DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an application amendments on Jan 02, 2026. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 have been presented. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments the prior 112 rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection, applicant arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the amended limitations the claim mapping below shows that the prior art does recite in different paragraphs what can be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as the new limitation
"receiving a request to transmit a data packet, wherein the request to transmit the data packet is an internal request received from a first application running on the UE" (CN475 “UE performs session created by the first application program” which is interpreted that the UE receives a request from the APP on the UE to perform session [send/receive data packets] created by the APP).
and "selecting a first set of data connection parameters contained in a route selection descriptor of the first policy rule, in response to determining that the first application matches the digital certificate information". (CN979, p1 “the user equipment route option policy (UE Route Selection Policy; URSP) evaluation needs to be associated with the application of the path descriptor (Traffic Descriptor, TD) parameter and the TD parameter in the URSP rule for matching, then according to the matching success of the URSP rule in the routing descriptor (Route Descriptor (RSD) creates a corresponding routing path for the application.” It continues to recite “The URSP rule UE can determine whether the detected application program can be associated with the established PDU session, whether it can be routed to non-non-3GPP path outside the PDU session, or whether it can establish a new PDU session. One important input data in the URSP rule is the parameter in the Traffic Descriptor (TD)”, which means there is plurality of parameters not just the TD).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Unisoc Communication Technology Co., Ltd. CN 111314475 hereinafter “CN475” Published Jun. 19, 2020 (according to applicant’s IDS filed on 07/05/2023) in view of Spreadtrum communication Tianjin Co Ltd CN 112073979 hereinafter “CN979” Published 12/11/2020 (according to applicant’s IDS filed on 07/05/2023).
Regarding claim 1, CN475 teaches: A method of a user equipment (“UE”) (CN475, see first page under Summary of Invention, “… this application … method”; “… when a user equipment (UE) …”),
the method comprising: receiving a request to transmit a data packet, (CN475, see bottom page 2, 5 lines before the last line till the end of the page, “… referring to FIG. 2 … session is a PDU …” where PDU session creation is implicitly triggered by an application request);
wherein the request to transmit the data packet is an internal request received from a first application running on the UE; (CN475 p.2 “UE performs session created by the first application program … the UE obtains the first application program, the first application program comprises a signature certificate of the first application program.”).
determining a first application identity used by a first application (CN475, see page 2, 10 lines before the last line. “an application descriptor (for example, an APP ID) of the APP is obtained based on evaluation …”);
finding a first policy rule in the UE that matches the first application identity, the first policy rule containing digital certificate information (CN475, see bottom page 2, 5 lines, “UE executes the network connection, the UE obtains the signature certificate of the first application …”; see also page 3, lines 4-15, “UE matches the certificate of the first application … with the application descriptor … the application descriptor 1as a user equipment route section policy (URSP) rule to perform”);
determining whether the first application matches the digital certificate information, in response to determining that the first application matches the digital certificate information (CN475, see page 2, line 10, “The UE obtains a first application, where first application includes a signature certificate of the first application” where in previous limitations disclosed, “UE matches the certificate of the first application …” ); and
transmitting the data packet via a data connection using the first set of data connection parameters (CN475, see pages 2 lines 7-17, 29 lines 4-25, “the UE uses Application descriptors 1 as a muser equipment route selection … and then … route selection protocol data unit (PDU) session creation or multiplexing”).
CN475 does not explicitly disclose: selecting a first set of data connection parameters contained in a route selection descriptor of the first policy rule,
However CN979 discloses: selecting a first set of data connection parameters contained in a route selection descriptor of the first policy rule, (CN979, first see page p1 “the user equipment route option policy (UE Route Selection Policy; URSP) evaluation needs to be associated with the application of the path descriptor (Traffic Descriptor, TD) parameter and the TD parameter in the URSP rule for matching, then according to the matching success of the URSP rule in the routing descriptor (Route Descriptor (RSD) creates a corresponding routing path for the application.” It continues to recite “The URSP rule UE can determine whether the detected application program can be associated with the established PDU session, whether it can be routed to non-non-3GPP path outside the PDU session, or whether it can establish a new PDU session. One important input data in the URSP rule is the parameter in the Traffic Descriptor (TD)” which means there is plurality of parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of CN475 with the teaching of CN979 because the use of CN979’s idea (CN979, page 1 Technical Field) could provide CN475 (CN475, page 1 Technical Field]) the ability to have interactive communications between the user device and to route, in order to further enhance the routing list information, “by the URSP rule list … in the URSP rule is a parameter (referred to as a TD parameter) in the TD” (CN979, (page 6) lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein determining the first application identity comprises determining an identity of the application that sent the request (CN475, see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments lines 26-27, “an application descriptor option is defined in the traffic descriptor, and the terminal matches the uplink data route through the application identifier according to the URSP rule issued by the network”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the first policy rule matches the first application identity when a traffic descriptor of the first policy rule contains an application identity equal to the first application identity (CN475, see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments lines 26-27, “… URSP rule, an application descriptor option is defined in the traffic descriptor, and the terminal matches the uplink data route through the application identifier according to the URSP rule issued by the network”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the first policy rule contains a traffic descriptor component comprising an application identity and the digital certificate information (CN475, first see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments lines 26-27, “… URSP rule, an application descriptor option is defined in the traffic descriptor, and the terminal matches the uplink data route through the application identifier according to the URSP rule issued by the network”; then see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments lines 31-33, “ how to obtain the application APP ID and how to prevent the APP ID of the application from being tampered with or forged in the application distribution, the application installation, and the terminal operating system when the URSP routing rule is evaluated and selected”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the UE is configured with a plurality of policy rules by a mobile communication network (CN475, see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments line 27, “… according to the URSP rule issued by the network”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the UE contains a subscriber identity module (“SIM”) that contains a plurality of policy rules. (CN475, see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments lines 16-18, “The terminal in this embodiment of this application may refer to various forms of UE, an access terminal, a subscriber unit, a subscriber station, a mobile station, a mobile station, a remote station, a remote terminal, a mobile device, a user terminal, a terminal device, a wireless communication device, a user agent, or a user device”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the policy rule is a UE Route Selection Policy (“URSP”) rule (CN475, see page 2 under Detail Description of the Embodiments lines 26-27, “… the terminal to perform uplink transmission data routing matching and selection by using the URSP rule issued by the network, and the established PDU session may be multiplexed according to the URSP rule”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the digital certificate information contains information that uniquely identifies a digital certificate (CN475, see page 1 last 4 lines in the bottom of the page 1, “… reads the first application signing certificate or the digital fingerprint of the signing certificate during session creation, the UE matches the digital fingerprint of the signing certificate of the first application or the digital fingerprint of the signing certificate with the application descriptor application descriptors in the user equipment routing policy URSP rule issued by the network side”; Examiner points out that this limitation is well known that a digital certificate comprises a unique identifier and a signature/fingerprint by certificate authority using hash function such as SHA256; also see page 3 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 8. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the information that uniquely identifies a digital certificate consists of a fingerprint value and a hash function utilized to generate the fingerprint value (CN475, see page 3 lines 18-20, “… the digital fingerprint of the first application signature certificate is a character string encrypted by a unidirectional encryption algorithm. The one-way encryption algorithm includes, but is not limited to, a hash algorithm, an SHA -1, a SHA-256 algorithm, or the like”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the digital certificate information contains information that identifies a publisher of an application (CN475, Examiner note: examiner equates limitation of “publisher of an application” to CN4785 teaching of “signature certificate of the first application” see page 3 lines 21-23, “… signature certificate of the first application or the digital fingerprint of the signature certificate is consistent with the application descriptor application descriptor. it is determined that the UE matches the signature certificate of the first application or the digital fingerprint of the signature certificate and the application descriptor application descriptor”; also see claim 11 of CN475).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the first application matches the digital certificate information if the digital certificate information in a traffic descriptor component of the first policy rule identifies a first digital certificate, where the first digital certificate is the certificate with which the first application is signed (CN475, see page 4 step S406 lines 16-18, “… matching the signature certificate of the first application or the digital fingerprint of the signature certificate with the application descriptor application descriptor in the URSP rule of the user equipment delivered by the network side, and after the matching succeeds, the UE performing the session creation of the first application”; also see claim 12 of CN475).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the first application matches the digital certificate information if the digital certificate information in a traffic descriptor component of the first policy rule contains information that is included in the first digital certificate, where the first digital certificate is the certificate with which the first application is signed (CN475, see page 4 step S406 lines 16-18, “… matching the signature certificate of the first application or the digital fingerprint of the signature certificate with the application descriptor application descriptor in the URSP rule of the user equipment delivered by the network side, and after the matching succeeds, the UE performing the session creation of the first application”; also see claim 12 of CN475).
Regarding claim 13, (canceled)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further CN475 teaches: determining whether a data connection that utilizes the first set of data connection parameters is already activated in the UE; activating a data connection that utilizes the first set of data connection parameters if not already activated in the UE; and transmitting the data packet via the activated data connection (CN979 p2 recites “The URSP rule UE can determine whether the detected application program can be associated with the established PDU session, whether it can be routed to non-non-3GPP path outside the PDU session, or whether it can establish a new PDU session. One important input data in the URSP rule is the parameter in the Traffic Descriptor (TD)”. While CN475, as recited in the prior office action, see page 2 Detailed description of the embodiments lines 26-27, “… protocol URSP rule, an application descriptor option is defined in the traffic descriptor, and the terminal matches the uplink data route through the application identifier according to the URSP rule issued by the network”).
Regarding claim 15, this claim defines a UE claim that corresponds to method claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1. CN475 in bottom page of 5 last 2 lines discloses transceiver, processor and memory.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 15. Further CN475 teaches: wherein determining the first application identity comprises determining an identity of the application that sent the request, wherein the first policy rule matches the first application identity when the traffic descriptor of the first policy rule contains an application identity equal to the first application identity (CN475, first see page 1 last line “descriptor application descriptors in the user equipment routing policy URSP rule issued by the network side”; then see starting page 3 lines 1-18, “… the application descriptors include … application identifier … Step S201: The UE matches the signature certificate of the first application or the digital fingerprint of the signature certificate with the application descriptor application descriptors in the user equipment route selection policy URSP rule issued by the network side, and the UE performs the session creation of the first application”).
Regarding claim 17 the combination of CN475 and CN979 teach all the limitations of claim 15. Further CN475 teaches: wherein the first policy rule is a UE Route Selection Policy (“URSP”) rule that contains a traffic descriptor component comprising an application identity and the digital certificate information (CN475, see page 2 Detailed Description Of The Embodiments lines 26-27, “… protocol URSP rule, an application descriptor option is defined in the traffic descriptor, and the terminal matches the uplink data route through the application identifier according to the URSP rule issued by the network”; see also limitations of claims 3 and 4 of instant application).
Regarding claim 18, this claim defines a UE claim that corresponds to method claims 8 and 9 and do not define beyond limitations of claims 8 and 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 8 and 9. CN475 in bottom page of 5 last 2 lines discloses transceiver, processor and memory.
Regarding claim 19, this claim defines a UE claim that corresponds to method claim 10 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 10. CN475 in bottom page of 5 last 2 lines discloses transceiver, processor and memory.
Regarding claim 20, this claim defines a UE claim that corresponds to method claim 14 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 14. CN475 in bottom page of 5 last 2 lines discloses transceiver, processor and memory.
Examiner note:
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
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 HANY S GADALLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2322. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/HANY S. GADALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights