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
The amendments filed on April 29, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13-15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16-18, 21, and 22 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13-15, 19, and 20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 29, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated December 29, 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objection to the specification, the Abstract contains other data of the PCT application. The Abstract should be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. Applicant is advised to file the Abstract in a separate sheet with the Abstract only.
Applicant argues, in page 8 of the Remarks, “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's characterization of Jagannatha. Jagannatha describes a Technology selector and that the Technology selector is a parameter of the RSD. Jagannatha further discloses that the Technology selector indicates to what technology the RSD applies (e.g., 'EPC' or 'Si' for Evolved Packet Core, '5GC' or 'N1' for 5G packet core)." In contrast, amended independent claim 1 recites that "a respective parameter of a respective rule descriptor is associated with a respective network applicability-indication that indicates whether the respective parameter is applicable to an evolved packet core system (EPS)". Thus, in amended independent claim 1, each RDS includes a plurality of parameters, and each parameter is associated with an applicability indication.”.
In response, Fig. 11A of Jagannatha shows two RSDs, RSD 1 and RSD 2. RSD 1 includes parameters 5GC, S-NSSAI-A, ENTERPISES DNN, 3GPP ACCESS. When evaluating in LTE coverage area, the UE determines theses parameters are not applicable to EPS. On the other hand, RSD 2 includes parameters EPC, LTE_PRIVATE_APN, 3GPP ACESS. The UE determines theses parameters are applicable to EPS. Therefore, Jagannatha discloses each parameter of respective RSD indicates whether the respective parameter is applicable to an evolved packet core system (EPS).
Applicant argues, , in page 8 of the Remarks, “Further, Jagannatha describes that when a UE detects a Technology selector with a value indicating a different technology than the desired session, the UE stops processing the RSD entirely and moves to the next RSD. In contrast, amended claim 1 recites "upon entering a rule evaluation state, for each respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors: determining, for each parameter of the plurality of parameters comprised in the respective rule descriptor, whether the network applicability indication associated with the parameter indicates that the parameter is applicable to the EPS; and in an instance in which the respective rule descriptor is determined to satisfy the one or more first conditions, identifying at least one parameter the determining determines that the network applicability indication associated with the parameter indicates that the parameter is applicable to the EPS, determining that the parameter is to be considered when the UE is to connect with the EPS".”.
In response, the limitation “an instance in which the respective rule descriptor is determined to satisfy the one or more first conditions” in not recited in the amended claims. As shown Fig. 11B , circle 1106, of Jagannatha, UE enters rule evaluation in LTE coverage area. UE determines no parameter of RSD 1 is applicable to EPS and determine parameters of RSD 2 are applicable to EPS and to be considered when UE is to connect with the EPS as explained in paragraph 0085.
Applicant argues, in pages 8-9 of the Remarks, “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Jagannatha does not disclose the features of "wherein each respective parameter of a respective rule descriptor is associated with a respective network applicability that indicates whether the respective parameter is applicable to an evolved packet core system (EPS)", "determining, for each respective parameter of the plurality of parameters comprised in the respective rule descriptor, whether the network applicability indication associated with the parameter indicates that the respective parameter is applicable to the EPS associated with the respective parameter" and "in an instance the determining determines that the network applicability indication associated with the respective parameter indicates that the respective parameter is applicable to the EPS, determining that the respective parameter is to be considered when the UE is to connect with the EPS" recited in amended independent claim 1. Thus, Jagannatha fails to disclose each and every feature of amended independent claim 1. Amended independent claim 1 is therefore patentable over Jagannatha.”
In responses, as shown above, Jagannatha teaches these limitations. When UE evaluates a RSD 1, it determines parameters of RSD 1 are not applicable to EPS. Then UE verifies RSD 2 and determines each of the parameters of RSD 2 is applicable to the EPS as explained in paragraph 00085.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains other text. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“user equipment”, recited in in line 1 of claim 1, should be replaced with “user equipment (UE)”.
“EPS”, recited in line 9 of claim 14, should be replaced with “evolve packet system”.
“URSP”, recited in line 10 of claim 14, should be replaced with “user equipment route selection policy (URSP)”.
“user equipment route selection policy (URSP)”, recited in lines 11-12, should be replaced with “URSP”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jagannatha et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220369198 A1), hereinafter, Jagannatha.
Regarding claim 1:
Jagannatha teaches:
An user equipment comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to perform operations, the operations comprising (Fig. 2 shows a UE 102 (UE). See Fig. 3 for component details of the UE 102):
receiving, from a 5th generation communication network, a policy rule data object that encodes a user equipment route selection policy (URSP), the URSP comprising a plurality of rule descriptors, wherein a respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors comprises a plurality of parameters, wherein a respective parameter of a respective rule descriptor is associated with a respective network applicability indication that indicates whether the respective parameter is applicable to an evolved packet core system (EPS) (paragraph 0033 discloses receiving URSP 106 from PCF 209. Fig. 5 shows the URSP 106 comprises rule 1 110-1 (a policy rule data object) with a series of RSDs (plurality of rule descriptors) as stated in paragraph 0052 “As further shown, rule 110-1 includes a traffic descriptor (TD) 112-1 and series of RSDs (route selection descriptors) 114-11 through 114-1M (not shown).”. Fig. 7 show each of the RSDs comprises plurality of parameters indicating whether those parameters are applicable to EPS. For example, technology selection parameter indicates whether is it applicable for EPS, network slice selection parameter indicate it does not applicable to EPS); and
upon entering a rule evaluation state, for each respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors (paragraph 0085 discloses UE entering rule evaluation for RSD 1 and RSD2 ):
determining, for each parameter of the plurality of parameters comprised in the respective rule descriptor, whether the network applicability indication associated with the parameter indicates that the parameter is applicable to the EPS (Fig. 11A shows two RSDs, RSD 1 and RSD 2. RSD 1 includes parameters 5GC, S-NSSAI-A, ENTERPISES DNN, 3GPP ACCESS. When evaluating in LTE coverage area, the UE determines theses parameters are not applicable to EPS. On the other hand, RSD 2 includes parameters EPC, LTE_PRIVATE_APN, 3GPP ACESS. the UE determines theses parameters are applicable to EPS.),
in an instance the determining determines that the network applicability indication associated with the parameter indicates that the parameter is applicable to the EPS, determining that the parameter is to be considered when the UE is to connect with the EPS (Fig. 11B , circle 1106, shows UE determines no parameter of RSD 1 is applicable to EPS and determine parameters of RSD 2 are applicable to EPS and to be considered when UE is to connect with the EPS as explained in paragraph 0085 ), and
causing a network connection with the EPS to be established or modification to a network connection with the EPS, using the parameters of the rule descriptors that are determined to be considered when the UE is to connect to the EPS (paragraph 0085 discloses session is established with the LTE network using the parameters of RSD 2 as stated “Accordingly, UE 102 applies RSD 2 to establish the session through the access point with the name LTE_PRIVATE_APN in the LTE network.”).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches receiving a second policy rule data object that encodes a second URSP, the second URSP comprising a plurality of rule descriptors and one or more higher-precedence rule descriptors corresponding to one or more of the plurality of rule descriptors comprised in the USRP (Fig. 8 shows precedence of different rules 802 and executing rule in precedence as explained paragraph 0064 ).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the one or more of the plurality of rule descriptors of the second policy rule comprise at least one parameter that is not applicable to the EPS (see Fig. 11A, shows 5GC of RSD 1 is not applicable to the EPS).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the plurality of rule descriptors comprises at least a first rule descriptor that is a traffic descriptor and one or more second rule descriptors that are route selection descriptors (paragraph 0052 discloses rule descriptor comprise a traffic descriptor and RSDs as stated “As further shown, rule 110-1 includes a traffic descriptor (TD) 112-1 and series of RSDs (route selection descriptors) 114-11 through 114-1M (not shown)” ).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the subset of the plurality of rule descriptors comprises one or more route selection descriptors that are determined to independently satisfy the one or more first conditions (Fig. 7 show plurality of RSDs including technology selector satisfying EPC or 5GC).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the network applicability indication associated with a respective parameter comprises a first value that indicates the respective parameter is applicable to the EPS or a second value that indicates the respective parameter is not applicable to the EPS (Fig. 11A sows RSD 2 indicates EPC that is applicable to the EPS).
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannatha in view of Shan et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20190268835 A1), hereinafter, Shan.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha does not explicitly teach wherein the policy rule data object is received subsequent to transmission, by the UE, of a compatibility support indication that indicates that the UE is configured to and capable of evaluating an EPS applicability of parameters of a URSP.
Shan teaches wherein the policy rule data object is received subsequent to transmission, by the UE, of a compatibility support indication that indicates that the UE is configured to and capable of evaluating an EPS applicability of parameters of a URSP (paragraph 0167 discloses the UE sends indication whether it supports USRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagannatha to incorporate the teaching of Shan about UE sends indication whether it support USRP. One would be motivated to do that to reconfigure the UE with USRP that is supported by the UE (see paragraph 0002 of Shan).
Regarding claim 14:
Jagannatha teaches:
An apparatus fora 5th generation communication network, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations, the operations comprising (Fig. 2 shows PCF 209 (apparatus). See Fig. 3 for component details of the PCF 209):
[[receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a compatibility support indication that indicates that the UE is configured to and capable of evaluating an EPS applicability of parameters of a URSP]];
generating a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) for the UE, the URSP comprising a plurality of rule descriptors, wherein a respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors comprises a plurality of parameters, wherein a respective parameter of the plurality of parameters comprised in a respective rule descriptor of the plurality rule descriptors comprises a network applicability indication that indicates whether the respective parameter is applicable to the EPS (Fig. 5 shows the URSP 106 comprises rule 1 110-1 (a policy rule data object) with a series of RSDs (plurality of rule descriptors) as stated in paragraph 0052 “As further shown, rule 110-1 includes a traffic descriptor (TD) 112-1 and series of RSDs (route selection descriptors) 114-11 through 114-1M (not shown).”. Figs. 7 and 8 each of the RSDs comprises plurality of parameters for respective network applicability indications. Paragraph 0034 discloses the PCF 209 generates the policy rule based on the subscription information);
transmitting to the UE, a policy rule data object that encodes the URSP; and receiving, from the UE, an acknowledgement of receipt of the policy rule data object (paragraph 0033 discloses PCF 209 transmits the URSP 106 to UE 102. Paragraph 0033 also discloses the URSP 106 is stored, updated, removed from the UE 102 by the PCF 209 that implies bidirectional communication between the UE 102 and PCF 209 as stated “In one implementation, OTA server 208 may operate in conjunction with PCF 209 to manage URSP 106 at UE 102 (e.g., store URSP 106, update URSP 106, or remove URSP 106 at UE 102).”).
Jagannatha does not explicitly teach receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a compatibility support indication that indicates that the UE is configured to and capable of evaluating an EPS applicability of parameters of a URSP.
Shan teaches receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a compatibility support indication that indicates that the UE is configured to and capable of evaluating an EPS applicability of parameters of a URSP (paragraph 0167 discloses the UE sends indication whether it supports USRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagannatha to incorporate the teaching of Shan about UE sends indication whether it support USRP. One would be motivated to do that to reconfigure the UE with USRP that is supported by the UE (see paragraph 0002 of Shan).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Jagannatha in view of Shan teach all the limitations of claim 14 as shown above.
Jagannatha wherein the network applicability indication associated with a respective parameter comprises a first value that indicates the respective parameter is applicable to the EPS or a second value that indicates the respective parameter is not applicable to the EP (Fig. 11A sows RSD 2 indicates EPC that is applicable to the EPS).
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannatha in view of Talebi et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20230345355 A1), hereinafter, Talebi.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha does not teach wherein at least a first parameter of the plurality of parameters describes one or more locations at which the UE is enabled to establish a network connection with the EPS and/or modify a network connection with the EPS and at least a second parameter of the plurality of parameters describes a time window within which the UE is enabled to at least: establish the network connection with the EPS; or modify the network connection with the EPS.
Talebi teach wherein at least a first parameter of the plurality of parameters describes one or more locations at which the UE is enabled to establish a network connection with the EPS and/or modify a network connection with the EPS and at least a second parameter of the plurality of parameters describes a time window within which the UE is enabled to at least: establish the network connection with the EPS; or modify the network connection with the EPS (paragraphs 0287 and 0288 discloses URSP rule include location and time window. Paragraph 0292 discloses evaluating PDU session based on the location and time window in the URSP rule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jagannatha to incorporate the teaching of Talebi about URSP rule include location and time window. One would be motivated to do that to appropriately modifying/establishing the PDU session in a timely manner (see paragraphs 0293 of Talebi).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannatha in view of Shan and further in view of Talebi.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
July 10, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights