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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on March 17, 2026. Claim 15 is canceled.
Claims 1-14, and 16-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combined prior arts fail to disclose the limitation of “the route selection descriptor to the detected application traffic based at least in part on a determination that the network identity of the route selection descriptor matches the identity of the first wireless communication network”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application is directed towards policy based selection of a network. The combination of prior arts discloses obtaining a transfer policy from a policy node of a first network, the transfer policy being associated with a network selection for an application, and determining whether the application is to be transferred from using the first network to using a second network based at least in part on the obtained transfer policy with performing a network connection based on the data transmission of an application. UE registered to the first network and sending traffic associated with the application over the first network with subscription policy corresponding to the use of application and according to the location and direction of traffic communication among others. Additionally, the traffic descriptor includes the rule correlation ID with the application identifier an associated communication path shows the primary direction of communication.
Park discloses detecting an event associated with data transmission of an application, identifying requirement information including at least one first parameter associated with the data transmission, identifying network capability information including at least one second parameter indicating capability of a network capable of being accessed by the electronic device, and performing a network connection for the data transmission based at least partly on the requirement information and the network capability information. In the network a user plane indicates a path for transmitting and receiving a data packet required for a user of the electronic device to receive a service. The control plane indicates a path for transmitting and receiving a control signal for connection, management, or release of a network used to transmit the data packet. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection is sustained for this claim limitation.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 7, 8, and 16 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 17-21 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts PANCORBO MARCOS and Park for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PANCORBO MARCOS et al. (US Publication 2023/0189105) hereafter PANCORBO MARCOS, and further in view of Park et al. (US Publication 2019/0356743) hereafter Park.
As per claim 1, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses user equipment(UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to receive a route selection policy rule, the route selection policy rule comprising an application descriptor (paragraphs 78, 83: UE route selection policy associated with application of a network); and a route selection descriptor, the route selection descriptor comprising a network identity (paragraphs 12, 79: policy indicated route selection descriptor indicating access type and network identifier); detect application traffic that matches the application descriptor; determine that the network identity of the route selection descriptor matches an identity of a first wireless communication network (paragraphs 13, 79, 126 table 1 & 2: establishes session for the matching application); and apply the route selection descriptor to the detected application traffic based at least in part on a determination that the network identity of the route selection descriptor of the first wireless communication network (paragraphs 9, 12, 84: establishes session for the matching application). Although, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses path for the session that matches with the application, but he fails to expressly disclose apply the route selection descriptor to the detected application traffic based at least in part on a determination that the network identity of the route selection descriptor matches the identity of the first wireless communication network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the claimed limitation of the route selection descriptor to the detected application traffic based at least in part on a determination that the network identity of the route selection descriptor matches the identity of the first wireless communication network (paragraphs 52, 115: path of data transmission).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to have incorporated Parks’ teaching of performing network connection based on data transmission with the teachings of PANCORBO MARCOS. One would be motivated to establish the matched route based on the requirement of the application traffic and network.
As per claim 2, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the UE wherein the first wireless communication network (paragraphs 13, 79), but he fails to expressly disclose first wireless communication network comprises a home network for the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the claimed limitation of first wireless communication network comprises a home network for the UE (paragraph 164).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
As per claim 3, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the UE wherein the route selection policy rule is received from the first wireless communication network (paragraphs 9, 12, 84).
As per claim 4, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the UE wherein the first wireless communication network comprises a visited network for the UE (paragraphs 10, 13, 37).
As per claim 5, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the UE wherein a second wireless communication network comprises and wherein the route selection policy rule is received from the second wireless communication network (paragraphs 13, 79), but he fails expressly disclose a second wireless communication network comprises a home network for the UE and wherein the route selection policy rule is received from the second wireless communication network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the claimed limitation of a second wireless communication network comprises a home network for the UE and wherein the route selection policy rule is received from the second wireless communication network (paragraph 164).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 5.
As per claim 6, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the UE wherein the route selection policy rule comprises a route selection validation criteria, the route selection validation criteria comprising at least one of: the network identity; a time window; or a location criteria (paragraphs 15-16, 79, 87).
Claim 7 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
As per claim 8, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses a network node in a first wireless communication network for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network node to: construct a route selection policy rule comprising an application descriptor and a route selection descriptor (paragraphs 78, 83: UE route selection policy associated with application of a network), the route selection descriptor comprising a network identity (paragraphs 12, 79: policy indicated route selection descriptor indicating access type and network identifier), wherein the network identity identifies a second wireless communication network (paragraphs 13, 79, 126 table 1 & 2: establishes session for the matching application), and the route selection policy rule defines a route for application traffic when a user equipment (UE) is registered in the wireless communication network; and transmit the route selection policy rule to the UE (49, 64, 79). Although, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses establishes path for the session that matches with the application, but he fails to expressly disclose route for application traffic when a user equipment (UE) is registered in the second wireless communication network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the claimed limitation of the route selection descriptor comprising a network identity, wherein the network identity identifies a second wireless communication network, a route for application traffic when a user equipment (UE) is registered in the second wireless communication network; and transmit the route selection policy rule to the UE (paragraphs 52, 115).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
As per claim 9, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the network node is the first wireless communication network (paragraphs 13, 79), and wherein the second wireless communication network is a visited network for the UE (paragraphs 10, 13, 37), but he fails to disclose first wireless communication network is a home network for the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the claimed limitation of first wireless communication network is a home network for the UE (paragraph 164).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9.
As per claim 10, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the network node wherein the network node comprises a policy control function (paragraphs 16, 90).
As per claim 11, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the network node wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network node to receive a notification of updated service parameters from a Unified Data Repository (UDR) in the first wireless communication network (paragraphs 52, 83).
As per claim 12, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the network node wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network node to determine from the updated service parameters a route for application traffic in the second wireless communication network (paragraphs 13, 79).
As per claim 13, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the network node wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network node to construct the route selection policy rule from the updated service parameters in accordance with a determined route for application traffic in the second wireless communication network (paragraphs 12, 78, 83).
As per claim 14, PANCORBO MARCOS discloses the network node wherein the updated service parameters are for one or more of the UE, a group of UEs, or a combination of Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) and Data Network Access Identifier (DNAI) (paragraphs 81, 83).
Claim 16 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 17-21 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-6 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-6 apply equally as well to claims 17-21, respectively
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights