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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the UE policy associated” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11 and 18, Kim discloses a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (corresponding to a memory) having stored thereon sequences of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor (paragraph 298, line 1: “The first device … includes at least one processor … and at least one memory”), cause the processor to perform the method, comprising:
receiving, an access and mobility management function (AMF) which corresponds to at least one device (as recited in claims 10 and 11), a registration request from a user equipment (UE) device (FIG. 11 and paragraph 264, line 1: “The UE may send a registration request message to the AMF.”); and
obtaining or receiving, by the AMF, subscriber-related information associated with the UE device (paragraph 265, line 1: “AMF may obtain subscriber information (and so on) through interaction with UDM.”), wherein the subscriber-related information includes UE policy association information (paragraph 206, lines 1-2: “The PCF may include Indication on UE policy association establishment based on UE subscription and operator policy and transmit the UE policy association establishment to AMF”).
Kim fails to disclose determining, based on the subscriber-related information, whether a UE policy association is enabled for the UE device; and transmitting, in response to determining that the UE policy association is enabled for the UE device, policy information to the UE device.
However, in an analogous art, Barawkar discloses determining, based on the subscriber-related information (corresponding to service metrics), whether a UE policy association is enabled for the UE device (paragraph 36, lines 1-4: “Control plane 321 requests service metrics for UE 301 from data system 324 … When control plane 321 determines that UE 301 qualifies for PCF registration, control plane 321 transfers a PCF registration request to PCF 323 to create a policy association for UE 301. PCF 323 registers UE 301 and returns network policies to control plane 321”; creating a policy association for the UE and registering the UE corresponds to enabling a UE policy association for the UE device); and transmitting (corresponding to receiving from PCF 323), in response to determining that the UE policy association is enabled for the UE device, policy information (corresponding to network policies) to the UE device (paragraph 36, lines 6-7: “The registration accept message indicates that the registration was successful and comprises the network policies received from PCF 323.”). 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 in Kim by incorporating this feature taught in Barawkar for the purpose of ensuring that only authorized and relevant policies are applied to the UE based on its subscription profile, thereby avoiding unnecessary signaling or misconfiguration of the device.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), and further in view of Bartolome Rodrigo et al. (US 2020/0178062) and Shan et al. (US 2019/0268835).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20, the combination of Kim and Barawkar fails to disclose that obtaining subscriber-related information comprises: obtaining subscriber-related information for the UE device from at least one of a unified data management (UDM) device or a unified data repository (UDR).
However, Bartolome Rodrigo discloses that obtaining subscriber-related information comprises obtaining subscriber-related information for a UE device from at least one of a UDM device or a UDR (paragraph 81, lines 11-12: “the AMF 7 retrieves 65 the Access and Mobility subscription data and SMF Selection Subscription data using Nudm_SDM_Get.”; paragraph 82, line 1: “In step 66, UDM 13 retrieves this information from 5G UDR 60 by Nudr_UDM_ Query.”). 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 in Kim and Barawker by incorporating this feature taught in Bartolome Rodrigo for the purpose of applying correct policies and services for the UE based on its subscription profile.
The combination of Kim, Barawkar and Bartolome Rodrigo fails to disclose that the subscriber-related information indicates whether the UE policy association for the UE device is enabled or disabled.
However, in an analogous art, Shan discloses that a subscriber-related information (corresponding to a UE capability indicator) indicates whether a UE policy association (corresponding to a preconfigured UE policy) for a UE device is enabled or disabled (corresponding to sending or not sending the ANDSP/URSP) (Abstract, lines 2-4: “the UE capability indicator indicates whether the UE supports or does not support a preconfigured UE policy”; paragraph 121, lines 1-3: “If the UE indicates that it … doesn't support ANDSP/URSP, the PCF shall not send the ANDSP/URSP to UE. Alternatively, only when the UE indicates it support ANDSP/URSP provisioned by PCF, the PCF shall send the ANDSP/URSP to UE.”). 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 in Kim, Barawkar and Bartolome Rodrigo by incorporating this feature taught in Shan for the purpose of allowing the network to determine whether to apply or withhold policy rules for the UE based on its subscription status.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), and further in view of Miklós et al. (US 2022/0272031).
Regarding claim 6, Barawkar further discloses that the transmitting comprises: transmitting at least one rule (corresponding to URSP rules) to the UE device based on the UE policy association being enabled (corresponding to a policy association being created) for the UE device (paragraph 43, lines 5-10: “PCF 323 creates a policy association for UE 301 and returns URSP rules for UE 301 … UE 301 uses the URSP rules to route the user data”). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature further taught in Barawkar for the purpose of ensuring that the UE applies only authorized policy rules associated with an active UE policy association, thereby enabling correct traffic handling and service routing in accordance with network policy.
The combination of Kim and and Barawkar fails to disclose transmitting, in response to determining that the UE policy associated is disabled for the UE device, information to the UE device to terminate application of the at least one rule.
However, in an analogous art, Miklós discloses transmitting, in response to determining that the UE policy association is disabled for the UE device (corresponding to determining that a matching PDU Session does not exist), information to the UE device to terminate application of the at least one rule (paragraph 99, lines 7-11: “The wireless device … determines whether there exists a matching PDU Session associated with the Route Selection Descriptor of the matching URSP rule (step 1206) … the wireless device establishes a new PDU Session … in response to determining that the matching PDU Session does not exist”; the wireless device establishing a new PDU Session corresponds to terminating application of the at least one rule since the wireless device would have to terminate the previous PDU Session). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature taught in Miklós for the purpose of preventing the application of invalid or outdated rules and to maintain consistency between network policy control and UE behavior.
Regarding claim 14, Barawkar further discloses that transmitting, the at least one device is configured to: transmit at least one rule to the UE device (corresponding to URSP rules) based on the UE policy association (paragraph 43, lines 5-10: “PCF 323 creates a policy association for UE 301 and returns URSP rules for UE 301 … UE 301 uses the URSP rules to route the user data”). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature further taught in Barawkar for the purpose of ensuring that the UE applies only authorized policy rules associated with an active UE policy association, thereby enabling correct traffic handling and service routing in accordance with network policy.
The combination of Kim and and Barawkar fails to disclose that the at least one device is further configured to: transmit, in response to a subscription change for the UE device indicating that UE policy associated for the UE device is disabled, a message to the UE device indicating that the at least one rule associated with the UE policy association is to be removed, deleted or terminated.
However, Miklós discloses that at least one device is configured to transmit, in response to a subscription change for a UE device indicating that UE policy associated for the UE device is disabled (corresponding to determining that a matching PDU Session does not exist), a message to the UE device indicating that at least one rule associated with a UE policy association is to be removed, deleted or terminated (paragraph 99, lines 7-11: “The wireless device … determines whether there exists a matching PDU Session associated with the Route Selection Descriptor of the matching URSP rule (step 1206) … the wireless device establishes a new PDU Session … in response to determining that the matching PDU Session does not exist”; the wireless device establishing a new PDU Session corresponds to terminating application of the at least one rule since the wireless device would have to terminate the previous PDU Session). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature taught in Miklós for the purpose of preventing the application of invalid or outdated rules and to maintain consistency between network policy control and UE behavior.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), and further in view of Kaushik et al. (US 2025/0048075) and Li et al. (US 2025/0081135) (hereinafter, Li ‘135).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim and Barawkar fails to disclose receiving, by the AMF, UE policy control subscription change information.
However, in an analogous art, Kaushik discloses receiving, by the AMF, UE policy control subscription change information (paragraph 32, lines 1-2: “the new AMF receives, from the UDM, notification of changes to the subscriber profile information.”). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature taught in Miklós for the purpose of enabling the AMF to update UE-specific policy handling in response to changes in the subscriber profile.
The combination of Kim, Barawkar and Kaushik fails to disclose notifying, by the AMF, a policy control function (PCF) of the UE policy control subscription change.
However, in an analogous art, Li ‘135 discloses notifying, by the AMF, a policy control function (PCF) of the UE policy control subscription change. (paragraphs 456-457: “The PCF receives a notification from an AMF that a UE has changed location (… new policies may need to be updated.) … The PCF receives a notification that there has been a change of Subscribed S-NSSAI for a UE”). 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 in Kim, Barawkar and Kaushik by incorporating this feature taught in Li ‘135 for the purpose of enabling the PCF to adjust UE-specific policy rules in response in accordance with changes in the subscriber profile.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), further in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0192390) (hereinafter, Li ‘390).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Barawker further discloses that the UE policy information indicates whether the UE policy association is enabled or disabled (paragraph 29, lines 1-8: “When policy association is available for one or more of user devices 101, control plane 122 registers those ones of user devices 101 with the policy control entity … When policy association is not available for one or more of user devices 101, control plane 122 forgoes registering those ones of user devices 101”). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature further taught in Barawkar for the purpose of deciding whether to initiate and enforce policy rules for the UE, thereby ensuring policies are applied only when authorized.
The combination of Kim and Barawkar fails to disclose storing, by a unified data management (UDM) device or a unified data repository (UDR), UE policy information for each of a plurality of UE devices.
However, in an analogous art, Li ‘390 discloses storing, by a UDM device or a UDR, UE policy information for each of a plurality of UE devices (paragraph 96, lines 6-7: “The UDR 322 is typically responsible for storing data provided by the UDM 320. The stored data is typically associated with policy profile information”). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature taught in Li ‘390 for the purpose of enabling centralized management and retrieval of UE-specific policy information for multiple devices.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), further in view of Li ‘390, Qiao et al. (US 2020/0092424) and Li et al. (US 2021/0168584) (hereinafter, Li ‘584).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim, Barawker and Li ‘390 fails to disclose providing, by a policy control function (PCF) and to the AMF, trigger information.
However, in an analogous art, Qiao discloses providing, by a PCF and to an AMF (corresponding to an SMF), trigger information (corresponding to a policy establishment response message) (paragraph 306, lines 8-9: “the PCF may send to the SMF, a policy establishment response message. The policy establishment response message may comprise the charging control 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 method in Kim, Barawkar and Li ‘390 by incorporating this feature taught in Qiao for the purpose of enabling the AMF to initiate or adjust UE policy handling in response to specified conditions.
The combination of Kim, Barawkar, Li ‘390 and Qiao fails to disclose that the trigger information identifies when the AMF is to signal the PCF with information regarding UE device policy association information.
However, in an analogous art, Li ‘584 discloses that a trigger information (corresponding to a PCF subscribing to an AMF) identifies when an AMF is to signal a PCF with information regarding UE device policy association information (paragraph 104, lines 5-8: “the PCF may … subscribe to the AMF for a notification … When the notification is received from the AMF, the PCF may send the policy to the UE”). 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 in Kim, Barawkar, Li ‘390 and Qiao by incorporating this feature taught in Li ‘584 for the purpose of promptly notifying the PCF of changes affecting UE policy association, thereby ensuring accurate and up-to-date policy control.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), and further in view of Qiao et al. (US 2020/0092424) and Li ‘584.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim and Barawkar fails to disclose providing trigger information to an access and mobility management function (AMF).
However, Qiao discloses providing trigger information (corresponding to a policy establishment response message) to an AMF (corresponding to an SMF) (paragraph 306, lines 8-9: “the PCF may send to the SMF, a policy establishment response message. The policy establishment response message may comprise the charging control 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 method in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature taught in Qiao for the purpose of enabling the AMF to initiate or adjust UE policy handling in response to specified conditions.
The combination of Kim, Barawkar and Qiao fails to disclose that the trigger information identifies when the AMF is to signal a policy control function (PCF) with information regarding UE device policy association information.
However, Li ‘584 discloses that a trigger information (corresponding to a PCF subscribing to an AMF) identifies when an AMF is to signal a PCF with information regarding UE device policy association information (paragraph 104, lines 5-8: “the PCF may … subscribe to the AMF for a notification … When the notification is received from the AMF, the PCF may send the policy to the UE”). 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 in Kim, Barawkar and Qiao by incorporating this feature taught in Li ‘584 for the purpose of promptly notifying the PCF of changes affecting UE policy association, thereby ensuring accurate and up-to-date policy control.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0377529) in view of Barawkar et al. (US 2025/0063525), and further in view of Garcia Azorero et al. (US 2022/0191052) and Shan (US 2019/0268835).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim and Barawkar fails to disclose determining, based on the subscriber-related information, whether to establish a UE policy association for the UE device.
However, in an analogous art, Garcia Azorero discloses determining, based on subscriber-related information, whether to establish a UE policy association for a UE device (paragraph 19, line 2: “the UDR notifies the PCF of a policy subscription change”; paragraph 25, line 2: “Based on local policy, the AMF decides to establish UE Policy Association with the … PCF”). 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 in Kim and Barawkar by incorporating this feature taught in Garcia Azorero for the purpose of avoiding allocating policy control resources for UEs that do not require policy enforcement.
The combination of Kim, Barawkar and Garcia Azorero fails to disclose determining, based on the subscriber-related information, whether to remove an established UE policy association for the UE device.
However, Shan determining, based on subscriber-related information, whether to remove an established UE policy association for a UE device. (paragraph 133, line 3: “delete/modify an existing set of UE access selection and PDU Session selection policy in UE.”; paragraph 172, line 1: “the PCF receives Npcf_AMPolicyControl_Get then it retrieves the list of PSIs and its content stored in the UDR”). 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 in Kim, Barawkar and Garcia Azorero by incorporating this feature taught in Shan for the purpose of removing policies that are no longer authorized or needed based on subscriber data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 12 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose the recited combinations of elements, including determining, by the PCF and based on the subscription change information, whether the UE policy association for the UE device is disabled; and transmitting a message to the UE device to remove, delete or terminate at least one rule associated with the UE policy association, as in claim 2; determine, based on the subscription change information, whether the UE policy association for the UE device is disabled, and transmit a message to the UE device to remove, delete or terminate at least one rule associated with the UE policy association, as in claim 12; and determine, based on the subscription change information, whether the UE policy association for the UE device is disabled; and transmit, in response to determining that the UE policy associated for the UE device is disabled, a message to the UE device to remove, delete or terminate at least one rule associated with the UE policy association, as in claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Babu et al. (US 2019/0254094) discloses that a UE receives a GUTI from an AMF as part of a registration process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646