DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gkatzikis et al. (US 2024/0396853 A1, hereinafter “Gkatzikis”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0276220 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Gkatzikis teaches a method, comprising: generating, by one or more devices (figs. 3, 7, ¶ [0025], ¶ [0069]), a user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) rule that indicates a route selection descriptor and a traffic descriptor (figs. 7, ¶ [0109], ¶ [0111], Step 1 may involve the transmission of one or more policy rule data objects by the PCF 260 to the UE 110, and the one or more policy rule data objects include network applicability indications associated with the parameters of rule descriptors (e.g., traffic descriptors, route selection descriptors) of the one or more policy rule data objects. ¶ [0114] ), wherein the route selection descriptor includes a core network (CN) type filed that explicitly identifies, as a CN type for which the route selection descriptor is applicable, either a Fifth Generation core network (5GCN) or Evolved Packet System (EPS) (¶ [0083], in Table 3, the parameter further comprises a network applicability indication (e.g., “EPS applicability indication” in Table 3). The network applicability indication indicates the applicability of the parameter to another network, such as an EPS network. ¶ [0059], Each rule descriptor includes a plurality of parameters, each associated with a respective network applicability indication. The network applicability indication is generated based at least in part on the applicability of the associated parameter to EPS networks. ¶ [0078]-¶ [0082], ¶ [0084], ¶ [0088]-¶ [0090], ¶ [0099], ¶ [0105]); and transmitting, by the one or more devices, the URSP rule (figs. 4-7), wherein a packet data unit (PDU) session is established based on: whether the route selection descriptor is permitted to be applied for establishing the PDU session based on a correspondence between the CN type indicated by the CN type field and a CN type associated with a CN to which the UE is connected (fig. 5, ¶ [0015], ¶ [0057], ¶ [0059], ¶ [0065], a UE 110 may connect to a 5GS network to establish a packet session (e.g., while in N1 mode) or the UE 110 may connect to an EPS network to establish a packet session (e.g., while in S1 mode). ¶ [0068], UE 110 may evaluate EPS applicability of each parameter of policy rules data objects and use applicable parameters in connecting with the EPS network and establishing sessions in the EPS network. ¶ [0089] If at least one parameter of the given rule descriptor is associated with the first network applicability indication value (e.g., “00”), then the UE 110 determines that the given rule descriptor does not satisfy the one or more first conditions and that the given rule descriptor should be ignored when connecting to and/or communicating via the non-native network (e.g., EPS). ¶ [0090]. Otherwise, the flowchart 500 proceeds to operation 506 in instances in which the UE 110 determines that the given rule descriptor does not include any parameters associated with the first network applicability indication value (e.g., “00”) and that the given rule descriptor should be considered when connecting to and/or communicating via the non-native network (e.g., EPS). ¶ [0083], ¶ [0092], ¶ [0099]. ¶ [0113]. In other words, the UE, connected to the EPS network to establish a packet session, establishes the session based on determining whether the route selection descriptor should be ignored or considered based on the network applicability indication (e.g., EPS applicability indication)).
Gkatzikis does not explicitly teach wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) session is selectively established based on: the CN type and a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI).
Wang teaches teach wherein a PDU session is selectively established based on: the CN type and a NSSAI (¶ [0267], 4.11.5.3 UE Requested PDU session establishment procedure… ¶ [0268] Step 4: If the EPS Interworking indication received from AMF indicates that the UE supports EPS interworking and the SMF determines, based on the EPS interworking support indication from the AMF and additional UE subscription data (e.g. EPS interworking is allowed for this DNN and S-NSSAI), that the PDU Session supports EPS interworking).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to selectively establish a PDU session based on whether the route selection descriptor is permitted to be applied for establishing the PDU session based on a correspondence between the CN type indicated by the CN type field and a CN type associated with a CN to which the UE is connected and a NSSAI in the system of Gkatzikis to provide an improved solution for mobility between different communication systems (¶ [0009] and ¶ [0031] of Wang).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the CN type indicates a value associated with the 5GCN, and the URSP rule is associated with the 5GCN (Gkatzikis: figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0011], ¶ [0065], ¶ [0068], ¶ [0078], ¶ [0083], ¶ [0084], ¶ [0095], parameters defined in the context of a 5GS network, can be applied to EPS networks and may be associated with the third network applicability indication value (e.g., “10”). ¶ [0096], the parameters describing location information related to areas that are fully covered by 5GS networks can be associated with second network applicability indication values (e.g., “01”) such that they are ignored in EPS networks, and the parameters describing location information not covered by 5GS networks but covered, instead, by EPS networks can be associated with third network applicability indication values (e.g., “10”) such that they are considered in EPS networks. ¶ [0101]), wherein the route selection descriptor is not associated with a network slice selection (¶ [0081], ¶ [0102], the set of pre-determined parameters includes an SSC Mode Selection parameter, a Network Slice Selection parameter, a Multi-Access Preference parameter, a Time Window parameter, and/or a Location Criteria parameter).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the CN type indicates a value associated with the EPS, and the URSP rule is associated with the EPS (Gkatzikis: figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0011], ¶ [0065], ¶ [0068], ¶ [0083], The first network applicability indication value indicates that the parameter is not applicable to the other network (e.g., EPS). The second network applicability indication value indicates that the parameter should be ignored in the other network (e.g., EPS). The third network applicability indication value indicates that the parameter is applicable to the other network (e.g., EPS), ¶ [0095], ¶ [0096], ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein traffic is routed based on the URSP rule, and the PDU session is established for a matching application based on the CN type (Gkatzikis: figs. 4-7, ¶ [0057], ¶ [0059], ¶ [0065], ¶ [0099]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more the devices is one of a policy control function (PCF), a radio access network (RAN), or an access and mobility management function (AMF) (Gkatzikis: fig. 7, ¶ [0111], Step 1 may involve the transmission of one or more policy rule data objects by the PCF 260 to the UE 110, and the one or more policy rule data objects include network applicability indications associated with the parameters of rule descriptors (e.g., traffic descriptors, route selection descriptors) of the one or more policy rule data objects. Similarly, the one or more policy rule data objects may be relayed by the AMF 210; for example, the PCF 260 provides the one or more policy rule data objects to the AMF 210, which then transmits the one or more policy rule data objects to the UE 110).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the route selection descriptor further indicates one or more of a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) or a data network name (DNN) (Gkatzikis: ¶ [0081], ¶ [0095]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the URSP rule is based on subscription information (Gkatzikis: fig. 7, ¶ [0111], Step 1 is performed much later than Step 0 (e.g. when user subscription or network configuration has been modified).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Gkatzikis in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the URSP rule comprises transmitting a configuration update that indicates the URSP rule (Gkatzikis: fig. 7, ¶ [0111], Step 1 is performed much later than Step 0 (e.g. when user subscription or network configuration has been modified while the UE 110 has already provided the compatibility support indication (step 0) to the PCF 260 a long while ago)).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on July 30, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
8. Applicant argues “…For at least the reasons presented in the interview and without acquiescing in the Examiner's rejection, the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose, as recited in amended claim 1, at least: a protocol data unit (PDU) session is selectively established based on: whether the route selection descriptor is permitted to be applied for establishing the PDU session based on a correspondence between the CN type indicated by the CN type field and a CN type associated with a CN to which the UE is connected, and a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI). Independent claims 9 and 17, as amended, recite similar features. Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied references…”
Examiner respectfully submits that Gkatzikis in view of Wang render obvious the amended claims (1, 9 and 17), as set forth above.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM). 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights