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 August 26, 2024. Claims 1-10 are amended, and claims 11-14 are newly added as per Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/26/2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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. 18/841,501, submitted on 08/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 was with the instant application on 08/26/2024, IDSs 07/31/2025 and 09/18/2025 are filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 08/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunshan Xiong (US Publication 2022/0217508) hereafter Xiong, in view of Soliman et al. (US Publication 2022/0038986) hereafter Soliman.
As per claim 1, Xiong discloses a method for a Policy Control Function (PCF) comprising: receiving, from a Session Management Function (SMF), at least one of a Data Network Name (DNN), Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) and information related to an application (paragraphs 0073, 0102-103: S-NSSAI and DNN used for identifying a data network corresponding to an application in the multicast service); and checking whether the at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are within a UE Route Selection Policy rule (URSP rule) (paragraphs 0228-230: UE route selection policy rule corresponding to the multicast service with S-NSSI and the DNN). Although, Xiong discloses session management entity and UE achieving compatibility, but he fails to expressly disclose checking whether the at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are compliant to a UE Route Selection Policy rule (URSP rule).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Soliman discloses the claimed limitation of checking whether the at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are compliant to a UE Route Selection Policy rule (URSP rule) (paragraphs 0044 (Table-US-00001), 0055-56: URSP rules is determined and matched with UE route selection policy).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Solimans’ teaching with Xiong. One would be motived to match the DNN, S-NSSAI, and other information provided by the UE for being consistent and establishing the session to appropriately send the result to the network.
As per claim 2, Xiong in view of Soliman discloses the method comprising: updating the URSP rule based on the information related to an application in a case where the URSP rule is not a latest URSP rule (Xiong: paragraphs 0048-50, Soliman: 0027, 056: update URSP rule for correct session establishment).
As per claim 3, Xiong in view of Soliman discloses the method comprising: updating the URSP rule in a User Equipment (UE) in a case where at least one of the DNN and the S-NSSAI are not compliant to the URSP rule (paragraphs 0183-184, 0193: transmit another request with necessary corresponding information to the multicast service; Soliman: 056, 0060: update URSP rule for correct session establishment).
As per claim 4, Xiong in view of Soliman discloses the method, wherein the receiving and the checking are related to a Protocol Data Unit session establishment (PDU session establishment) procedure (paragraphs 0073, 0114, 0199: acquiring function entity for PDU session establishment).
As per claim 5, Xiong in view of Soliman discloses the method comprising: receiving, from a User Equipment (UE), information related to URSP rule enforcement (paragraphs 0048-49, 0183-184: UE with URSP rules corresponding to each multicast services).
As per claim 6, Xiong in view of Soliman discloses the method wherein the DNN and the S-NSSAI are sent from a User Equipment (UE) (paragraphs 0046-47, 0183-184: UE determining information corresponding to the service).
As per claim 7, Xiong in view of Soliman discloses the method comprising: checking the information related to the URSP rule enforcement based on the information relate to an application (paragraphs 0102, 0129, 0183-184).
Claim 8 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-7 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-7 apply equally as well to claims 9-14 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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