0086]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), further Rao discloses, wherein the radio access network base station comprises a next generation Node B (gNB) (As may be seen in FIG. 2, an Access Point 202 (which may, for example, be provided as a gNB, [0054]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), further Rao discloses, wherein the one or more packets comprise unicast data (Sidelink communications involving one-to-one communications between a transmitting UE and a receiving UEs may be referred to as unicast, [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), further Rao discloses, wherein the one or more packets are transmitted to and/or received from the another WTRU in accordance with scheduling information received from the radio access network base station (The RAN node (gNB) determines the CCs and resources for sidelink transmission based on the traffic volume, reported CBR and sidelink channel CQI of CCs used all Mode 3 and Mode 4 V-UEs in its coverage area; Step 812: If PD is required, the RAN node (gNB) activates multiple CCs and provides the SL grants. The activation of CCs for PD may be performed semi-statically via RRC or dynamically via MAC CE for sidelink CCs, Fig. steps 810-814 and [128]-[130]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), in addition Dao discloses, wherein the QoS policy configuration information comprises bit rate information (Each QoS flow (GBR and Non-GBR) may be associated with QoS parameters, such as a 5G QoS Indicator (5QI), an Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), a Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR)—UL and DL, a Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFBR)—UL and DL, and a Notification control [0096]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Dao and further in view of Tomici et al. (US 20160227467, hereinafter “Tomici”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomici discloses, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information (Disclosed herein are solutions for MNO control of WLAN QoS via Access Network Discovery and Selection Function (ANDSF). If MNOs deploy carrier WiFi, there may be a desire for access points (Aps) and subscriber handsets to support at least some 802.11e or WiFi Alliance (WFA) Wireless Multimedia (WMM) QoS features so that the MNOs can offer value-added services via different levels of QoS over WiFi, [0020]-[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information, as taught by Tomici for the purpose of providing techniques for WiFi quality of service via access network discovery and selection function extensions including a wireless local area network quality of service (Qos) parameter in order to create a ANDSF based QoS [0005].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomici discloses, wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information (Disclosed herein are solutions for MNO control of WLAN QoS via Access Network Discovery and Selection Function (ANDSF). If MNOs deploy carrier WiFi, there may be a desire for access points (Aps) and subscriber handsets to support at least some 802.11e or WiFi Alliance (WFA) Wireless Multimedia (WMM) QoS features so that the MNOs can offer value-added services via different levels of QoS over WiFi, [0020]-[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing wherein the QoS policy configuration information is received from a network and includes geographic information, as taught by Tomici for the purpose of providing techniques for WiFi quality of service via access network discovery and selection function extensions including a wireless local area network quality of service (Qos) parameter in order to create a ANDSF based QoS [0005].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Dao and further in view of Toth et al. (US 20150078301, hereinafter “Toth”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Toth disclose, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier (the second WCD may generate a wireless packet that includes the application ID and the group ID (e.g., in a packet header) and the application data. In an embodiment, this step may be performed in an application layer of the second WCD, such as by the voice application, [0086]-[0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier, as taught by Toth for the purpose of facilitating device-to-device, D2D, communication among WCDs, such as for WCDs that provide proximity-based services, ProSe, in an area that is within or outside of network coverage [0006].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Toth disclose, wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier (the second WCD may generate a wireless packet that includes the application ID and the group ID (e.g., in a packet header) and the application data. In an embodiment, this step may be performed in an application layer of the second WCD, such as by the voice application, [0086]-[0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing wherein the application layer information comprises an application identifier, as taught by Toth for the purpose of facilitating device-to-device, D2D, communication among WCDs, such as for WCDs that provide proximity-based services, ProSe, in an area that is within or outside of network coverage [0006].
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Dao and further in view of Cavalcanti et al. (US 20150159935, hereinafter “Caval”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Caval discloses, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier (a V2X header to V2X safety messages having a V2X UE temporary identification (V2X UETempID) and a provider service identifier (PSID), the PSID identifies services supported at a V2X application layer [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier, as taught by Caval for the purpose of automating interactions between vehicles in order to achieve, for example, greater levels of communication, safety, security and efficiency [0002].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Caval discloses, wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier (a V2X header to V2X safety messages having a V2X UE temporary identification (V2X UETempID) and a provider service identifier (PSID), the PSID identifies services supported at a V2X application layer [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing wherein the application layer information comprises a provider service identifier, as taught by Caval for the purpose of automating interactions between vehicles in order to achieve, for example, greater levels of communication, safety, security and efficiency [0002].
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Dao and further in view of Pelletier et al. (US 20190150176, hereinafter “Pelletier”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information.
In the same field of endeavor, Pelletier discloses, determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information (an application and/or service may use LTE and/or WiFi (e.g., simultaneously) on a device to carry user data to the network. While this aggregation of data services can be exploited at the application level using for example multi-flow TCP, the application layer might not be aware of the physical layer and/or radio layer constraints. The gain of using multi-flow TCP may be sensitive to the first interface selected, especially for short packets. This aggregation may be enabled at the 3GPP protocol layer, [0187]-[0189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information, as taught by Pelletier for the purpose of enabling improved broadband performance (IBB), industrial control and communications (ICC), vehicular applications (V2X) and/or massive machine-type communications (mMTC) [0068].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rao and Dao teaches everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), however the combination of Rao and Dao does not disclose, determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information.
In the same field of endeavor, Pelletier discloses, determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information (an application and/or service may use LTE and/or WiFi (e.g., simultaneously) on a device to carry user data to the network. While this aggregation of data services can be exploited at the application level using for example multi-flow TCP, the application layer might not be aware of the physical layer and/or radio layer constraints. The gain of using multi-flow TCP may be sensitive to the first interface selected, especially for short packets. This aggregation may be enabled at the 3GPP protocol layer, [0187]-[0189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rao and Dao by specifically providing determining that a per-flow QoS mechanism is used for the service based on the application layer information and the QoS policy configuration information, as taught by Pelletier for the purpose of enabling improved broadband performance (IBB), industrial control and communications (ICC), vehicular applications (V2X) and/or massive machine-type communications (mMTC) [0068].
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20150009826: Methods, apparatuses and systems for performing hierarchical traffic differentiation and/or employing hierarchical traffic differentiation are provided. These methods, apparatuses and systems may be implemented to, for example, handle congestion and/or to manage user quality of experience (QoE).
US 20150271732: A method and apparatus are disclosed for enabling very high throughput (VHT) communications. A wireless transmit and receive unit (WTRU) may receive, from an access point (AP), a management frame comprising VHT capabilities information. The VHT capabilities information may comprise an indication of support for reception via non-contiguous channels.
US 20120275323: Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are disclosed to determine quality of service information. A device, such as a user equipment (UE), may receive a policy. The policy may indicate a level of inspection relating to application identification for a session. The device may receive information associated with the session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights