CTNF 19/100,686 CTNF 80123 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15 and 17 is/are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venkataraman et al. (hereinafter Venkataraman) USPGPUB 2022/0141708 (see applicants IDS filed 2/03/2025). In considering claim 1, Venkataraman discloses A user equipment (UE) (106) for wireless communication (Fig. 1B) , comprising: at least one memory (406), (Fig. 4) ; and at least one processor (402) coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 4) and configured to cause the UE to: receive a downlink packet from an end-point address, the downlink packet marked with a reflective Quality of Service indication and packet set information (Fig. 13, step 1302, [0192] ; determine that reflective Quality of Service must be applied for packets sent in an uplink direction towards the end-point address and that are part of a particular packet set (flow associated with the received downlink packet), (Fig. 13., step 1304, [0193], [0194]) ; derive uplink Quality of Service rules for packet data units of the particular packet set ([0193] ); determine which packets sent in the uplink direction towards the end-point address are part of the particular packet set (flow associated with the received downlink packet), ([0183], [0194]) ; and apply the uplink Quality of Service rules for packets sent in the uplink direction towards the end-point address that are part of the particular packet set, ([0181], [0182], [0193]) . In considering claim 2, Venkataraman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to inspect application traffic in the uplink direction and determines packets that are part of a packet set (flow), ([0181], [0182], [0193]) . In considering claim 4, Venkataraman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine to enable inspection of packets belonging to the particular packet set for application traffic sent in the uplink direction, wherein the determination to enable inspection of packets is based on the packet set information and the reflective Quality of Service indication marking within the downlink packet, ([0181], [0182], [0193]) . In considering claim 5, Venkataraman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the uplink Quality of Service rules are derived using a packet filter corresponding to the downlink packet data unit ([0156) . In considering claim 6, Venkataraman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the derived uplink Quality of service rules include packet-set information received within the downlink packet ([0181], [0182], [0193], [0194]) . In considering claim 7, Venkataraman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the packet set information includes importance (QoS) of a packet set (flow) ([0181]) . In considering claims 8, 9, and 11- 14, while the statutory category of invention is different, the claims recite substantially the same limitations as those in claims 1, 2, and 3-7. Thus, claims 8, 9 and 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as those indicated in the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 3-7. In considering claim 15, Venkataraman discloses A network entity (i.e. UPF 608) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory (Fig. 2, i.e. 260) ; and at least one processor (Fig. 2, i.e. 204) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network entity to: receive a packet from a first network function (i.e. SMF 606, [0149], [0154]) , and over a user plane, wherein the received packet includes header information that includes a reflective Quality of Service indicator and packet set information indicating a particular packet set (flow), ([0181) ; determine that a user equipment (UE) (106) should use reflective Quality of Service only for packets of the particular packet set ([0181]) ; and transmit an Access Stratum message to the UE, wherein the Access Stratum message to the UE, wherein the Access Stratum message includes the packet set information and the reflective Quality of Service indicator ([0192], also see [0151]-[0153] detailing a UE comprising an architecture that allows for communication using Access Stratum messages) . In considering claim 17, Venkataraman discloses A first network function (See Fig. 6, i.e. SMF 606) , for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory (Fig. 2, i.e. 260) ; and at least one processor (Fig. 2, i.e. 204) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network function to: determine, based on packet-set requirements for an application received from an application function (See Fig. 6, i.e. 624, [0148]) , whether reflective Quality of Service should apply for a packet-set carrying traffic to or from the application, ([0154], [0181]) ; construct a policy rule ([0154], [0181]) ; send the policy rule to a second network function (See Fig. 6, i.e. UPF 608, ([0154], [0181]) ); and provide instructions to enable reflective Quality of Service for the packet-set, ([0154], [0181]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman in view of Jheng et al. (hereinafter Jheng) US PGPUB 2018/0234876 (see applicants IDS filed 2/03/2025) . In considering claims 3 and 10, Venkataraman discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Venkataraman further discloses determining Quality of Service for a particular flow (packet set), ([0181]) . Nevertheless, Venkataraman fails to expressly disclose requesting radio resources in the uplink direction according to the Quality of Service rules derived for the particular packet set. Nevertheless, requesting resources according to Quality of Service rules was not only well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it is inherent in the definition of providing Quality of Service. This is evident in the teachings of Jheng where Jheng defines Quality of service as referring to resource reservation control mechanisms, ([0004]) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Venkataraman to expressly disclose requesting radio resources in the uplink direction according to the Quality of Service rules derived for the particular packet set as this would be necessary to satisfy the needed reflective Quality of Service for the identified flow in the uplink direction. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-3940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734 . 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. /HASSAN A PHILLIPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 2 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 3 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 4 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 5 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 6 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 7 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 19/100,686 Page 8 Art Unit: 2467
Prosecution Insights