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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,3-4,9,11-12 and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled in this amendment. New Claims 21-22 have been added in this amendment.
Claims 1,3-9 and 11-22 are pending in this application, with claims 1,9 and 17 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1,9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1,5-9 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss et al. (US 2023/0319681 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kiss”) in view of Gupta et al. (US 2024/0073772 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Gupta”)
Regarding Claims 1,9 and 17, Kiss discloses a method, comprising: identifying, by a device (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0064] H-PCF), a user equipment (UE) route selection policy (URSP) rule (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0062-64] The H-PCF creates or identifies a URSP rule for a UE) to be provisioned for a UE (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0061] A UE); and transmitting, by the device, the URSP rule and an indicator (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0062-65] The H-PCF sends URSP rule to the V-AF. The policy control create response contains URSP rule and PLMN ID of visited network (i.e. indicator)), wherein the indicator indicates a UE behavior selected by the device from a plurality of UE behaviors, with respect to the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device and a preconfigured URSP rule stored at the UE, (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0052,0057] The URSP rules are stored (i.e. preconfigured) at the UE) at the UE (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0058] Based on the identifier of the visited PLMN, the UE determines to use (i.e. behavior) the URSP rule provided by the network).
Kiss does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE behavior selected by the device comprises combining the preconfigured URSP rule with the URSP rule according to a value of the indicator, and a relative priority between the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule is determined according to the value of the indicator.
However, Gupta from the same field of invention discloses wherein the UE behavior selected by the device comprises combining the preconfigured URSP rule with the URSP rule according to a value of the indicator, and a relative priority between the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule is determined according to the value of the indicator (Gupta Para[0051,0076] The rule precedence is indicated in a URSP rule and the PCF provided rule takes precedence according to the precedence (i.e. priority) indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiss to have the feature of “wherein the UE behavior selected by the device comprises combining the preconfigured URSP rule with the URSP rule according to a value of the indicator, and a relative priority between the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule is determined according to the value of the indicator” as taught by Gupta. The motivation would have been to maintain or achieve desired data rate (Gupta Para[0051]).
Specifically for claims 9 and 17, Kiss discloses the device that includes a processor (Kiss Fig.11 A processor) and a memory (Kiss Fig.11 A memory).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Gupta further discloses wherein the value of the indicator is a third value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a lower priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device (Gupta Para[0112] The URSP rule from the network has higher priority than the preconfigured rule).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiss to have the feature of “wherein the value of the indicator is a third value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a lower priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device” as taught by Gupta. The motivation would have been to maintain or achieve desired data rate (Gupta Para[0051]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss further discloses wherein the indicator is provided in a UE policy section management sub-list of a URSP data structure (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0062-64,0058] The route selection descriptor (i.e. data structure) contains a visited network PLMN ID (i.e. indicator)).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss further discloses wherein the preconfigured URSP rule stored at the UE is not automatically ignored in response to a receipt of the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0058] Based on the identifier of the visited PLMN, the UE determines to use the URSP rule provided by the network, thus the store URSP rule is not ignored automatically).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss further discloses wherein the preconfigured URSP rule is UE-specific (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0052,0054] The URSP rule is stored by the UE).
Regarding claim 8, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss further discloses wherein the device is a policy control function (PCF) device in a wireless network (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0064] H-PCF).
Regarding claim 18, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Gupta further discloses the value of the indicator is a second value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a higher priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); or the value of the indicator is a third value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a lower priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device (Gupta Para[0112] The URSP rule from the network has higher priority than the preconfigured rule).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiss to have the feature of “the value of the indicator is a third value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a lower priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device” as taught by Gupta. The motivation would have been to maintain or achieve desired data rate (Gupta Para[0051]).
Regarding claim 19, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss further discloses wherein the indicator is provided in a UE policy section management sub-list of a URSP data structure (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0062-64,0058] The route selection descriptor (i.e. data structure) contains a visited network PLMN ID (i.e. indicator)), and the device is a policy control function (PCF) device in a wireless network (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0064] H-PCF).
Regarding claim 20, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss further discloses wherein: the preconfigured URSP rule stored at the UE is not automatically ignored in response to a receipt of the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0058] Based on the identifier of the visited PLMN, the UE determines to use the URSP rule provided by the network, thus the store URSP rule is not ignored automatically); and the preconfigured URSP rule is UE-specific (Kiss Fig.4 Para[0052,0054] The URSP rule is stored by the UE).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Gupta further discloses wherein the UE behavior selected by the device further comprises routing traffic of the UE in accordance with the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule, based on the relative priority (Gupta Para[0112] The URSP rule from the network has higher priority than the preconfigured rule and the UE used it).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiss to have the feature of “wherein the UE behavior selected by the device further comprises routing traffic of the UE in accordance with the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule, based on the relative priority” as taught by Gupta. The motivation would have been to maintain or achieve desired data rate (Gupta Para[0051]).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss in view of Gupta and further in view of ADJAKPLE et al. (US 2024/0397419 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Adjakple”).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss in view of Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein the value of the indicator is a second value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a higher priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device.
However, Adjakple from the same field of invention discloses wherein the value of the indicator is a second value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a higher priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device (Adjakple Para[0171-172] The indication for rule usage based on higher priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiss and Gupta to have the feature of “wherein the value of the indicator is a second value indicating that the UE, in accordance with the UE behavior selected by the device, is to combine the preconfigured URSP rule and the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device, and the preconfigured URSP rule is associated with a higher priority than the URSP rule provisioned for the UE by the device” as taught by Adjakple. The motivation would have been to improve network access by a UE (Adjakple Para[0008]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss in view of Gupta and further in view of Salkintzis et al. (US 2024/0323825 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Salkintzis”).
Regarding claim 16, Kiss in view of Gupta discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Kiss in view of Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is a policy control function (PCF) device in a wireless network, and the notification is received from a unified data repository (UDR) device in the wireless network.
However, Salkintzis from the same field of invention discloses wherein the device is a policy control function (PCF) device in a wireless network, and the notification is received from a unified data repository (UDR) device in the wireless network (Salkintzis Fig.4 Para[0104-110] The PCF and UDR involved in determining URSP rules and the UE subscription information exchange).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiss and Gupta to have the feature of “wherein the device is a policy control function (PCF) device in a wireless network, and the notification is received from a unified data repository (UDR) device in the wireless network” as taught by Salkintzis. The motivation would have been to make it possible for a UE to select non-3GPP network with supported S-NSSAI (Salkintzis Para[0003]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights