DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13,15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0319681 A1; hereinafter Kiss) in view of Huggehalli et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0408345 A1; hereinafter Hugg).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Kiss discloses a user device, comprising: one or more processors (See ¶0111, The UE 1100 may include processors 1104) configured to: receive, from a network node, a user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) that includes one or more URSP rules, (2023/0319681-See ¶0052, The 5G core network 332 of the home network 330 can generate URSP rules 333 for the UE 310. The URSP rules 333 are used to manage traffic of the UE 310 when the UE 310 is connected to the home network 330 and can be stored by the 5G core network 332 (e.g., by a user data repository (UDR) thereof). A copy of the URSP rules 333 can be sent to and stored by the UE 310 for local management of the traffic at the UE 310; See ¶0055, the home network 330, rather than the visited network 320, generates the URSP rule(s) 352 based on its own URSP rules 330 and on guidance information 326 received from the visited network 320. The guidance information 326 can indicate one or more URSP rules 323 that the visited network 320 supports for the UE 310.) wherein a URSP rule, of the one or more URSP rules, indicates a precedence value of the URSP rule (Table 3 and table 4, shows the relevant connectivity parameters of the USRP rules; each rule has precedence linked to the PLMN) and one or more of: a radio access technology (RAT) associated with the URSP rule, (Table 3 and Table 4, access type preference:3GPP access; See ¶0033, ] The term “3GPP Access” refers to accesses (e.g., radio access technologies) that are specified by 3GPP standards. These accesses include, but are not limited to, GSM/GPRS, LTE, LTE-A, and/or 5G NR) and one or more domain name systems (DNNs) (table 3 and table 4, shows the RAT associated with DNN) or one or more public land mobile networks (PLMNs) indicated by one or more mobile country codes (MCCs) associated with the URSP rule;
However, Kiss fails to disclose selecting, by the UE, the URSP rule based on evaluating the one or more URSP rules in an order of precedence values of the one or more URSP rules;
Hugg discloses selecting, by the UE, the URSP rule based on evaluating the one or more URSP rules in an order of precedence values of the one or more URSP rules; (See ¶0039, When the UE 102 has outgoing traffic, the UE 102 evaluates the rules in the order of rule precedence. Thus, the UE 102 in this scenario first determines whether it should apply rule R.sub.1 to the outgoing traffic by determining whether the outgoing traffic matches the traffic descriptor of rule R.sub.1, i.e., if the outgoing traffic corresponds to traffic of App.sub.1.) and performing, by the UE, traffic routing based on the URSP rule. (See ¶0039, Thus, the UE 102 in this scenario first determines whether it should apply rule R.sub.1 to the outgoing traffic by determining whether the outgoing traffic matches the traffic descriptor of rule R.sub.1, i.e., if the outgoing traffic corresponds to traffic of App.sub.1; If the outgoing traffic corresponds to traffic of App.sub.1, the UE 102 applies rule R.sub.1 to the outgoing traffic and routes the traffic in accordance with the one or more route selection descriptors of rule App.sub.1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify disclosing having a USRP rule with precedence values to include evaluating the USRP rules in order of the rule precedence. The motivation to combine is efficiently route traffic using rule precedence values determine the order in which the UE applies the URSP rules, traffic descriptors specify how the UE should match outgoing traffic to the rule to determine whether the rule applies, and route selection descriptors specify how the UE should route the traffic if the rule applies (See ¶0003).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Kiss disclose the URSP rule is only applicable to the one or more PLMNs. (See ¶0046, the visited network 320 is a visited public land mobile network (V-PLMN), whereas the home network 330 is a home public land mobile network (H-PLMN); See ¶0055, the home network 330, rather than the visited network 320, generates the URSP rule(s) 352 based on its own URSP rules 330 and on guidance information 326 received from the visited network 320. The guidance information 326 can indicate one or more URSP rules 323 that the visited network 320 supports for the UE 310)
Regarding claim 18, Kiss disclose the URSP rule includes a traffic descriptor and a route selection descriptor, and the RAT is indicated in one or more of the traffic descriptor or the route selection descriptor, or the one or more PLMNs are indicated in one or more of the traffic descriptor or the route selection descriptor. (See ¶0059, a network identifier (e.g., PLMN ID) can be used as a route selection validation criteria. In other words, URSP rules are looked up based on a traffic descriptor and a URSP rule is identified based on match to the traffic descriptor. )
Regarding claim 19, Kiss disclose the one or more instructions, that cause the device to select the URSP rule, cause the device to:select the URSP rule based on a RAT associated with the UE corresponding to the RAT associated with the URSP rule; or select the URSP rule based on a PLMN associated with the UE corresponding to the one or more PLMNs associated with the URSP rule. (See ¶0096, f a match is determined, the UE then determines the route selection descriptor of the matched URSP rule; more than one route selection descriptors are possible to select, the UE can use a PLMN criteria to select one of them. In particular, the UE selects the route selection descriptors that has a PLMN ID that matches a network identifier to which the UE is connected (e.g., the PLMN ID of the visited network). The selected route selection descriptor indicates connectivity parameters for the traffic.)
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss in view of Hugg and, further in view of Ai et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0388870 A1; hereinafter Ali).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Kiss in view of Hugg fails to disclose the URSP rule is only applicable to the RAT, and the RAT is a Fourth Generation (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) RAT.
Ali discloses the URSP rule is only applicable to the RAT, (2023/0388870-See ¶0060, the URSP rule is only applicable to the RAT, and the RAT is a Fourth Generation (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) RAT.) and the RAT is a Fourth Generation (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) RAT. (See ¶0069, he data definitions may further include a “preferred RAT type for 3GPP access” type 1206 having RAT type values 1208 for E-UTRAN (or LTE))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE using URSP to determine what routing policy to use to include the URSP can be related to RAT. The motivation to combine is to efficiently use a URSP rule 606 of which associates an active application with a routing policy comprising an indicated RAT type for 3GPP access (See ¶0052).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kiss in view of Hugg fails to disclose the URSP rule includes a traffic descriptor and a route selection descriptor, and the RAT is indicated in one or more of the traffic descriptor or the route selection descriptor.
Ali discloses the URSP rule includes a traffic descriptor and a route selection descriptor, (2023/0388870-See ¶0068, ach URSP rule in the list of URSP rules 1000 (e.g., URSP rule 1002) includes a traffic descriptor 1006 associated with a route selection descriptor list 1008 (amongst other data contents as indicated in the figure)) and the RAT is indicated in one or more of the traffic descriptor or the route selection descriptor. (See ¶0069, data definitions associated with a traffic descriptor component type identifier 1100 for the traffic descriptor in each one of the URSP rules in the URSP; the data definitions may further include a “preferred RAT type for 3GPP access” type 1206 having RAT type values 1208 for E-UTRAN (or LTE) and NG-RAN (or 5G NR).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE using URSP to determine what routing policy to use to include the URSP can be related to RAT. The motivation to combine is to efficiently a URSP rule 606 of which associates an active application with a routing policy comprising an indicated RAT type for 3GPP access (See ¶0052).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kiss in view of Hugg fails to disclose the one or more processors, to select the URSP rule, are configured to: select the URSP rule based on a RAT associated with the UE corresponding to the RAT associated with the URSP rule.
Ali discloses the one or more processors, to select the URSP rule, are configured to: select the URSP rule based on a RAT associated with the UE corresponding to the RAT associated with the URSP rule. (2023/0388870-See ¶0062, wherein the one or more processors, to select the URSP rule, are configured to:select the URSP rule based on a RAT associated with the UE corresponding to the RAT associated with the URSP rule.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE using URSP to determine what routing policy to use to include the URSP can be related to RAT. The motivation to combine is to efficiently use UE policy 602 may be or include a URSP 604 having a list of URSP rules, including at least one URSP rule 606 of which associates an active application with a routing policy comprising an indicated RAT type for 3GPP access (See ¶0052).
Claim(s) 5,7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss in view of Hugg and further in view of Kumar et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0244502 A1; hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Kiss fails to disclose the URSP rule includes a traffic descriptor and a route selection descriptor, and the one or more MCCs are indicated in one or more of the traffic descriptor or the route selection descriptor.
Kumar discloses the URSP rule includes a traffic descriptor and a route selection descriptor, and the one or more MCCs are indicated in one or more of the traffic descriptor or the route selection descriptor. (See ¶0094, each of the block consists of URSP information block, a traffic descriptor block, a route selection descriptor block and route validation criteria block in the URSP rule configuration of the UE (100). Each of this block consists of the route selection criteria comprise one of a PLMN identifier (ID), a Mobile Country Code (MCC), a Radio Access Technology (RAT) identifier and a Non-3rd Generation Partnership Project (Non-3GPP) access trusted or non-3GPP access untrusted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by kiss in view of hugg to include MCC is related to the PLMN. The motivation to combine is a need for better PLMN control, so that the UE can make a decision as to on which PLMN a given service that the UE should initiate (See ¶0031).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kiss fails to discloses the one or more processors, to select the URSP rule, are configured to:select the URSP rule based on a PLMN associated with the UE corresponding to the one or more MCCs associated with the URSP rule.
Kumar discloses the one or more processors, to select the URSP rule, are configured to:select the URSP rule based on a PLMN associated with the UE corresponding to the one or more MCCs associated with the URSP rule. (See ¶0098, When the route validation criteria block consists of one or more parameters of the route selection criteria only if the configured criteria is met those particular route selection descriptor are allowed to be selected by the UE; See ¶0099-¶0108, PLMN ID is associated with MCC)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by kiss in view of hugg to include MCC is related to the PLMN. The motivation to combine is a need for better PLMN control, so that the UE can make a decision as to on which PLMN a given service that the UE should initiate (See ¶0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed toward claims 1, 9 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues references do not disclose” a radio access technology (RAT) associated with the URSP rule and one or more domain name systems (DNNs).” Kiss discloses the RAT associated with the USRP rule and one or more domain name systems (DNNs). one or more of: a radio access technology (RAT) associated with the URSP rule, (Table 3 and Table 4, access type preference:3GPP access; See ¶0033, ] The term “3GPP Access” refers to accesses (e.g., radio access technologies) that are specified by 3GPP standards. These accesses include, but are not limited to, GSM/GPRS, LTE, LTE-A, and/or 5G NR) and one or more domain name systems (DNNs) (table 3 and table 4, shows the RAT associated with DNN)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0362623 A1)-table 3 shows the rules PLMN ID and MCC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJIS DAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-7817. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4:30.
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, Nicholas Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
/Tejis Daya/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights