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] ), and one of the route selection descriptor or the traffic descriptor indicates a core network (CN) type associated with the URSP rule (¶ [0059], ¶ [0078]- ¶ [0080], ¶ [0081], Table 3 below then illustrates an example where parameter may be included in a rule descriptor that is a traffic descriptor or a rule descriptor that is a route selection descriptor. ¶ [0082], ¶ [0083], in Table 3, the parameter further comprises a network applicability indication (e.g., “EPS applicability indication” in Table 3). As discussed, the network applicability indication indicates the applicability of the parameter to another network, such as an EPS network); a packet data network (PDN) session is established based on: whether the route selection descriptor is permitted to be applied for establishing the PDU session, and the CN type (fig. 5, ¶ [0057], ¶ [0059], The network applicability indication is configured to cause the parameter and/or the rule descriptor comprising the parameter to be considered or ignored when connecting to (e.g., establishing a connection session with) and/or communicating via an 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]. evaluation of the policy rule data object on a rule descriptor level may be followed by evaluation of the policy rule data object on a parameter level when the one or more first conditions are satisfied. ¶ [0092], ¶ [0099]), and transmitting, by the one or more devices, the URSP rule (figs. 4-7).
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, the CN type 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 a Fifth Generation core network (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 an Evolved Packet System (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 a packet data network (PDN) 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), and wherein the route selection descriptor further includes an additional filed to explicitly indicate whether a selection of the PDU session is in a Fifth Generation core network (5GCN) or Evolved Packet system (EPS) (Gkatzikis: fig. 5, ¶ [0057], UE route selection policies generally provide information on which data connection (e.g., a protocol data unit (PDU) session on a network slice in an instance of a 5GS network) a given service or application should use when exchange traffic with a network, ¶ [0015], at least a first parameter associated with a respective network applicability indication describes one or more locations at which the UE is enabled to use a network connection/PDU session and at least a second parameter associated with a respective network applicability indication describes a time window within which the UE is enabled to establish and/or use a network connection/PDU session. ¶ [0081], Various parameter types of parameters included in route selection descriptors may include a Session and Service Continuity (SSC) Mode Selection parameter, a Network Slice Selection parameter, DNN Selection parameter, PDU Session Type Selection parameter, a Non-Seamless Offload Indication parameter, an Access Type Preference parameter, a Multi-Access preference parameter, a Time Window parameter, and a Location Criteria parameter. ¶ [0082] The parameter further comprises a particular value, which may encode a particular meaning according to the parameter type. ¶ [0084], ¶ [0098], ¶ [0099], The UE 110 causes the established network connection with an EPS network to be used using parameters of such rule descriptors that satisfy the one or more second conditions (e.g., not being associated with a “01” network applicability indication and, instead, being associated with a “10” network applicability indication). Thus, the UE 110 uses considered parameters of a URSP in connecting to and communicating via an EPS network. ¶ [0105], each parameter of each rule descriptor of each policy rule data object to be provided to the UE 110 is associated with a network applicability indication (e.g., “00”, “01”, “10”). ¶ [0113]).
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)), and wherein the route selection descriptor further includes an additional filed to explicitly indicate whether a selection of the PDU session is in a Fifth Generation core network (5GCN) or Evolved Packet system (EPS) (Gkatzikis: fig. 5, ¶ [0057], UE route selection policies generally provide information on which data connection (e.g., a protocol data unit (PDU) session on a network slice in an instance of a 5GS network) a given service or application should use when exchange traffic with a network, ¶ [0015], at least a first parameter associated with a respective network applicability indication describes one or more locations at which the UE is enabled to use a network connection/PDU session and at least a second parameter associated with a respective network applicability indication describes a time window within which the UE is enabled to establish and/or use a network connection/PDU session. ¶ [0081], Various parameter types of parameters included in route selection descriptors may include a Session and Service Continuity (SSC) Mode Selection parameter, a Network Slice Selection parameter, DNN Selection parameter, PDU Session Type Selection parameter, a Non-Seamless Offload Indication parameter, an Access Type Preference parameter, a Multi-Access preference parameter, a Time Window parameter, and a Location Criteria parameter. ¶ [0082] The parameter further comprises a particular value, which may encode a particular meaning according to the parameter type. ¶ [0084], ¶ [0098], ¶ [0099], The UE 110 causes the established network connection with an EPS network to be used using parameters of such rule descriptors that satisfy the one or more second conditions (e.g., not being associated with a “01” network applicability indication and, instead, being associated with a “10” network applicability indication). Thus, the UE 110 uses considered parameters of a URSP in connecting to and communicating via an EPS network. ¶ [0105], each parameter of each rule descriptor of each policy rule data object to be provided to the UE 110 is associated with a network applicability indication (e.g., “00”, “01”, “10”). ¶ [0113]).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on March 5, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
8. Applicant argues “…However, "the EPS interworking support indication from the AMF and additional UE subscription data" described in WANG does not teach or suggest, as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added):
wherein 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,
the CN type, and a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI).
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over GKATZIKIS and WANG. Independent claims 9 and 17, as amended, recite similar features to claim 1 and are patentable for similar reasons as claim 1. Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over GKATZIKIS and WANG…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Gkatzikis in view of Wang render obvious the amended claims (1, 9 and 17), as set forth above.
Conclusion
9. 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