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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 06/12/2023 havingclaims 1-18 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 06/12/2023 is a has PRO 371 of PCT/EP2021/078900 10/19/2021FOREIGN APPLICATIONSEP 20 213 792.3 12/14/2020 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 06/12/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 06/12/2023 is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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 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.
2. 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)(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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20240397381 A1 LY et al. (Hereinafter “LY ").
As per claim 1, LY teaches a communication system, comprising:(Currently Amended): A communication system, comprising: a mobile core; a User Equipment (UE) (para 0042], fig. 2,3,UE ); and a multi-connectivity provider having a multi-connectivity termination point ( ) (para 0042], fig. 2,3, network is having multi-connectivity provider having a multi-connectivity termination point ); and a first policy entity configured to provide an over-the-top Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) Overlay, wherein the ATSSS Overlay is independent from a 3GPP-defined ATSSS or mobile core such that the ATSSS Overlay is configured to provide multi-connectivity without an ATSSS user plane function(para 0042], fig. 2,3, policy is driver to providing over-the-top Access Traffic Steering, there are two network having Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) Overlay having intendent a 3GPP-defined ATSSS is independent from a 3GPP-defined ATSSS and providing multi connectivity ATSSS); and wherein the first policy entity is configured to communicate ATSSS Overlay specific rules with to the UE and/or to the multi-connectivity termination point (para 0042], fig. 2,3, wherein the first policy entity is configured to communicate to the multi-connectivity termination point).
As per claim 4,LY teaches the communication system of claim 1, wherein the ATSSS Overlay specific rules comprise one or more of the following parameters: an indication of whether the ATSSS Overlay is enabled or disabled; information regarding an ATSSS Overlay Core Server comprising IP address, port number, and/or Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN); ATSSS Overlay Traffic management rules for steering, switching and splitting; and/or ATSSS Overlay coverage information comprising application information, destination address information, locality information, network protocol information, and/or environment information (para 0042], ATSSS Overlay Traffic management rules for steering, switching and splitting)
As per claim 5,LY teaches the communication system of claim 1, wherein the communication system further comprises: a policy entity for ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP (para 0042], WWA is using 3GPP for a policy entity).; wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay co-exists in the communication system with the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP (para 0042], Overlay co-exists in the communication system with the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP ).
As per claim 6, LY teaches the communication system of claim 5, wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay is further configured to communicate ATSSS Overlay specific rules towards the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP (para 0013- 0014], configured to communicate ATSSS Overlay specific rules towards the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP).
As per claim 7,LY teaches the communication system of claim 5, wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP is configured to communicate ATSSS rules towards the ATSSS Overlay policy entity (para 0042, ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP is configured to communicate ATSSS rules towards the ATSSS Overlay policy entity).
As per claim 8,LY teaches the communication system of claim 5, wherein the mobile core is configured to inform the UE of the availability of the ATSSS Overlay (fig. 2, mobile core is configured to inform the UE of the availability of the ATSSS Overlay).
As per claim 9,LY teaches the communication system of claim 1, wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay is an entitlement server (fig. 2, ATSSS Overlay is an entitlement server is associated with ATSSS).
As per claim 10,LY teaches a method providing, by a first policy entity of a communication system, an over-the-top Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) Overlay, wherein the ATSSS Overlay provides multi-connectivity without an ATSSS user plane function, wherein the ATSSS Overlay is independent from a 3GPP-defined ATSSS or mobile core, and wherein the communication system further comprises a mobile core, a User Equipment (UE), and a multi- connectivity provider having a multi-connectivity termination point(para 0042], fig. 2,3, the system provides ATSSS policy Overlay provides multi-connectivity without an ATSSS user plane function and is driver to providing over-the-top Access Traffic Steering, there are two network having Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) Overlay having intendent a 3GPP-defined ATSSS is independent from a 3GPP-defined ATSSS and providing multi connectivity ATSSS); and communicating, from-by the first policy entity, ATSSS Overlay specific rules to the UE and/or to the multi-connectivity termination point(para 0042], fig. 2,3, wherein the first policy entity is configured to communicate to the multi-connectivity termination point).
As per claim 13, LY teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the ATSSS Overlay specific rules comprise one or more of the following parameters: an indication of whether the ATSSS Overlay is enabled or disabled; information regarding an ATSSS Overlay Core Server comprising IP address, port number, and/or Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN); ATSSS Overlay Traffic management rules for switching, switching and splitting; or ATSSS Overlay coverage information comprising application information, destination address information, locality information, network protocol information, and/or environment information (para 0042], ATSSS Overlay Traffic management rules for steering, switching and splitting)
As per claim 13, LY teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the communication system further comprises a policy entity for ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP, and wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay co-exists in the communication system with the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP(para 0013- 0014], configured to communicate ATSSS Overlay specific rules towards the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP).
As per claim 15 , LY teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay communicates ATSSS Overlay specific rules towards the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP (para 0013- 0014], configured to communicate ATSSS Overlay specific rules towards the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP)..
As per claim 16, LY teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP communicates ATSSS rules towards the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay (para 0042, ATSSS as defined by the 3GPP is configured to communicate ATSSS rules towards the ATSSS Overlay policy entity).
As per claim 17, LY teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the mobile core informs the UE of the availability of the ATSSS Overlay (fig. 2, mobile core is configured to inform the UE of the availability of the ATSSS Overlay).
As per claim 18, LY teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the policy entity for the ATSSS Overlay is an entitlement server (fig. 2, ATSSS Overlay is an entitlement server is associated with ATSSS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 2-3, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LY further view of US PG Pub US 20150117340 A1 to Kawakami et al (hereinafter Kawakami).
As per claim 2, LY teaches the communication system of claim 1, Kawakami teaches wherein the policy entity is configured to communicate with the UE using an out-of-band communication (para 0202], UE is using an out-of-band communication). 20150117340
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of LY by wherein the policy entity is configured to communicate with the UE using an out-of-band communication as suggested by Kawakami, this modification would benefit LY for enabling a off, faster incident response, enhanced continuity in a mobile communication network.
As per claim 3, LY teaches the communication system of claim 1, Kawakami teaches wherein the policy entity is configured to communicate with the multi-connectivity termination point using an out-of-band communication ((para 0202], UE is using multi-connectivity termination point using an out-of-band communication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 11, LY teaches the method of claim 10, Kawakami teaches wherein the policy entity communicates with the UE using an out-of-band communication(para 0202], UE is using an out-of-band communication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
As per claim 12, LY teaches the method of claim 10, Kawakami teaches wherein the policy entity communicates with the multi-connectivity termination point using an out-of-band communication(para 0202], UE is using multi-connectivity termination point using an out-of-band communication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 1.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20210105122 A1; US Patent Publication US 20210105338 A1, US Patent Publication US 20210105451 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented inthis Office action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights