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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on March 6, 2024. The preliminary amendment, filed on the same day, amended claims 1-7 and 9-22; cancelled claims 23-88. Claims 1-22 are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on March 6, 2024 are accepted.
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).
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, 3-8, and 10-13 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 apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer program code, the computer program code comprising instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (Fig. 2 shows a UE 102 (apparatus). See Fig. 3 for component details of the UE 102):
receiving a policy rule data object comprising a plurality of rule descriptors, respective rule descriptors of the plurality of rule descriptors comprising a plurality of parameters associated with respective network applicability indications (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).”. Figs. 7 and 8 each of the RSDs comprises plurality of parameters for respective network applicability indications ); and
upon entering a rule evaluation state over a non-native network, for each respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors (paragraph 0085 discloses rule evaluation in LTE (non-native network) ):
determine whether the respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors satisfies one or more first conditions based at least on the respective network applicability indications associated with the respective parameters of the respective rule descriptor (paragraph 0085 discloses RSD 1 of the RSDs satisfies the condition of not applicability of network since the technology selector value is 5GC as stated “When UE 102 scans RSD 1, however, UE 102 sees that the Technology selector 702 has the value of 5GC, and therefore, that RSD 1 is not applicable for its S1 mode.” ),
in an instance in which the respective rule descriptor is determined to satisfy the one or more first conditions, identifying at least one parameter of the respective rule descriptor that satisfies one or more second conditions based at least on the respective network applicability indications associated with the respective parameter (paragraph 0085 discloses EPC in RSD 2 is satisfies for network applicability for LTE as stated “UE 102 proceeds to RSD 2, which includes the Technology selector value of EPC. Accordingly,”), and
causing a network connection to be established or an established network connection to be used, using the rule descriptors of the plurality of rule descriptors of the policy rule data object that are determined to satisfy the one or more first conditions and using one or more of the parameters of the rule descriptors of the plurality of rule descriptors of the policy rule data object that are determined to satisfy the one or more first conditions satisfy the one or more second conditions (paragraph 0085 discloses establishing the session through access point name in the LTE network 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. UE 102 does not apply the default rule—since rule 1 has been applied to the session.”).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein in an instance in which at least one respective parameter of the plurality of parameters of the respective rule descriptor is associated with a respective network applicability indication that has a first network applicability indication value, determining that the respective rule descriptor does not satisfy the one or more first conditions (paragraph 0085 discloses technology selector of RSD1 has value of 5GC that does not satisfy the its applicability in S1 mode as stated “When UE 102 scans RSD 1, however, UE 102 sees that the Technology selector 702 has the value of 5GC, and therefore, that RSD 1 is not applicable for its S1 mode”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the identifying comprises identifying a respective parameter of the plurality of parameters of the respective rule descriptor as not satisfying the one or more second conditions in an instance in which the respective parameter is associated with a respective network applicability indication that has a second network applicability indication value and identifying the respective parameter as satisfying the one or more second conditions in an instance in which the respective parameter is associated with a respective network applicability indication that has a third network applicability indication that has a third value (paragraph 0085 discloses technology selector of RSD1 has value of 5GC that does not satisfy the its applicability in S1 mode as stated “When UE 102 scans RSD 1, however, UE 102 sees that the Technology selector 702 has the value of 5GC, and therefore, that RSD 1 is not applicable for its S1 mode”. paragraph 0085 discloses EPC in RSD 2 is satisfies for network applicability for LTE as stated “UE 102 proceeds to RSD 2, which includes the Technology selector value of EPC. Accordingly,”).
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 wherein the instructions of the computer program code when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform receiving a second policy rule data object 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 policy rule data object (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 of a pre-determined set of non- applicable parameters (see Fig. 8, shows RSD of rule 802-5 comprise non-applicability of EPC).
As to claim 7, 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 parameters of the rule descriptor of the policy rule data object define a network connection with a native network, and wherein the network applicability indication associated with a respective parameter of the plurality of parameters describes at least one of: an applicability of the rule descriptor; or the respective parameter to the non-native network (see Fig. 11A shows RSD 1 parameters define network connection with 5GC network, and respective parameter EPC in LTE).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the network connection that is caused to be established or that is caused to be used is with the non-native network (paragraph 0085 discloses establishing the session in LTE 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. UE 102 does not apply the default rule—since rule 1 has been applied to the session.”).
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 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the policy rule data object is received over a native network, and wherein the non-native network is different from the native network (paragraph 0033 discloses URSP 106 is received from PCF 209 which belongs to 5G network (native network). Fig. 11B shows LTE network which is different from 5G).
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Jagannatha teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the native network comprises a 5th Generation System (5GS) , and wherein the non-native network comprises an Evolved Packet System (EPS) (Figs. 11A and 11B show native network is 5GG and non-native network is LTE/EPC ).
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, 14-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannatha in view of Salkintzis et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20240323825 A1), hereinafter, Salkintzis.
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 apparatus, of a compatibility support indication.
Salkintzis teaches wherein the policy rule data object is received subsequent to transmission, by the apparatus, of a compatibility support indication (Fig. 4, steps 1-4, shows UE sends registration request and receives the policy rule. Paragraph 0107 and 108 discloses UE subscription data includes mobility subscription information. Paragraph 0109 discloses policy comprises 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 Salkintzis about receiving the policy rule in response to registration request. One would be motivated to do that to provide appropriate URSP rules based on the UE subscription context (see paragraphs 0003 and 0107 of Salkintzis).
Regarding claim 14:
Jagannatha teaches:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the computer program code comprising instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (Fig. 2 shows PCF 209 (apparatus). See Fig. 3 for component details of the PCF 209):
[[receiving a compatibility support indication associated with a user equipment (UE)]];
for a policy rule data object comprising a plurality of rule descriptors, wherein each respective rule descriptor of the plurality of rule descriptors comprises a plurality of parameters, generating a network applicability indication for each respective parameter of the plurality of parameters comprised in each respective rule descriptor based at least on the computability support indication (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 the policy rule data objects and the network applicability indication for each respective parameter of the plurality of parameters to the UE; and receiving an acknowledgement of receipt of the object from the UE (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 a compatibility support indication associated with a user equipment (UE).
Salkintzis teaches receiving a compatibility support indication associated with a user equipment (Fig. 4, step 3, shows receiving various subscription information associated with the UE as explained in paragraph 0108).
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 Salkintzis about receiving various subscription information associated with the UE. One would be motivated to do that to provide appropriate URSP rules based on the UE subscription context (see paragraphs 0003 and 0107 of Salkintzis).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Jagannatha in view of Salkintzis teach all the limitations of claim 14 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the generating the network applicability indication for each respective parameter of each respective rule descriptor comprises:
determining at least one of: an applicability of the respective rule descriptor; or the respective parameter to a non-native network for the UE, the respective parameter defining a network connection with a native network for the UE (see Fig. 8, shows RSD of rule 802-5 comprise non-applicability of EPC), and
assigning one of a first network applicability indication value, a second network applicability indication value, or a third network applicability indication value to the respective network applicability indication based at least on the applicability (Fig. 11A shows 5G network applicability value 5GC and LTE network applicability value EPC).
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 13. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to combination of claims 3 and 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to combination of claims 5-7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 recites limitations similar to claim 11. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Jagannatha in view of Salkintzis teach all the limitations of claim 14 as shown above.
Jagannatha further teaches wherein the apparatus is a network device of a native network for the UE, and the transmission of the one or more policy rule data objects to the UE is over the native network for the UE (paragraph 0033 discloses receiving URSP 106 from PCF 209 over 5G).
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 associated with the respective network applicability indications describes one or more locations at which the apparatus is enabled to establish and/or use a network connection and at least a second parameter of the plurality of parameters associated with the respective network applicability indications describes a time window within which the apparatus is enabled to at least: establish a network connection; or use the network connection.
Talebi teach wherein at least a first parameter of the plurality of parameters associated with the respective network applicability indications describes one or more locations at which the apparatus is enabled to establish and/or use a network connection and at least a second parameter of the plurality of parameters associated with the respective network applicability indications describes a time window within which the apparatus is enabled to at least: establish a network connection; or use the network connection (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 Salkintzis and further in view of Talebi.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
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.
December 18, 2025
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444