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 .
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.
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (US 2012/0026933) in view of Chen (US 2023/0300679).
Regarding Claim 1, Aso teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to connect a user device to a first network (¶ [0162], see specifically request for establishment.)
determining, based on the rule, a first subflow of the connection according to a first path (¶ [0162], see specifically flow A and the discussion of how it is over the PDN); and
receiving, based on the first subflow, first data (¶ [0162], see specifically flow A and the discussion of how it is over the PDN).
Aso fails to explicitly teach sending, based on the request, a policy to the user device, wherein the policy comprises a rule for establishing a connection and the rule is based on an origin of the connection on the first network.
Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches sending, based on the request, a policy to the user device, wherein the policy comprises a rule for establishing a connection and the rule is based on an origin of the connection on the first network (¶ [0042], see specifically ATSSS rules and 3GPP and non-3GPP access).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine the invention of Aso with the invention of Chen to allow the network to better coordinate the flow coordination between the network and the UE.
The motivation it improves the performance of the UE in the system of Aso.
Regarding Claim 2, Aso fails to explicitly teach the policy is an access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) policy.
Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the policy is an access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) policy (¶ [0042], see specifically ATSSS rules and 3GPP and non-3GPP access).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine the invention of Aso with the invention of Chen to allow the network to better coordinate the flow coordination between the network and the UE.
The motivation it improves the performance of the UE in the system of Aso.
Regarding Claim 8, Aso teaches the connection is configured for more than one path (¶ [0145], see specifically flow b).
Regarding Claim 9, Aso teaches based on the rule, a second subflow of the connection according to a second path; and receiving, based on the second subflow, second data (¶ [0145], see specifically flow b).
Regarding Claim 12, Aso teaches the first path comprises the origin and the second path comprises the origin (¶ [0162], see specifically flow A and the discussion of how it is over the PDN).
Regarding Claim 13, Aso teaches the connection is based on an identifier and further comprising: assembling, based on the first data and the second data, a packet (¶ [0162], see specifically address)
Regarding Claim 15, Aso teaches the first subflow is further determined based on an identifier of the connection (¶ [0162], see specifically address.)
Claim(s) 3, 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (US 2012/0026933) in view of Chen (US 2023/0300679) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 2020/0314936).
Regarding Claim 3, Aso fails to explicitly the rule is based on a parameter of a node of the first network, the parameter is indicative of an authorization of the first subflow, and the node is the origin of the connection.
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the rule is based on a parameter of a node of the first network, the parameter is indicative of an authorization of the first subflow, and the node is the origin of the connection (¶ [0186], see specifically request is accepted).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Aso as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Aso to allow it to deny connections.
Regarding Claim 7, Aso fails to explicitly teach the rule is based on a parameter of a node of the first network, the parameter is indicative of a prohibition of the connection, and the node is the origin of the connection
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the rule is based on a parameter of a node of the first network, the parameter is indicative of a prohibition of the connection, and the node is the origin of the connection (¶ [0187], see specifically reject).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Aso as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Aso to allow it to deny connections.
Regarding Claim 10, Aso fails to explicitly teach the second path comprises a second network and the first network is operated by a first operator and the second network is operated by a second operator.
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the second path comprises a second network and the first network is operated by a first operator and the second network is operated by a second operator (¶ [0058], see specifically different network operators.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Aso as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Aso to allow it to deny connections.
Regarding Claim 11, Aso fails to explicitly teach the first operator is a mobile network operator (MNO) and the second operator is a multiple system operator (MSO).
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor the first operator is a mobile network operator (MNO) and the second operator is a multiple system operator (MSO) (¶ [0058], see specifically different network operators.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Aso as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Aso to allow it to deny connections.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (US 2012/0026933) in view of Chen (US 2023/0300679) and Kawasaki (US 2020/0314936) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ly (US 2023/0413114)
Regarding Claim 4, Aso fails to explicitly teach the node is a cable modem or a cable modem termination system and the parameter is a line identity
Ly from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the node is a cable modem or a cable modem termination system and the parameter is a line identity (¶ [0069], see specifically identifiers of available non-3GPP networks.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use the identifier in the rules of the system of Ly in the system of Aso.
The motivation is that it allows the UE and network to better identify the underlying connection that are part of any rule or policy.
Regarding Claim 5, Aso fails to explicitly teach the node is an access point and the parameter is a service set identifier (SSID).
Ly from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the node is an access point and the parameter is a service set identifier (SSID) (¶ [0069], see specifically identifiers of available non-3GPP networks.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use the identifier in the rules of the system of Ly in the system of Aso.
The motivation is that it allows the UE and network to better identify the underlying connection that are part of any rule or policy.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (US 2012/0026933) in view of Chen (US 2023/0300679), Kawasaki (US 2020/0314936) and Ly (US 2023/0413114) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Youn (US 2023/0132058).
Regarding Claim 6, Aso fails to explicitly teach the node is a base station, and the parameter is a physical cell identity.
Youn teaches the node is a base station, and the parameter is a physical cell identity (¶ [0133], see specifically cell identifier).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a cell identifier and a as part of a parameter or policy.
The motivation is that it allows the UE and network to better identify the underlying connection that are part of any rule or policy.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (US 2012/0026933) in view of Chen (US 2023/0300679) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Salkintzis (US 2022/0303854)
Regarding Claim 14, Azo fails to explicitly teach the assembling the request is 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.
Salkintzis from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the assembling the request is 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 (¶ [0134], see specifically PDU ID).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to have a difference sequence number for each flow or subflow in the system of Aso as taught by Salkintzis.
The motivation is that having subflows derivable allows the device to reorder the packets sent over different routes.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2023/0300679) in view of Kawasaki (US 2020/0314936).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to connect a user device to a network (¶ [0040], see specifically establishes);
sending, based on the request, a policy to the user device, wherein the policy comprises a rule for establishing a connection, wherein the rule is indicative of an origin of the connection on the network (¶ [0042], see specifically ATSSS rules and 3GPP and non-3GPP access).
Chen fails to explicitly teach receiving, based on the origin and the user device, an identifier of the user device; and
denying, based on the identifier of the user device, a first subflow of the connection.
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches receiving, based on the origin and the user device, an identifier of the user device (¶ [0187], see specifically identification and reject); and
denying, based on the identifier of the user device, a first subflow of the connection (¶ [0187], see specifically identification and reject)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Chen as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Chen to allow it to deny connections.
Regarding Claim 17, Chen fails to explicitly teach the identifier of the user device is assigned based on the origin.
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the identifier of the user device is assigned based on the origin (¶ [0043], see specifically identification.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Chen as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Chen to allow it to deny connections.
Regarding Claim 18, A method comprising:
receiving a first request to connect a first user device to a network (¶ [0040], see specifically establishes),
receiving a second request to connect a second user device to the network (¶ [0040], see specifically establishes);
sending, based on the first request and the identifier of the first user device, a first policy to the first user device, wherein the first policy comprises a rule for establishing a connection and the rule is based on an origin of the connection on the network (¶ [0042], see specifically ATSSS rules and 3GPP and non-3GPP access) and
sending, based on the second request and the identifier of the second user device, a second policy to the second user device, wherein the second policy is different from the first policy (¶ [0021], see specifically ATSSS and UE suggestion. Examiner’s Note: as each UE makes an suggestion and the policy/rules vary for the UE, it would render obvious different policies for each UE’s).
Chen fails to explicitly teach wherein the first request comprises an identifier of the first user device; wherein the second request comprises an identifier of the second user device;
Kawasaki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the first request comprises an identifier of the first user device; wherein the second request comprises an identifier of the second user device (¶ [0043], see specifically identification.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Chen as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Chen to allow it to deny connections.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen fails to explicitly teach receiving, based on the origin and the first user device, the identifier of the first user device; and denying, based on the identifier of the first user device, a first subflow of the connection.
receiving, based on the origin and the first user device, the identifier of the first user device; and denying, based on the identifier of the first user device, a first subflow of the connection (¶ [0187], see specifically reject).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to allow the system to accept and reject connections in the system of Chen as taught by Kawasaki.
The motivation is that it allows for better security in the system of Aso to allow it to deny connections.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2023/0300679) in view of Kawasaki (US 2020/0314936) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Aso (US 2012/0026933)
Regarding Claim 19, Chen fails to explicitly teach determining, based on the rule, a first subflow of the connection according to a first path; and receiving, based on the first subflow, first data.
Aso from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches determining, based on the rule, a first subflow of the connection according to a first path; and receiving, based on the first subflow, first data (¶ [0162], see specifically flow A and the discussion of how it is over the PDN).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine the invention of Aso with the invention of Chen to allow the network to better coordinate the flow coordination between the network and the UE.
The motivation it improves the performance of the UE in the system of Chen and Aso.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Chen teaches that a network, such as a 5G core network, may accommodate traffic steering across multiple accesses, including 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, by configuring a network-decided ATSSS policy that includes rules for "steering modes such as an Active- Standby mode, a Smallest Delay mode, a Load-balancing mode, and a Priority-based mode." See Chen at 19-21, 42. For instance, Chen teaches that a user device may receive the network- decided ATSSS policy, select "the best ATSSS rules for achieving better user-experience" in#4909-3916-4042 v1
order to create ATSSS rules of the non-network-decided ATSSS policy, and then implement an action (e.g., steer, switch, split) based on the best ATSSS policy. Id. Thus, the ATSSS rules in Chen are based on an access type, 3GPP versus non-3GPP. In contrast, claim 1 recites "wherein the policy comprises a rule for establishing a connection and the rule is based on an origin of the connection on the first network." Chen fails to teach that the ATSSS rules are formulated based on an "origin of the connection." Chen's disclosure focuses on steering modes that determine how traffic is distributed between 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses based on performance metrics. Id. As Chen explains, the steering modes include "Active-Standby mode, a Smallest Delay mode, a Load-balancing mode, and a Priority-based mode." Id. These modes are based on access availability and performance, not on the "origin of the connection on the network."
Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the Office Action fails to present references that teach or suggest every limitation of the claim. Accordingly, the Office Action fails to establish a primafacie case of obviousness based on the combination of Aso and Chen. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claim 1 and its dependent claims should be withdrawn. Further, because claims 16 and 18 recite similar limitations, for similar reasons, the rejections of claim 16, as well as its dependent claims, and claim 18, as well as its dependent claims, should be withdrawn and the claims allowed as well.
Examiner disagrees, looking to Aso in ¶ 0139:
[0139] The HeNB 70 that accepted the registration of Rule 1 recognizes flow A as a flow forwardable to the direct path P32. Suppose here that the UE 10 newly establishes the path via 3G P31 and acquires address C valid on the path via 3G P31. At this time, when the rule-unapplied information is specified for Rule 1, Rule 1 is applied only to packets related to address B and not applied to packets of flow A sent from address C. Therefore, a rule, as a new rule for flow A, with a content that the forwarding destination path for a "flow whose type is flow A and source address is address C" is the "path via 3G" ("Type=Flow-A (Web), Source Address=Address-C=>Path via 3G," which is called "Rule 1-1" below) is registered with the HeNB 70, so that packets of flow A sent from address C can be forwarded to the path via 3G P31. On the other hand, when the rule-unapplied information is not specified in Rule 1, since Rule 1 is applied to packets of flow A sent from address C as well as packets related to address B, the packets of flow A sent from address C are not forwarded to the path via 3G P31. Therefore, address B needs to be used to forward flow A when Rule 1 is registered without specifying the rule-unapplied information. Note that if the rule-unapplied information is not specified in Rule 1, Rule 1-1 cannot be registered.
And, looking to Chen in ¶ 0042:
[0042] To put it simply, the UE 100/200/300/400 can receive ATSSS rules from the NW 10 during the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure 502 for an MA-PDU session or the NW-requested PDU session modification procedure 504. When the steering mode of ATSSS is the new steering mode (e.g., UE Automatic (Best-Policy) mode), the UE 100/200/300/400 can change the network-decided ATSSS rules by its own for creating best ATSSS rules that can achieve better user-experience, and then automatically select the best ATSSS rules to steer, switch or split according to the performance P_3GPP/M_3GPP of the 3GPP access 12 and performance P_non-3GPP/M_non-3GPP of non-3GPP access 14. Specifically, if a condition of the UE 100/200/300/400 that is evaluated based on the access performance prediction results (P_3GPP and P_non-3GPP) or the access performance measurement results (M_3GPP and M_non-3GPP) fulfills one of ATSSS rules 106 of the non-network-decided ATSSS policy PL_2, the UE 100/200/300/400 can take action (steer, switch, split) for better user-experience.
Chen is teaching to steer between various accesses (i.e. whether to connect and route data over the Non-3GPP or the 3GPP access) based on performance characteristics, and that these rules comprise a policy (specifically an ATSSS policy). What Aso is truly missing is that these rules comprise a policy. As for the origin of the connection, both references teach it, the rules of Aso specifically discuss having particular types of traffic attach to certain connections (i.e. have different origins) based on the type of traffic. Chen teaches having different attachments to source networks (i.e. different origins for Non-3GPP and 3GPP networks), which would mean it is based on the origin of the connection.
Therefore, Aso in view of Chen renders obvious the claimed invention.
Applicant argues, Furthermore, the Office Action provides no explanation for why a person of ordinary skill would combine Aso's independent flow routing with Chen's ATSSS framework to arrive at the claimed "determining, based on the rule, a first subflow of the connection [...]." Aso teaches routing independent flows to different paths based on flow type and source address. See Aso at 162. Chen teaches steering traffic between 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses based on performance. See Chen at 42. Neither reference suggests that rules should be based on an origin of the connection, and the Office Action's generic motivation provides no bridge between the references and the claimed invention.
Examiner disagrees, Chen is actually quite explicit about why one of ordinary skill would use the performance of the source networks (i.e. the origin of the connection) when deciding how to route a flow, and that reason is the performance, see ¶ [0042]:
[0042] To put it simply, the UE 100/200/300/400 can receive ATSSS rules from the NW 10 during the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure 502 for an MA-PDU session or the NW-requested PDU session modification procedure 504. When the steering mode of ATSSS is the new steering mode (e.g., UE Automatic (Best-Policy) mode), the UE 100/200/300/400 can change the network-decided ATSSS rules by its own for creating best ATSSS rules that can achieve better user-experience, and then automatically select the best ATSSS rules to steer, switch or split according to the performance P_3GPP/M_3GPP of the 3GPP access 12 and performance P_non-3GPP/M_non-3GPP of non-3GPP access 14. Specifically, if a condition of the UE 100/200/300/400 that is evaluated based on the access performance prediction results (P_3GPP and P_non-3GPP) or the access performance measurement results (M_3GPP and M_non-3GPP) fulfills one of ATSSS rules 106 of the non-network-decided ATSSS policy PL_2, the UE 100/200/300/400 can take action (steer, switch, split) for better user-experience.
Therefore, Chen directly providing the motivation to combine the references to use such an ATASS policy, and to have rules that decide how to route the flows over the connections and therefore the references render obvious the claimed invention.
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 ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights