DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Claims 8-13, 26, 29 in the reply filed on 05 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 and 27-28 were previously canceled. Claims 14-25 have been withdrawn from consideration and canceled. Thus, claims 8-13, 26, 29 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For claim 26:
At line 1, the claim recites “A computer storage medium…”. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, when read in light of its corresponding disclosure, appears to be embodied on a transitory computer readable medium or signal. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-13, 26, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 8:
At line 3, “the establishment” lacks of antecedent basis.
At line 10, it is unclear whether it should be “containing the application data provided by the application”, as at line 8 it was introduced “containing application data provided by an application”; or, in the event that these two “application data” are different, whether they should be labeled differently to avoid confusion.
For claim 26:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
For claim 29:
This claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
For claims 9-13:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 8-12, 26, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0178196) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0287975).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a method (Figs. 1A, 8) performed by a user equipment (UE) for implementing an application function, (AF) multipath policy (UE 102 performing AF multipath [Paragraph 4]), the method comprising:
initiating the establishment of a multi-access (MA) protocol data unit (PDU) session (UE 102 initiates and requests multi-access PDU session [Paragraph 5]);
after initiating the establishment of the MA PDU session, receiving a rule comprising a first uplink (UL) multipath policy (after the session request, the UE 102 receives confirmation from networks and sends UL data to those networks (multipath transmission), which means that the UE received UL multipath policy after the initial request and before the UE sends the UL multipath data to the networks [Paragraph 5]);
after receiving the rule, applying the first UL multipath policy to UL PDUs containing application data provided by an application running on the UE (upon reception of the rules, the PDU sessions are established in view of UL multipath policy, where the PDUs carry request data sent from the UE [Paragraphs 131, 171, 175, 236, 239, 294]); [
.
However, Wang does not explicitly mention: receiving a request from the application to apply a second UL multipath policy to subsequent UL PDUs containing application data provided by the application, wherein the second UL multipath policy is different than the first UL multipath policy.
Li teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
receiving a request from the application to apply a second UL multipath policy to subsequent UL PDUs containing application data provided by the application, wherein the second UL multipath policy is different than the first UL multipath policy (for the disclosed system (Figs. 1, 3), secondary multipath policies, different from primary multipath policies, are being applied to subsequent UL PDU sessions based on data transmitted by UE [Paragraph 86]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Wang) by applying subsequent UL PDUs (as taught by Li) for the purpose of reusing paths (Li – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 9, Wang further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the rule further includes an indicator indicating whether or not a content provider assisted mode is allowed (via a N4 interface, it is indicated in the rule whether or not provision of services is allowed [Paragraphs 238, 269-270]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising
in response to receiving the request from the application to apply the second UL multipath policy, determining whether the indicator included in the rule indicated that the content provider assisted mode is allowed (the determining of the provision of services is generated in view of the application of the policies [Paragraphs 238, 269-270]); and
as a result of determining that the indicator included in the rule indicated that the content provider assisted mode is allowed, applying the second UL multipath policy to the subsequent UL PDUs (so then the second policy is to be applied (as in Li’s) [Paragraphs 238, 269-270]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang further teaches the method of 10 of claim 8, wherein the rule further comprises downlink (DL) steering mode information identifying a DL steering mode ([Paragraphs 237, 247, 250]).
Regarding claim 12, Wang further teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising transmitting to a user plane function (UPF) a multipath policy request message ([Paragraphs 74, 77]) comprising the DL steering mode information identifying the DL steering mode ([Paragraphs 74, 237]).
Regarding claim 26, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0178196) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0287975) and further in view of Yu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0168905).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang and Li teaches all the limitations recited in claim 12.
However, the combination of Wang and Li does not explicitly mention: wherein transmitting the multipath policy request message to the UPF comprises transmitting the multipath policy request message via a QUIC connection to a QUIC proxy implemented in the UPF.
Yu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein transmitting the multipath policy request message to the UPF comprises transmitting the multipath policy request message via a QUIC connection to a QUIC proxy implemented in the UPF (UPF transmission comprises transmission via QUIC connections and proxies [Paragraphs 307, 320, 549, 551]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Wang) by applying subsequent UL PDUs (as taught by Li) by implementing QUIC proxies (as taught by Yu) for the purpose of decreasing complexity of signal interaction (Yu – Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
January 4, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633