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 .
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on 08/23/2024.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-23 are pending.
3. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-23 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024,01/19/2026, and 03/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR20220100173 from the Hellenic Republic, filed on 02/25/2022.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-21 of copending Application No. 18/841,168 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming common subject matter, modifying the access rights of users based on the user’s requests.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The Examiner notes that the copending application (18/841,168) and the instant application are directed towards patentability indistinct variations of the same inventive concept, which is using route selection policies in different networks. The Examiner made the double patenting rejection determination based on the fact that the parent application has claims that have overall appearances with basically the same design characteristics and the differences between both parent application and current application are considered patentably insufficient when they are obvious to a person skilled in the art. While the parent applications have different scopes, the Examiner found that the difference in scope is minor and patentably indistinct between the claims being compared.
Thus, the applied nonstatutory double patenting rejection applies in the current application because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept but with different appearances or differing scope that are patentability indistinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5-8, and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maria Belen Pancorbo Marcos et al (US 20230189105 A1), hereinafter “Pancorbo Marcos”.
Regarding Claim 1, Pancorbo Marcos discloses a network node in a first wireless communication network, the network node comprising:
at least one memory (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0202, memory);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network node to (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0201, processor):
receive, from an application function in a second wireless communication network, application guidance on route selection policy rule determination (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0037, providing policies to the UE on which network the UE is to use for the user data related to a media or application, and/or provide that the network that is the UE is to use (e.g., another network different than the networking providing the rules/policies. Informing of change of quality of service based on a certain area where the UE is registered to be. Paragraph 0078, obtaining route selection policy associated with an application);
construct a route selection policy rule using the application guidance, the route selection policy rule including an application descriptor, and a route selection descriptor comprising a network identity, that identifies the second wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraphs 0078-0079, using a route selection descriptor (RSD) and based at least in part on the route selection policy (URSP) in order to determine whether the application is to be transferred to another network, the other network being different from the first network (i.e., identifying the second communication network, as claimed). Paragraph 0126, Tables 1 and 2, establishes session for the matching application),
wherein the route selection policy rule defines a route for application data traffic when a user equipment (UE) is registered in the second wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0084, transfer policy from a policy node of a first network, the transfer policy being associated with a network selection for an application by selecting a second network based at least in part on the obtained transfer policy);
transmit the route selection policy rule to the UE (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraphs 0083-0084, providing the UE the route selection policy rule indicating the negotiated transfer policy).
Regarding Claim 2, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 1 above, wherein the application guidance includes a validity condition that comprises at least one of an identity of the second wireless communication network, a plurality of identities of wireless communication networks, or an identity of an application (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0079, network and application identifier are used for the route selection criteria).
Regarding Claim 5, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 1 above, wherein the network node is a policy control function (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraphs 0016, 0090, the transfer policy is a UE route selection policy, URSP, and the policy node comprises a policy control function, PCF).
Regarding Claim 6, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 1 above, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network node to receive a notification of service parameters from a unified data repository (UDR) in the first wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0052, the term “node” is used herein and can be any kind of network node, such as, a unified data repository (UDR), a policy control function (PCF), a network exposure function (NEF), an application function (AF), etc. Paragraph 0083, storing, at a data repository (DR) node, the negotiated transfer policy and a corresponding rule identifier for at least one user equipment (UE 12) that is to transfer the application to a different network than the network the UE 12 is registered to).
Regarding Claim 7, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 6 above, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network node to determine from the service parameters the route for the application data traffic in the second wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0084, transfer policy from a policy node of a first network, the transfer policy being associated with a network selection for an application by selecting a second network based at least in part on the obtained transfer policy).
Regarding Claim 8, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 7 above, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network node to construct the route selection policy rule from the service parameters in accordance with the determined route (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraphs 0078-0079, using a route selection descriptor (RSD) and based at least in part on the route selection policy (URSP) in order to determine whether the application is to be transferred to another network, the other network being different from the first network. Paragraph 0084, transfer policy from a policy node of a first network, the transfer policy being associated with a network selection for an application by selecting a second network based at least in part on the obtained transfer policy).
Regarding Claim 10, Pancorbo Marcos discloses a network node in a second wireless communication network, the network node comprising:
at least one memory (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0202, memory);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network node to transmit (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0201, processor), to a policy control function in a first wireless communication network, application guidance on route selection policy rule determination (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0037, providing policies to the UE on which network the UE is to use for the user data related to a media or application, and/or provide that the network that is the UE is to use (e.g., another network different than the networking providing the rules/policies. Informing of change of quality of service based on a certain area where the UE is registered to be. Paragraph 0078, obtaining route selection policy associated with an application).
Regarding Claim 11, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 10 above, wherein the application guidance includes a validity condition (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0079, network and application identifier are used for the route selection criteria).
Regarding Claim 12, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 11 above, wherein the validity condition comprises at least one of:
an identity of the second wireless communication network; a plurality of identities of wireless communication networks; or an identity of an application (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0079, network and application identifier are used for the route selection criteria).
Regarding Claim 13, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 10 above, wherein the network node is triggered to transmit the application guidance on route selection policy rule determination upon determining a user equipment specific handling of routing traffic to the second wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0043, enables the possibility to control the network and access used by the UE, for a certain media or application, across two networks, in a secure and trustworthy/legitimate way. Paragraph 0081, negotiation of transfer policy request indicates a plurality of user equipments (UEs 12) that are to use an application, a time and/or a date that the plurality of UEs 12 are to use the application).
Regarding Claim 14, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the network node of claim 10 above, wherein the network node is an application function (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0015, sending the transfer policy response identifying the transfer policy to an application function, AF, node associated with the application. Paragraph 0052, the term “node” is used herein and can be any kind of network node, such as, a unified data repository (UDR), a policy control function (PCF), a network exposure function (NEF), an application function (AF), etc. Paragraph 0081, negotiation of transfer policy request is received from an application function (AF) node).
Regarding Claim 15, Pancorbo Marcos discloses a method performed by a network node in a second wireless communication network, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a policy control function in a first wireless communication network, application guidance on route selection policy rule determination (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0037, providing policies to the UE on which network the UE is to use for the user data related to a media or application, and/or provide that the network that is the UE is to use (e.g., another network different than the networking providing the rules/policies. Informing of change of quality of service based on a certain area where the UE is registered to be. Paragraph 0078, obtaining route selection policy associated with an application).
Regarding Claim 16, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the method of claim 15 above, wherein the application guidance includes a validity condition that comprises at least one of an identity of the second wireless communication network, a plurality of identities of wireless communication networks, or an identity of an application (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0079, network and application identifier are used for the route selection criteria).
Regarding Claim 17, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the method of claim 15 above, wherein the network node is triggered to transmit the application guidance on route selection policy rule determination upon determining a user equipment specific handling of routing traffic to the second wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0043, enables the possibility to control the network and access used by the UE, for a certain media or application, across two networks, in a secure and trustworthy/legitimate way. Paragraph 0081, negotiation of transfer policy request indicates a plurality of user equipments (UEs 12) that are to use an application, a time and/or a date that the plurality of UEs 12 are to use the application).
Regarding Claim 18, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the method of claim 15 above, wherein the network node is an application function (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0015, sending the transfer policy response identifying the transfer policy to an application function, AF, node associated with the application. Paragraph 0052, the term “node” is used herein and can be any kind of network node, such as, a unified data repository (UDR), a policy control function (PCF), a network exposure function (NEF), an application function (AF), etc. Paragraph 0081, negotiation of transfer policy request is received from an application function (AF) node).
Regarding Claim 19, Pancorbo Marcos discloses A processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to:
transmit, to a policy control function in a first wireless communication network, application guidance on route selection policy rule determination (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0037, providing policies to the UE on which network the UE is to use for the user data related to a media or application, and/or provide that the network that is the UE is to use (e.g., another network different than the networking providing the rules/policies. Informing of change of quality of service based on a certain area where the UE is registered to be. Paragraph 0078, obtaining route selection policy associated with an application).
Regarding Claim 20, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the processor of claim 19 above, wherein the application guidance includes a validity condition ()Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0079, network and application identifier are used for the route selection criteria.
Regarding Claim 21, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the processor of claim 20 above, wherein the validity condition comprises at least one of an identity of a second wireless communication network, a plurality of identities of wireless communication networks, or an identity of an application (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0079, network and application identifier are used for the route selection criteria).
Regarding Claim 22, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the processor of claim 19 above, wherein the processor is triggered to transmit the application guidance on route selection policy rule determination based at least in part on a determination of a user equipment specific handling of routing traffic to a second wireless communication network (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0043, enables the possibility to control the network and access used by the UE, for a certain media or application, across two networks, in a secure and trustworthy/legitimate way. Paragraph 0081, negotiation of transfer policy request indicates a plurality of user equipments (UEs 12) that are to use an application, a time and/or a date that the plurality of UEs 12 are to use the application).
Regarding Claim 23, Pancorbo Marcos discloses the processor of claim 19 above, wherein a network node comprises the processor, and the network node is an application function (Pancorbo Marcos, Paragraph 0015, sending the transfer policy response identifying the transfer policy to an application function, AF, node associated with the application. Paragraph 0052, the term “node” is used herein and can be any kind of network node, such as, a unified data repository (UDR), a policy control function (PCF), a network exposure function (NEF), an application function (AF), etc. Paragraph 0081, negotiation of transfer policy request is received from an application function (AF) node).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All the references listed on 892 are related to the subject matter of route selection policies in different networks.
Some of the prior art include:
US 20190356743 A1, US 20210314811 A1, and WO 2015147841 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER O GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/JAVIER O GUZMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights