DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pp. 5-6 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Ishii fails to recite “determining, based on the first resource and the application of the policy to impede access to the first resource”. In detail, Applicant states “In Ishii, the barring parameters are simply used to determine whether an access attempt by the terminal may be made via a first network or via a second network” and claims Examiner conflating ‘network’ with ‘resource’. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner attempt to describe Ishii to receiving policy and then switching [paths] to a second network where the first network will no longer be allowed, with ‘first resource’ mapped to the “first network node” being barred. This is because the language in each of independent claim fails to specify what ‘resource’ may be, rendering Examiner to use broadest reasonable interpretation and equating ‘resource’ to a particular (first or second) network node (e.g. fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 123, MME 98 or AMF 100).
Examiner has conversed with Applicant via phone and email in attempt to resolve the above difference in understanding. During the exchanges, proposed amendment was attempt, but it results to another interpretation: “first resource = a destination/target such as a server supplying data”, which can be overcome by a secondary prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishii (US 2019/0261261).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii describes a method comprising:
receiving a policy for filtration of resources (fig. 2 & para. 46-49, terminal 26 receives access control information 64 of network resources (policy for filtration of resources, comprising barring parameters, fig. 2-1. See also fig. 4-5 step 4-5-2),
applying the policy to a first path comprising a first network and a second path comprising a second network (para. 49, terminal 26-5 storing such received access control in formation/configuration in the access control procedure for access determination (applying). In fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 110 + 121-122, terminal is connected to 2 networks. If procedure results in access attempt to first network being barred, terminal initiates inter-system mode change procedure to register to the other network, fig. 4-3. See also fig. 4-5 steps 4-5-3 & 4-5-4);
receiving, from a user device and based on the first path, a first request for a first resource, and determining, based on the first resource and the application of the policy, to impede access to the first resource (fig. 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4 in view of fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 110 + 121-122, upon receiving access attempt (first request to first resource) to the first network [node] (first resource) as currently registered network (first path), if procedure results in first network being barred (impeded access), terminal will initiate inter-system mode change procedure to register & access the other network (second path to second resource). See also fig. 4-5 steps 4-5-3 & 4-5-4).
Regarding claim 9, Ishii describes a method comprising:
receiving a policy for filtration of resources (fig. 2 & para. 46-49, terminal 26 receives access control information 64 of network resources (policy for filtration of resources, comprising barring parameters, fig. 2-1. See also fig. 4-5 step 4-5-2),
applying the policy to a first path comprising a first network and a second path comprising a second network (para. 49, terminal 26-5 storing such received access control in formation/configuration in the access control procedure for access determination (applying). In fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 110 + 121-122, terminal is connected to 2 networks. If procedure results in access attempt to first network being barred, terminal initiates inter-system mode change procedure to register to the other network, fig. 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4. See also fig. 4-5 steps 4-5-3 & 4-5-4);
sending, based on the first path, a first request for a first resource; and determining, based on the first resource and the application of the policy, to impede access to the first resource (fig. 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4 in view of fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 110 + 121-122, upon receiving [sent] access attempt (first request to first resource) to the first network (first resource) as currently registered network (first path), if procedure results in first network being barred (impeded access), terminal will initiate inter-system mode change procedure to register & access the other network (second path to second resource). See also fig. 4-5 steps 4-5-3 & 4-5-4).
Regarding claim 15, Ishii describes a method comprising:
receiving a first policy for filtration of resources; and receiving a second policy for the filtration of resources (fig. 4-5 step 4-5-2 & para. 126 or 128, receiving the first and second access control information for the respective first & second network (first & second policies for filtration of resources)),
applying the first policy to a first path comprising a first network and applying the second policy to a second path comprising a second network (para. 49, terminal 26-5 storing such received access control in formation/configuration in the access control procedure for access determination (applying). In fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 110 + 121-122, terminal is connected to 2 networks. If procedure results in access attempt to first network being barred, terminal initiates inter-system mode change procedure to register to the other network, fig. 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4. See also fig. 4-5 steps 4-5-3 & 4-5-4);
receiving, based on the first path and the second path, a first request for a first resource, and determining, based on the first resource and the application of the first policy and the application of the second policy, to impede access to the first resource (Nayak, fig. 2 step 208 & para. 39, UE receives the determined barring factor for the service (first resource) corresponding to the cell a barring duration, or whether the particular cell is barred or not, para. 40. See also para. 31) (fig. 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4 in view of fig. 1-5 & 2-5 & para. 110 + 121-122, upon receiving access attempt (first request to first resource) to the first network (first resource) as currently registered network (first path), if procedure’s first access control information (application of the first policy) indicates first network (first resource) being barred, terminal will initiate inter-system mode change procedure to register & access the other network (second path to second resource). See also fig. 4-5 steps 4-5-3 & 4-5-4).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Ishii describe:
wherein the policy is applied to a connection comprising a first subflow over the first path and a second subflow over the second path (fig. 4-5 in view of para. 58, the first & second access control information (policy) is applied to access/connection attempt for voice/video data over first network (first subflow over first path) and attempt for voice/video data over second network (second subflow over second path).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 19, Ishii describes:
wherein the first network comprises a first node and the second network comprises a second node, and the first path comprises the second node (fig. 1-5 or 2-5, first network as EPC 21-5 comprising MME 98 (first node) and second network as 5GCN 21-5-5GCN comprising AMF 100 + eNB-5G (second node), where first path as AMF + eNB-5G (second node)).
Regarding claims 12, Ishii describes:
wherein the first path comprises the second node and the second path comprises the second node (fig. 1-5 or 2-5, eNB-5G (second node) is used by the terminal/UE to communicate with EPC network 21-5-EPC (first path) and 5GN (second path)).
Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2007/0286125).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Ishii describes switching first & second subflows (Nayak, para. 33), but fails to further explicitly describe:
assembling the first request based on a data sequence mapping and a first subflow sequence number of the first subflow and a second subflow sequence number of the second subflow.
Lee also describes conventional handover procedures (fig. 3 & para. 14), further describing:
assembling the first request based on a data sequence mapping and a first subflow sequence number of the first subflow and a second subflow sequence number of the second subflow (fig. 2A & fig. 3 and para. 8-14, during handover request, downlink or uplink are disassembled and sent with sequence numbers for in-sequence assembly at either mobile MS or BTS (base station) end).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed language to specify that the switching request of Ishii to invoke assembling first & second subflows using sequence number as in Lee.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables mobile station to track sequence numbers among the unsent data packets (Lee, para. 31).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Ishii describes switching first & second subflows (Nayak, para. 33), but fails to further explicitly describe:
disassembling the first resource based on a data sequence mapping and a first subflow sequence number of the first subflow and a second subflow sequence number of the second subflow.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed language to specify that the switching request of Ishii to invoke disassembling first & second subflows using sequence number as in Lee.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables mobile station to track sequence numbers among the unsent data packets (Lee, para. 31).
Claims 6-8, 11, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sood (US 2023/0217230).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Ishii fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the first node comprises one or more of a security edge protection proxy, a user plane function, or an interworking function.
Sood also describes UE requesting connection and restricted handover (title), further describing:
the first node comprises one or more of a user plane function (UPF) (fig. 2 & para. 30, first node may be access node (base station) 251 + GW 220 which may be a UPF, para. 43).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first node in Ishii to comprise a UPF as in Sood.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that such gateway functionality existence enables usage with any network architecture and/or protocol (Sood, para. 43).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Ishii combined fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the first network comprises a user plane function and the first request traverses the user plane function.
Sood also describes UE requesting connection and restricted handover (title), further describing:
wherein the first network comprises a user plane function and the first request traverses the user plane function (fig. 5 in view of fig. 2 & para. 50, wireless device entering first PLMN (network) request connection (first request) through path comprising access node 251 (base station) & GW 220 which is a UPF, para. 43).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first node where request traverses through in Ishii to comprise a UPF as in Sood.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that such gateway functionality existence enables usage with any network architecture and/or protocol (Sood, para. 43).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Ishii fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein the second network comprises an interworking function and the first request traverses the interworking function.
Sood also describes UE requesting connection and restricted handover (title), further describing:
wherein the second network comprises an interworking function and the first request traverses the interworking function (fig. 5 in view of fig. 2 & para. 50, wireless device entering first PLMN (network) request connection (first request) through path comprising access node 251 (base station) & GW 220 (interworking function)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first node where request traverses through in Ishii to comprising an interworking function as in Sood.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that such gateway functionality existence enables usage with any network architecture and/or protocol (Sood, para. 43).
Regarding claim 11, Ishii combined fail to further explicitly describe:
wherein the first node comprises one or more of a security edge protection proxy, a user plane function, or an interworking function.
Sood also describes UE requesting connection and restricted handover (title), further describing:
wherein the first node comprises one or more of a security edge protection proxy, a user plane function, or an interworking function (fig. 5 in view of fig. 2 & para. 50, wireless device entering first PLMN (network) request connection (first request) through path comprising access node 251 (base station) & GW 220 (interworking function)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first node where request traverses through in Ishii combined to comprising an interworking function as in Sood.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that such gateway functionality existence enables usage with any network architecture and/or protocol (Sood, para. 43).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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, Ian Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights