DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final office action in response to the Amendments filed on October 13, 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications on 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argued in substance that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea and that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagree and would like to point out that although the claims recite WTRU, wireless transmit/receive the claim still recites an abstract idea and the components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) … receiving configuration information indicating at least one WTRU route selection policy rule and at least one provisioning domain descriptor, …selecting a PvD ID from the plurality of PvD IDs based on the at least one provisioning domain descriptor; and transmitting a session establishment request message including information indicating the selected PvD ID. The claim as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of terms such memory and processor, transmitter, and circuitry. That is, other than reciting basic computing components nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a usage of organizing human activity. The concept of receiving configuration information indicating at least one policy rule …selecting a PvD ID from the plurality of PvD IDs based on the at least one provisioning domain descriptor; and transmitting request message is well known and understand human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation carried out of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic unit components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The components in each step are recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. These claims are all directed towards an abstract idea (organizing human activity), insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity (managing data and models). The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERMON ASRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4257. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/HERMON ASRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449