DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 21, and 27 are pending.
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims foreign priority to a Japanese application filed on 27 Apr 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 5 Mar, 2024, 22 Mar 2022 and 5 Dec 2022, and 24 Sept. 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments provided with the most recent Rule 111 Reply reintroduce a claim concept that was in the original claimed invention – RAT frequency selection priority (RFSP). Claims, dated 18 Jan 2022 (claim 1 reciting in part “policy including an Index to RAT/Frequency Selection Priority (RFSP Index)”). This claim concept was later integrated into the AF’s request, as it is found in the current claimed invention. Claims, dated 23 Jan 2024 (claim 1 reciting in part “the request comprising information related to Radio Access Technology (RAT) frequency selection priority”).
Release 16 teaches an RFSP Index, but does not explicitly describe it as being in a request from an AF. Id. at 86 (section 5.3.4.3). However, Ericsson teaches an AF requesting a change in RFSP, thus curing the deficiency. Ericsson, pg. 2 (under “a)”). Release 16 also teaches a PCF providing background data transfer (BDT) policy negotiation (Release 16, pgs. 371-372, table 7.2.4-1), but does not teach an AF request that identifies a cell for a specific service, such as BDT. However, Azorero teaches an AF request that includes a list of cell identifiers for background data transfer, thus curing the deficiency. Non-final Act., mailed 8 May 2025, at pp. 5-6. The claimed invention remains unpatentable in view of the previously cited art as provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 16), 3GPP TS 23.501, v16.4.0 (2020-03) (hereinafter referred to as “Release 16”) in view of NPL 2 on the IDS, dated 5 Mar 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Ericsson”) and further in view of Azorero (US 20220279431).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Release 16 teaches a method of a Policy Control Function (PCF) apparatus, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, configured to:
receiving, from an Application Function (AF) or a Network Exposure Function (NEF), a request for influencing policy of a User Equipment (Release 16, pg. 115, section 5.6.7.1, 6th paragraph – AF requests are sent to PCF via the NEF; Release 16, pg. 356, section 6.3.7.2, 1st and 3rd paragraph – PCF receives AF requests via NEF) . . . and
making a policy decision based on the request (Release 16, pgs. 332-333, section 6.2.4 – PCF executes policy decisions; Release 16, pg. 356, section 6.3.7.2, 3rd paragraph – PCF takes AF requests into account when making policy decisions; Release 16, pg. 86 – PCF provides authorized RFSP index, which affects a UE’s access and mobility [e.g. roaming, handover, individual radio bearers, etc.]).
Release 16 does not explicitly teach an AF’s request “comprises first information identifying at least one cell suitable for a specific service and second information identifying Radio Access Technology (RAT) frequency selection priority.” Specifically, regarding the claimed “second information,” Release 16 teaches an RFSP Index, but it is not explicitly tied to a AF request. Release 16, pg. 86, section 5.3.4.3, 2nd and 6th paragraphs (RFSP Index is mapped to a locally defined configuration in order to apply RRM strategies and is UE-specific and applies to all radio bearers [in 6th paragraph, updated RFSP Index value changes UE context in radio access network]); Release 16, pg. 86, section 5.3.4.3, 7th paragraph (updated RFSP that considers allowed NSSAIs enables UE idle mode mobility control); Release 16, pg. 86, section 5.3.4.3, 3rd paragraph (subscribed RFSP index reported to PCF). However, Ericsson teaches an AF configured “to request change of RFSP.” Ericsson, pg. 2, section 2.1 (section a). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the RFSP Index and AM policies, as taught by Ericsson, using the AF request, taught by Release 16, in order to dynamically change the RFSP index (Ericsson, pg. 1, section 1), including in instances where a user pays a fee to have access to a full range of coverage. Ericsson, pg. 1, section 2.1 (under (1)).
Azorero teaches an AF and PCF negotiating background data transfer (BDT) policies for one or more UEs. 1 Azorero, ¶59. In one embodiment of this negotiation, the AF, via an NEF, sends a request to a PCF. Id. at figure 5 (steps 501 and 502). The request includes network area information, which may take the form of a list of RAN nodes or cell identifiers. Id. at ¶¶103, 105. The PCF then determines one or more BDT policies based on the information received from the AF/NEF. Id. at ¶109. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to includes the list of RAN nodes or cell identifiers, taught by Azorero, within the AF request, taught by the combination of Release 16 and Ericsson, in order to enable the PCF to consider the trajectory of the UE when deriving QoS and charging demands. Id. at ¶¶14, 60.
Claim 27 is a method claim, like claim 21, except from the perspective of the AF instead of the PCF. Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds provided for claim 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
1 Release 16 also discussed BDT. Release 16, pg. 372, table 7.2.4-1, row 5 (PCF services includes providing “background data transfer policy negotiation”).