DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment received on 9/03/2024 amending claims 1-13, canceling claim 14, and adding claims 15-21 has been entered by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/26/2024 and 6/15/2026 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US2022/0386100 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Lee teaches a user equipment (UE)/method/ processor for wireless communication (Abstract), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (Para. 0218):
receive from a first wireless communication network at least one route selection policy rule together with a policy delivery request, wherein the policy delivery request includes a list of network identities for which route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network are to be applied (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, 0132, and 0142-0143; The PCF is a network function for applying a service policy, a charging policy, and a PDU session policy of a mobile communication operator on the UE; a PSI and PLMN ID for distinguishing each policy section may be assigned to the plurality of policy sections. Each policy section may include a URSP rule corresponding thereto. According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the UE may identify a URSP rule included in a policy section to which a home PLMN ID is assigned as a H-URSP. Also, the UE may identify a URSP rule included in a policy section to which a visited PLMN ID is assigned as a V-URSP. In other words, the V-PCF and the H-PCF transmits the URSP by including the URSP in the UE policy container, and the UE may distinguish the URSP as the V-URSP or the H-URSP by referring to the PLMN ID or the like assigned to the policy section; i.e. the received policy container includes a list of URSPs and associated PLMNs where they apply);
transmit a registration request to a second wireless communication network, where a network identity of the second wireless communication network is not listed in the list of network identities for which route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network are to be applied (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; a UE may transmit a registration request message for registration to an (R)AN. The (R)AN may select an AMF based on the received registration request message. Then, the (R)AN may transmit a registration request message to the selected AMF. The AMF may transmit an information request to a UDM of a home PLMN and receive a response to the information request, thereby receiving a V-URSP allowance indicator. Then, the AMF may transmit a message indicating registration allowance to the UE and the UE may transmit a response to the received message to the AMF; i.e. when there is no matching RSP rule, the UE would send the requestion to the new/second network to determine if the V-URSP is allowed to be utilized); and
not apply route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; a UE may transmit a registration request message for registration to an (R)AN. The (R)AN may select an AMF based on the received registration request message. Then, the (R)AN may transmit a registration request message to the selected AMF. The AMF may transmit an information request to a UDM of a home PLMN and receive a response to the information request, thereby receiving a V-URSP allowance indicator. Then, the AMF may transmit a message indicating registration allowance to the UE and the UE may transmit a response to the received message to the AMF; i.e. the V-URSP indicated after the registration request would be used instead of what was originally provided by the first network).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein to not apply route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to inactivate the route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; when the message transmitted from the V-PCF does not include the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the H-URSP. In other words, the UE may apply a higher order of precedence to the H-URSP than the V-URSP when selecting the policy. Alternatively, when the message transmitted from the V-PCF includes the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the V-URSP).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to request local route selection policy rules from the second wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; when the message transmitted from the V-PCF does not include the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the H-URSP. In other words, the UE may apply a higher order of precedence to the H-URSP than the V-URSP when selecting the policy. Alternatively, when the message transmitted from the V-PCF includes the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the V-URSP).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to apply any local route selection policy rules received from the second wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; when the message transmitted from the V-PCF does not include the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the H-URSP. In other words, the UE may apply a higher order of precedence to the H-URSP than the V-URSP when selecting the policy. Alternatively, when the message transmitted from the V-PCF includes the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the V-URSP).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: transmit a subsequent registration to a third wireless communication network, the third wireless communication network having a network identity listed in the list of network identities for which route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network are to be applied; and apply route selection policy rules provisioned from the first wireless communication network when the UE is registered to the third wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, 0132, and 0142-0143; the UE may identify a URSP rule included in a policy section to which a visited PLMN ID is assigned as a V-URSP. In other words, the V-PCF and the H-PCF transmits the URSP by including the URSP in the UE policy container, and the UE may distinguish the URSP as the V-URSP or the H-URSP by referring to the PLMN ID or the like assigned to the policy section).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to ignore route selection policy rules received from the third wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, 0132, and 0142-0143; when the URSP rule of the visited network operator and a URSP rule of a home network operator conflict in the UE, an order or precedence agreed between the visited network operator and the home network operator or an order of precedence determined by the home network operator may be transmitted to the UE. When the URSP rules are received from both the home network operator and the visited network operator, the UE may determine while rule to apply first).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to send to the first wireless communication network an indication that the UE requires route selection policy rules (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; a UE may transmit a registration request message for registration to an (R)AN. The (R)AN may select an AMF based on the received registration request message. Then, the (R)AN may transmit a registration request message to the selected AMF. The AMF may transmit an information request to a UDM of a home PLMN and receive a response to the information request, thereby receiving a V-URSP allowance indicator. Then, the AMF may transmit a message indicating registration allowance to the UE and the UE may transmit a response to the received message to the AMF).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive the route selection policy rules using a UE Configuration Update (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; upon receiving the UE policy container from the H-PCF, the V-PCF may determine a policy section entry (PSE) to be provided to the UE or to be updated and generate a V-URSP rule stored in the V-UDR. In other words, the V-PCF may encode the V-URSP rule stored in the V-UDR in a form of a policy section for transmission to the UEI).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a network node in a second wireless communication network (Abstract), the network node 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 (Para. 0035):
receive a registration request from a user equipment (UE), where a network identity of the second wireless communication network is not listed in a list of network identities for which route selection policy rules provisioned from a first wireless communication network are to be applied (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; a UE may transmit a registration request message for registration to an (R)AN. The (R)AN may select an AMF based on the received registration request message. Then, the (R)AN may transmit a registration request message to the selected AMF. The AMF may transmit an information request to a UDM of a home PLMN and receive a response to the information request, thereby receiving a V-URSP allowance indicator. Then, the AMF may transmit a message indicating registration allowance to the UE and the UE may transmit a response to the received message to the AMF; i.e. when there is no matching RSP rule, the UE would send the requestion to the new/second network to determine if the V-URSP is allowed to be utilized); and
register the UE with the second wireless communication network (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; a UE may transmit a registration request message for registration to an (R)AN. The (R)AN may select an AMF based on the received registration request message. Then, the (R)AN may transmit a registration request message to the selected AMF. The AMF may transmit an information request to a UDM of a home PLMN and receive a response to the information request, thereby receiving a V-URSP allowance indicator. Then, the AMF may transmit a message indicating registration allowance to the UE and the UE may transmit a response to the received message to the AMF; i.e. the V-URSP indicated after the registration request would be used instead of what was originally provided by the first network).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network node to receive a request for local route selection policy rules from the UE, and in response thereto, send local route selection policy rules to the UE. equipment apparatus (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; when the message transmitted from the V-PCF does not include the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the H-URSP. In other words, the UE may apply a higher order of precedence to the H-URSP than the V-URSP when selecting the policy. Alternatively, when the message transmitted from the V-PCF includes the indicator regarding precedence of the V-URSP, the UE may select the policy of the UE based on the V-URSP).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network node to send to the first wireless communication network a request for authorization to provide local route selection policy rules to the UE (Figs. 6-7; Paras. 0032-0037, 0057-0060, 0077, 0101, 0125-0128, and 0132-0143; a UE may transmit a registration request message for registration to an (R)AN. The (R)AN may select an AMF based on the received registration request message. Then, the (R)AN may transmit a registration request message to the selected AMF. The AMF may transmit an information request to a UDM of a home PLMN and receive a response to the information request, thereby receiving a V-URSP allowance indicator. Then, the AMF may transmit a message indicating registration allowance to the UE and the UE may transmit a response to the received message to the AMF).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT KRUEGER whose telephone number is (303)297-4238. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENT KRUEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights