DETAILED ACTION
This Office action nis responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted March 5, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the cited references fail to teach the receiving step of claim 1, particularly wherein the first indication includes either “a UE policy section reporting indicator (UPSRI) field” or “a visited public land mobile network specific tuple policy reporting indicator (VPSTRI) field.” Applicant asserts that the UPSI and VPLMN fields taught therein “do not constitute or disclose a reporting indicator field… that instructs the UE to report, etc.” (Remarks, pp. 16-17) The Examiner has carefully considered this argument and reviewed the cited references, but respectfully disagrees. With respect to Gupta’s teachings alone, it is taught therein that the MANAGE UE POLICY COMMAND includes an indication regarding the UPSI, and further prompts the UE concerning policy ([0063]-[0064]). Further, (in the alternative) the other cited references more explicitly teach prompting for this information (see, e.g., Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]; the UE is triggered to report; and/or Atarius [0049]; the policies are requested). The Examiner respectfully maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from Ninglekhu and/or Atarius, such as the signaling functionality (i.e. indication modification), in order to promote policy consistencies.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 5-16, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2024/0073772 A1 (hereinafter “Gupta”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gupta, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0272620 A1 (hereinafter “Ninglekhu”).
Regarding claims 1, 16, 27, and 29: Gupta teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured, individually or collectively, to:
receive a first indication to report UE-local policy identifier information that is based at least in part on a policy control function (PCF) associated with a wireless network, the first indication including at least one of a UE policy section reporting indicator (UPSRI) field or a visited public land mobile network specific tuple policy reporting indicator (VPSTRI) field (see, e.g., figure 5 – item 502; also [0018], [0063]-[0065]; note indication for further transmission in a policy management procedure; see also [0047], [0083] note tuples/ordered data sets used for VPLMN policy); and
transmit a second indication of a synchronization state between the UE-local policy identifier information and PCF policy identifier information (see, e.g., figure 5; also [0018], [0063]-[0065]; note UE transmission(s)).
Gupta does not explicitly state wherein the indication is “to report UE-local policy identifier information.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Gupta (e.g. by virtue of the response message(s) reflecting local configuration indication), this feature is nevertheless taught in Ninglekhu (see, e.g., [0369]-[0375]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to policy management, e.g., figure 20, [0178], [0206], [0574]-[0580]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ninglekhu, such as the signaling and/or policy management functionality, within the system of Gupta, in order to promote policy consistencies.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 1 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 16, 27, and 29, respectively.
Regarding claims 5 and 20: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] receive, as at least part of a manage UE policy command message, a third indication of one or more instructions that are associated with the UE-local policy identifier information, wherein transmitting the second indication is based at least in part on the one or more instructions (see, e.g., Gupta [0063]-[0064]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 5 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 20.
Regarding claim 6: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] perform each instruction of the one or more instructions successfully, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the second indication, are configured to: transmit a manage UE policy command complete message that indicates, as the synchronization state, a synchronized state based at least in part on each instruction being performed successfully (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]; note the MANAGE UE POLICY COMPLETE message functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claims 7 and 22: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] transmit a manage UE reject message that indicates, as the synchronized state, an unsynchronized state based at least in part on failing to perform the at least in instruction successfully (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]; note the MANAGE UE POLICY REJECT message functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] transmit a UE state indication based at least in part on completion of the manage UE policy procedure (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0384]; note the UE STATE INDICATION message functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claims 9 and 21: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] receive a manage UE policy command message; and detect, as the synchronization state and based at least in part on the manage UE policy command message, an unsynchronized state between the UE-local policy identifier information the PCF policy identifier information, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the second indication, are configured to: transmit the second indication based at least in part on detecting the unsynchronized state (See, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065]; and/or Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]; note the Manage UE Policy Command Message). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 9 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 21.
Regarding claim 10: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] detect that a configuration of the UE-local policy identifier information has remained unchanged for a duration that satisfies a time threshold (See, e.g., Gupta [0063]-[0065]; and/or Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375], [0404], [0416]-[0420]; note timer functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] receive a third indication of a policy identifier to store in the UE-local policy identifier information; and determine, as the synchronization state, a synchronized state between the UE-local policy identifier information and the PCF policy information based at least in part on the UE-local policy identifier information being empty (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065], [0081], [0082]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] detect zero mismatches between the UE-local policy identifier information and the PCF policy identifier information; and determine, as the synchronization state, a synchronized state between the UE-local policy identifier information and the PCF policy information based at least in part on detecting the zero mismatches (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065], [0081], [0082]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] transmit an empty UE policy section identifier (UPSI) list to indicate the synchronized state (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065], [0081], [0082]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0384]; note UPSI functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] wherein the first indication specifies to report, as the UE-local policy identifier information, tuple policy information, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a policy section instruction; identify a tuple in the UE-local policy identifier information that is affected by the policy section instruction; and transmit, as the tuple policy information, a tuple identifier associated with the tuple that is affected by the policy section instruction (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0047], [0063]-[0065], [0081]-]0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206] [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality; note also tuples/ordered data set functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] receive a policy section instruction; identify that no tuple in the UE-local policy identifier information is affected by the policy section instruction; and transmit an empty tuple identifier list to indicate, as the synchronization state, a synchronized state (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0047], [0063]-[0065], [0081]-]0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206] [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality; note also tuples/ordered data set functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 15.
Regarding claim 23: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the synchronization state between the UE-local policy identifier information and the PCF policy identifier information is an unsynchronized state based at least in part on receiving the second indication (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0047], [0063]-[0065], [0081]-]0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206] [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the second indication of the synchronization state, are configured to: receive an empty UE policy section identifier (UPSI) list; and determine, as the synchronization state, a synchronized state based at least in part on receiving the empty UPSI list (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0047], [0063]-[0065], [0081]-]0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206] [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 24.
Regarding claim 25: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches wherein the first indication specifies to report, as the UE-local policy identifier information, tuple policy information, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit a policy section instruction; receive, as the tuple policy information, a tuple identifier; and determine that a tuple associated with the tuple identifier is affected by the policy section instruction based at least in part on receiving the tuple identifier (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0047], [0063]-[0065], [0081]-]0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206] [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality; note also tuples/ordered data set functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches wherein the first indication specifies to report, as the UE-local policy identifier information, tuple policy information, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit a policy section instruction; receive an empty tuple identifier list; and determine, as the synchronization state, a synchronized state based at least in part on receiving the empty tuple identifier list (see, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0047], [0063]-[0065], [0081]-]0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206] [0369]-[0384]; note updating functionality; note also tuples/ordered data set functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 26.
9. Claims 2-4, 17-19, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, alternatively in view of Ninglekhu, and in further view of WO Publication No. 2023/214237 A1 (hereinafter “Atarius”).
Regarding claims 2, 17, 28, and 30: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu further teaches [configuration to] receive a manage UE policy command message that includes a UE policy network classmark information element (IE), wherein the UE policy network classmark IE includes the first indication (See, e.g., Gupta figure 5, [0063]-[0065]; and/or Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]; note the Manage UE Policy Command Message). Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu does not explicitly state the term “classmark” information element. To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu (e.g., by virtue of the communications therein that include capability and configuration information), this feature is nevertheless taught by Atarius (see, e.g., [0098]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to policy management, e.g., figure 10, [0088]-[0090]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Atarius, such as the signaling and/or policy management functionality, within the system of Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu, in order to communicate device capability.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 2 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 17, 28, and 30, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 18: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu and Atarius further teaches wherein the UE policy network classmark IE includes the (UPSRI) field, and wherein the first indication comprises the UPSRI field being set to a value that indicates to report one or more policy section identifiers included in the UE-local policy identifier information (see, e.g., Gupta [0063]-[0064]; Ninglekhu [0369]-[0375]; and/or Atarius [0049], [0061]; note UPSI functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 2 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 3 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 18.
Regarding claims 4 and 19: Gupta alternatively modified by Ninglekhu and Atarius further teaches wherein the UE policy network classmark IE includes the (VPSTRI) field, and wherein the first indication comprises the VPSTRI field being set to a value that indicates to report one or more tuple identifiers included in the UE-local policy identifier information (see, e.g., Gupta [0047], [0083]; Ninglekhu [0178], [0206]; note tuples/ordered data sets used for VPLMN policy). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 2 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 4 is applicable to the apparatus of claim 19.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476