DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 28, 2026 has been reviewed.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa et al. (US 2022/0272623 A1), hereinafter referred to as Watfa, in view of Gkatzikis et al. (US 2024/0396853 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0073772 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gupta.
With respect to claim 1, Watfa teaches A method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network (a method performed by a user equipment (UE), para. 0011), comprising:
maintaining, by the UE, a set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules (set of one or more URSP rules, where a URSP rule is composed of a precedence value of the URSP rule identifying the precedence of the URSP rule among all the existing URSP rules, para. 0039-0040; the UE assesses on the basis of e.g., USRP rules in the UE, para. 0174), wherein the UE is in S1 mode (the UE is registered in S1 mode, para. 0160; also see para. 0203);
receiving a request from an upper layer with information of an application for requesting information via which PDU session to send a Packet Data Unit (PDU) of the application (when the upper layers request information of the PDU session via which to send a PDU of an application; the UE shall evaluate the URSP rules, except the default URSP rule, with a traffic descriptor matching the application information in increasing order of their precedence values, para. 0071; when the UE gets a new request to establish a PDU session, the UE verifies the attributes of the request e.g., application ID, etc, and checks for a match with a URSP rule; the UE can use the existing PDU session for the requesting application, para. 0066);
selecting a URSP rule by matching a traffic descriptor (TD) of the selected URSP rule with information of the application (for a given URSP rule, the UE checks for a match with the traffic descriptor, and if so (i.e. if there is a match), then further verify the route selection descriptor (RSD) of the URSP rule for which there was a match with the traffic descriptor; if there is a match with the RSD (except for some attributes), the UE can use the existing PDU session for the requesting application; otherwise, the UE continues to verify other RSDs within the current URSP rule if any, para. 0066; also see para. 0071);
selecting a route selection descriptor (RSD) of the selected URSP rule (for a given URSP rule, the UE checks for a match with the traffic descriptor, and if so (i.e. if there is a match), then further verify the route selection descriptor (RSD) of the URSP rule for which there was a match with the traffic descriptor; if there is a match with the RSD (except for some attributes), the UE can use the existing PDU session for the requesting application, para. 0066; the selected route selection descriptor includes the multi-access preference, para. 0088); and
determining whether a PDU) session is to be established based on the selected RSD (the URSP handling layer requests the UE Non-access stratum, NAS, layer to establish a PDU session providing the following PDU session attributes based on the selected route selection descriptor, para. 0090; the UE implementation which PDU session to select if there exist multiple PDU sessions matching the same route selection descriptor of the lowest precedence value, para. 0080; the existing PDU session that is chosen, or selected, to be the PDU session which is associated with the new request may be any PDU session for which there is a match between the other attributes (or other application information) with the attributes (or RSD components) of an existing PDU session, para. 0172).
Watfa does not explicitly teach
determining one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters;
However, Gkatzikis teaches
determining one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters (a Rel-16 UE can use URSPs while in EPS (S1 mode) by translating them to EPS parameters, although URSPs are still provisioned via 5G Core (5GC) networks. However, certain 5GS parameters of the rule descriptors of a URSP, which can be a Traffic Descriptor (TD) or a Route Selection Descriptor (RSD), do not have an exact equivalent in EPS. In existing UEs then, any rule descriptor that includes a parameter that is not applicable to EPS is simply ignored in EPS. For example, for certain features like edge computing, “Time Window” and “Location Criteria” are spatial and temporal parameters which are necessary to determine the validity of URSP rules (e.g., validity criteria) but are simply ignored in EPS when included in a URSP rule, para. 0057) in order to improve efficiency in the communication, provisioning, and evaluation of URSPs as taught by Gkatzikis (para. 0006);
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gkatzikis to the method of Watfa in order to improve efficiency in the communication, provisioning, and evaluation of URSPs as taught by Gkatzikis (para. 0006).
Watfa in view of Gkatzikis does not explicitly teach
determining whether a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established based on a multi-access (MA) preference parameter in the selected RSD.
However, Gupta teaches
determining whether a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established based on a multi-access (MA) preference parameter in the selected RSD (obtaining parameters from the URSP rules associated with the 5G network to establish a packet data network (PDN) connection in an evolved packet system (EPS) of a 4G network; and establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules, para. 0106; the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference, para. 0082; parameters such as multi access preference, para. 0081; the URSP rules can include a rule precedence, a traffic descriptor, a list of route selection descriptors, para. 0051) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 9, Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta teaches The method of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Gupta teaches wherein the PDN connection is established via a PDN connectivity procedure in an evolved packet system (EPS) or in an evolved packet core (EPC) (establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules, para. 0106; the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference, para. 0082; parameters such as multi access preference, para. 0081) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 10, Watfa teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the UE obtains the set of URSP rules in a descendent priority (a set of one or more URSP rules, where a URSP rule is composed of a precedence value of the URSP rule identifying the precedence of the URSP rule among all the existing URSP rules, para. 0039-0040; there is at most one default URSP rule and it has the highest precedence value i.e. lowest priority, para. 0066).
Further, Gupta teaches wherein the UE obtains the set of URSP rules in a descendent priority comprising through signaling from the wireless network, through pre- configuration in a universal subscriber identify module(USIM), or through a pre-configuration in a mobile equipment (ME) (the UE can be also pre-configured with URSP rules (e.g. by the operator). Only the URSP rules provisioned by the PCF126 could be used by the UE 101/202, if both URSP rules provisioned by the PCF 126 and pre-configured URSP rules are available at the UE 101/202. If no URSP rule is provisioned by the PCF 126, and the UE 101/202 has pre-configured rules configured in both the USIM and ME, then only the pre-configured URSP rules in the USIM is used, para. 0052) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 11, Watfa teaches A User Equipment (UE) (a method performed by a user equipment (UE), para. 0011), comprising:
a transceiver that transmits and receives radio frequency (RF) signal in a wireless network (the UE include a transceiver 410, para. 0235; the transceiver 410 transmit and receive signals, para. 0236);
a memory (memory, para. 0022); and
a processor coupled to the memory (processor, para. 0022), the processor configured to
maintain[[s]] a set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules (set of one or more URSP rules, where a URSP rule is composed of a precedence value of the URSP rule identifying the precedence of the URSP rule among all the existing URSP rules, para. 0039-0040; the UE assesses on the basis of e.g., USRP rules in the UE, para. 0174), wherein the UE is in S1 mode (the UE is registered in S1 mode, para. 0160; also see para. 0203);
receive[[s]] a request from an upper layer with information of an application for requesting information via which PDU session to send a Packet Data Unit (PDU) of the application (when the upper layers request information of the PDU session via which to send a PDU of an application; the UE shall evaluate the URSP rules, except the default URSP rule, with a traffic descriptor matching the application information in increasing order of their precedence values, para. 0071; when the UE gets a new request to establish a PDU session, the UE verifies the attributes of the request e.g., application ID, etc, and checks for a match with a URSP rule; the UE can use the existing PDU session for the requesting application, para. 0066);
select a URSP rule by matching a traffic descriptor (TD) of the selected URSP rule with the information of the application (for a given URSP rule, the UE checks for a match with the traffic descriptor, and if so (i.e. if there is a match), then further verify the route selection descriptor (RSD) of the URSP rule for which there was a match with the traffic descriptor; if there is a match with the RSD (except for some attributes), the UE can use the existing PDU session for the requesting application; otherwise, the UE continues to verify other RSDs within the current URSP rule if any, para. 0066; also see para. 0071);
select an RSD of the selected URSP rule (for a given URSP rule, the UE checks for a match with the traffic descriptor, and if so (i.e. if there is a match), then further verify the route selection descriptor (RSD) of the URSP rule for which there was a match with the traffic descriptor; if there is a match with the RSD (except for some attributes), the UE can use the existing PDU session for the requesting application, para. 0066; the selected route selection descriptor includes the multi-access preference, para. 0088); and
determine whether a PDU session is to be established based on the selected RSD (the URSP handling layer requests the UE Non-access stratum, NAS, layer to establish a PDU session providing the following PDU session attributes based on the selected route selection descriptor, para. 0090; the UE implementation which PDU session to select if there exist multiple PDU sessions matching the same route selection descriptor of the lowest precedence value, para. 0080; the existing PDU session that is chosen, or selected, to be the PDU session which is associated with the new request may be any PDU session for which there is a match between the other attributes (or other application information) with the attributes (or RSD components) of an existing PDU session, para. 0172).
Watfa does not explicitly teach
determine one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters;
However, Gkatzikis teaches
determine one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters (a Rel-16 UE can use URSPs while in EPS (S1 mode) by translating them to EPS parameters, although URSPs are still provisioned via 5G Core (5GC) networks. However, certain 5GS parameters of the rule descriptors of a URSP, which can be a Traffic Descriptor (TD) or a Route Selection Descriptor (RSD), do not have an exact equivalent in EPS. In existing UEs then, any rule descriptor that includes a parameter that is not applicable to EPS is simply ignored in EPS. For example, for certain features like edge computing, “Time Window” and “Location Criteria” are spatial and temporal parameters which are necessary to determine the validity of URSP rules (e.g., validity criteria) but are simply ignored in EPS when included in a URSP rule, para. 0057) in order to improve efficiency in the communication, provisioning, and evaluation of URSPs as taught by Gkatzikis (para. 0006);
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gkatzikis to the UE of Watfa in order to improve efficiency in the communication, provisioning, and evaluation of URSPs as taught by Gkatzikis (para. 0006).
Watfa in view of Gkatzikis does not explicitly teach
determine whether a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established based on a multi-access (MA) preference parameter in the selected RSD.
However, Gupta teaches
determine whether a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established based on a multi-access (MA) preference parameter in the selected RSD (obtaining parameters from the URSP rules associated with the 5G network to establish a packet data network (PDN) connection in an evolved packet system (EPS) of a 4G network; and establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules, para. 0106; the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference, para. 0082; parameters such as multi access preference, para. 0081; the URSP rules can include a rule precedence, a traffic descriptor, a list of route selection descriptors, para. 0051) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the EU of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 19, Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta teaches The UE of claim 11 as described above,
Further, Gupta teaches wherein the PDN connection is established via a PDN connectivity procedure in an evolved packet system (EPS) or in an evolved packet core (EPC) (establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules, para. 0106; the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference, para. 0082; parameters such as multi access preference, para. 0081) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the EU of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 20, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 11, wherein the UE obtains the set of URSP rules in a descendent priority (a set of one or more URSP rules, where a URSP rule is composed of a precedence value of the URSP rule identifying the precedence of the URSP rule among all the existing URSP rules, para. 0039-0040; there is at most one default URSP rule and it has the highest precedence value i.e. lowest priority, para. 0066).
Further, Gupta teaches wherein the UE obtains the set of URSP rules in a descendent priority comprising through signaling from the wireless network, through pre- configuration in a universal subscriber identify module(USIM), or through a pre-configuration in a mobile equipment (ME) (the UE can be also pre-configured with URSP rules (e.g. by the operator). Only the URSP rules provisioned by the PCF126 could be used by the UE 101/202, if both URSP rules provisioned by the PCF 126 and pre-configured URSP rules are available at the UE 101/202. If no URSP rule is provisioned by the PCF 126, and the UE 101/202 has pre-configured rules configured in both the USIM and ME, then only the pre-configured URSP rules in the USIM is used, para. 0052) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the EU of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Claims 2-8 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa et al. (US 2022/0272623 A1), hereinafter referred to as Watfa, Gkatzikis et al. (US 2024/0396853 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0073772 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu et al. (US 2020/0404552 A1), hereinafter referred to as Huang-Fu.
With respect to claim 2, Watfa teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the UE supports a PDU session (the selected route selection descriptor includes the multi-access preference, para. 0088; if a preferred access type or a multi-access preference is included in the traffic descriptor of a URSP rule, it is recommended that the UE establishes a PDU session based on the preferred access type or the multi-access preference, para. 0100).
Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach wherein the UE supports multi- access (MA) PDU session and procedures for PDN connection establishment.
However, Huang-Fu teaches wherein the UE supports multi- access (MA) PDU session and procedures for PDN connection establishment (when UE 801 moves from 5GS to EPS, for both idle mode and connected mode mobility, the MA PDU session is moved to a corresponding PDN connection in EPS; the MA PDU session over 3GPP access is converted to a PDN connection in EPS for 3GPP access, para. 0043) in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 3, Watfa teaches The method of claim 2, wherein if the selected RSD contains a MA preference parameter the UE determines a PDU session is to be established (the selected route selection descriptor includes the multi-access preference, para. 0088; if a preferred access type or a multi-access preference is included in the traffic descriptor of a URSP rule, it is recommended that the UE establishes a PDU session based on the preferred access type or the multi-access preference, para. 0100).
Further, Gupta teaches wherein if the selected RSD contains a MA preference parameter the UE determines a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established (obtaining parameters from the URSP rules associated with the 5G network to establish a packet data network (PDN) connection in an evolved packet system (EPS) of a 4G network; and establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules, para. 0106; the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference, para. 0082; parameters such as multi access preference, para. 0081; the URSP rules can include a rule precedence, a traffic descriptor, a list of route selection descriptors, para. 0051) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 4, Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu teaches The method of claim 3 as described above,
Further, Huang-Fu teaches wherein the MA preference parameter indicates PDN connection should be established as a user-plane resource of a MA PDU session if the UE supports MA PDU session and procedures for PDN connection establishment (when UE 801 moves from 5GS to EPS, for both idle mode and connected mode mobility, the MA PDU session is moved to a corresponding PDN connection in EPS; the MA PDU session over 3GPP access is converted to a PDN connection in EPS for 3GPP access; The user plane resource on non-3GPP access of the MA PDU session is then released, para. 0043) in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 5, Watfa teaches The method of claim 3, further comprising: determining whether an MA PDU session or PDN connection that matches the selected RSD exists (the PDU session type of the route selection descriptor; preferred access type or multi-access preference, if the preferred access type or the multi-access preference is in the route selection descriptor; and if a preferred access type or a multi-access preference is included in the traffic descriptor of a URSP rule, it is recommended that the UE establishes a PDU session based on the preferred access type or the multi-access preference, para. 0098-0100).
With respect to claim 6, Watfa teaches The method of claim 5, wherein there is no existing MA PDU session or PDN connection that matches the selected RSD, further comprising:
establishing a PDN connection as a user-plane resource of an MA PDU session (if no session exists with these attributes, then the UE will request a new PDU session and provide these attributes if they match with the UE's URSP rules, para. 0129; if the DNN that the App #2 requested is different (e.g., DNN B) to the DNN of the existing PDU session (i.e., DNN A), then the UE will have to request a new PDU session and provide the DNN B, para. 0130).
With respect to claim 7, Watfa teaches The method of claim 5, wherein there is an existing MA PDU session that matches the selected RSD, and wherein there is no PDN connection associated with the application, further comprising:
establishing the PDN connection as a user-plane resource of the existing MA PDU session (App #2, requires a connection with the same attributes that are listed above; in this case, the UE will not request a new PDU session but rather will use the existing PDU session to send and/or receive data for App #2, para. 0130).
With respect to claim 8, Watfa teaches The method of claim 5, wherein there is an existing MA PDU session and an existing PDN connection as a user-plane resource of the MA PDU session matches the selected RSD, and wherein the existing MA PDU session or PDN connection is associated with the application (the PDU session already exist depends on a match between the attributes of the URSP rules and the attributes of the existing PDU session, if any, para. 0033; App #2, requires a connection with the same attributes that are listed above; in this case, the UE will not request a new PDU session but rather will use the existing PDU session to send and/or receive data for App #2, para. 0130).
With respect to claim 12, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 11, wherein the UE supports a PDU session (the selected route selection descriptor includes the multi-access preference, para. 0088; if a preferred access type or a multi-access preference is included in the traffic descriptor of a URSP rule, it is recommended that the UE establishes a PDU session based on the preferred access type or the multi-access preference, para. 0100).
Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach wherein the UE supports multi- access (MA) PDU session and procedures for PDN connection establishment.
However, Huang-Fu teaches wherein the UE supports multi- access (MA) PDU session and procedures for PDN connection establishment (when UE 801 moves from 5GS to EPS, for both idle mode and connected mode mobility, the MA PDU session is moved to a corresponding PDN connection in EPS; the MA PDU session over 3GPP access is converted to a PDN connection in EPS for 3GPP access, para. 0043) in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the EU of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 13, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 12, wherein if the selected RSD contains a MA preference parameter the UE determines a PDU session is to be established (the selected route selection descriptor includes the multi-access preference, para. 0088; if a preferred access type or a multi-access preference is included in the traffic descriptor of a URSP rule, it is recommended that the UE establishes a PDU session based on the preferred access type or the multi-access preference, para. 0100).
Further, Gupta teaches wherein if the selected RSD contains a MA preference parameter the UE determines a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established (obtaining parameters from the URSP rules associated with the 5G network to establish a packet data network (PDN) connection in an evolved packet system (EPS) of a 4G network; and establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules, para. 0106; the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference, para. 0082; parameters such as multi access preference, para. 0081; the URSP rules can include a rule precedence, a traffic descriptor, a list of route selection descriptors, para. 0051) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the EU of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
With respect to claim 14, Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu teaches The UE of claim 13 as described above,
Further, Huang-Fu teaches wherein the MA preference parameter indicates PDN connection should be established as a user-plane resource of a MA PDU session if the UE supports MA PDU session and procedures for PDN connection establishment (when UE 801 moves from 5GS to EPS, for both idle mode and connected mode mobility, the MA PDU session is moved to a corresponding PDN connection in EPS; the MA PDU session over 3GPP access is converted to a PDN connection in EPS for 3GPP access; The user plane resource on non-3GPP access of the MA PDU session is then released, para. 0043) in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, further in view of Gupta, and furthermore in view of Huang-Fu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the EU of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta in order to improve the user experience, optimize the traffic distribution across various accesses as taught by Huang-Fu (para. 0005).
With respect to claim 15, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 13, wherein the preference module further determines whether an MA PDU session or PDN connection that matches the selected RSD exists (the PDU session type of the route selection descriptor; preferred access type or multi-access preference, if the preferred access type or the multi-access preference is in the route selection descriptor; and if a preferred access type or a multi-access preference is included in the traffic descriptor of a URSP rule, it is recommended that the UE establishes a PDU session based on the preferred access type or the multi-access preference, para. 0098-0100).
With respect to claim 16, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 15, wherein there is no existing MA PDU session or PDN connection that matches the selected RSD, and wherein the preference module further establishes a PDN connection as a user-plane resource of an MA PDU session (if no session exists with these attributes, then the UE will request a new PDU session and provide these attributes if they match with the UE's URSP rules, para. 0129; if the DNN that the App #2 requested is different (e.g., DNN B) to the DNN of the existing PDU session (i.e., DNN A), then the UE will have to request a new PDU session and provide the DNN B, para. 0130).
With respect to claim 17, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 15, wherein there is an existing MA PDU session that matches the selected RSD, and wherein there is no PDN connection associated with the application, and wherein the preference module further establishes the PDN connection as a user-plane resource of the existing MA PDU session (App #2, requires a connection with the same attributes that are listed above; in this case, the UE will not request a new PDU session but rather will use the existing PDU session to send and/or receive data for App #2, para. 0130).
With respect to claim 18, Watfa teaches The UE of claim 15, wherein there is an existing MA PDU session and an existing PDN connection as a user-plane resource of the MA PDU session matches the selected RSD, and wherein the existing PDN connection is associated with the application (the PDU session already exist depends on a match between the attributes of the URSP rules and the attributes of the existing PDU session, if any, para. 0033; App #2, requires a connection with the same attributes that are listed above; in this case, the UE will not request a new PDU session but rather will use the existing PDU session to send and/or receive data for App #2, para. 0130).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s main arguments are that “There is no teaching "determining one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters."” (Argument 1, REMARKS, page 7); and “when Gupta identifies parameters that may be used for establishing a PDN connection in EPS, Gupta lists parameters other than multi-access preference. Thus, Gupta teaches away from the Office Action's proposed modification rather than supplying it.” (Argument 2, REMARKS, page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments.
[0099] Thus, as discussed, flowchart 500 may be an example embodiment of operation 406. Returning to FIG. 4 , at operation 408, the UE 110 causes a network connection to be established or an established network connection to be used, according to the evaluation of the plurality of rule descriptors. The apparatus 300 embodied by or otherwise associated with the UE 110 of this example embodiment comprises means, such as processor 302, memory 304, network interface 306, and/or the like, for causing a network connection to be established and/or an established network connection to be used according to the evaluation of the plurality of rule descriptors. As the UE 110 is in a rule evaluation state (e.g., S1 mode), the UE 110 may cause the network connection to be established with an EPS network based at least in part on the evaluation of EPS applicability of the rule descriptors and parameters thereof. Similarly, the UE 110 may use an established network connection with an EPS network based at least in part on the evaluation of EPS applicability of the rule descriptors and parameters thereof. In particular, the UE 110 causes the network connection to be established and/or the established network connection to be used using rule descriptors that satisfy the one or more first conditions (e.g., not including any parameters associated with a “00” network applicability indication) and specifically, 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.
In response to Applicant’s Argument 1 that “There is no teaching "determining one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters."” it is noted that Watfa does not explicitly teach "determining one or more URSP rules applies to the UE in S1 mode based on one or more mapped EPS parameters." However, Gkatzikis teaches (a Rel-16 UE can use URSPs while in EPS (S1 mode) by translating them to EPS parameters, although URSPs are still provisioned via 5G Core (5GC) networks, certain 5GS parameters of the rule descriptors of a URSP, which can be a Traffic Descriptor (TD) or a Route Selection Descriptor (RSD), do not have an exact equivalent in EPS. In existing UEs then, any rule descriptor that includes a parameter that is not applicable to EPS is simply ignored in EPS, for certain features like edge computing, “Time Window” and “Location Criteria” are spatial and temporal parameters which are necessary to determine the validity of URSP rules (e.g., validity criteria) but are simply ignored in EPS when included in a URSP rule (para. 0057).
Further, Gkatzikis teaches the UE 110 is in a rule evaluation state (e.g., S1 mode), the UE 110 cause the network connection to be established with an EPS network based at least in part on the evaluation of EPS applicability of the rule descriptors and parameters (para. 0099) in order to improve efficiency in the communication, provisioning, and evaluation of URSPs as taught by Gkatzikis (para. 0006).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gkatzikis to the method of Watfa in order to improve efficiency in the communication, provisioning, and evaluation of URSPs as taught by Gkatzikis (para. 0006).
In response to Applicant’s Argument 2 that “when Gupta identifies parameters that may be used for establishing a PDN connection in EPS, Gupta lists parameters other than multi-access preference. Thus, Gupta teaches away from the Office Action's proposed modification rather than supplying it.” it is noted that Watfa in view of Gkatzikis does not explicitly teach teaches determining whether a packet data networks (PDN) connection is to be established based on a multi-access (MA) preference parameter in the selected RSD.
However, Gupta teaches obtaining parameters from the URSP rules associated with the 5G network to establish a packet data network (PDN) connection in an evolved packet system (EPS) of a 4G network; and establishing the PDN connection in the EPS of the 4G network based on the parameters from the URSP rules (para. 0106); the parameters of the URSP rules that are associated with the EPS of the 4GC 140 network can be based on an access type preference (para. 0082); parameters such as multi access preference (para. 0081); the URSP rules can include a rule precedence, a traffic descriptor, a list of route selection descriptors (para. 0051) in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
Therefore, based on Watfa in view of Gkatzikis, and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the method of Watfa in view of Gkatzikis in order to ensure security to resources, privacy and network compliance as taught by Gupta (para. 0051).
For the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO HONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2666. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOON H. HWANG can be reached on 571-272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2447
May 30, 2026
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights