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.
Conclusion
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