Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/849,364

SENDING DATA USING STEERING IN A SELECTED QUIC CONNECTION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Examiner
PATEL, DHAIRYA A
Art Unit
2453
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
516 granted / 726 resolved
+13.1% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.9%
+18.9% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 726 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Application # 18/849,364 was filed on 09/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are subject to examination. An IDS filed on 09/20/2024 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “ An User Equipment”. In claim 1, it recites “an comprising…”. The claim does not have appropriate structure or does not contain essential element which in this case it looks like an user equipment based on the preamble of the dependent claims. Claims 2-12 recites the limitation "The UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18, 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. 2021/0168905 (hereinafter Yu) in view of Gkellas et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0247487 (hereinafter Gkellas) With respect to claim 1,Yu teaches an comprising: -at least one memory (Paragraph 565) ; and at least one processor (Paragraph 565) coupled with atleast one memory and configured to: -establish a multiaccess data connection with the mobile communication network (i.e. establish establishing wireless network connection using different access technologies)(Paragraph 231, 232, 233, 234, 256), the multiaccess data connection configured to apply a set of steering rules (Paragraph 265), wherein each steering rule comprises and a steering mode (Paragraph 265); - establish a plurality of QUIC connections (i.e. first transmission method using MP-QUIC)(Paragraph 61, 238), each QUIC connection supporting data transmission over a first access network or a second access network (Paragraph 238); -detect a data packet to be transmitted via the multiaccess data connection (i.e. data packet transmitted using 3GPP access technology and non-3GPP access technology) (Paragraph 291-292) ; select a first steering rule in the set of steering rules, wherein the first steering rule comprises a first steering mode (Paragraph 298-299); select a first QUIC connection of the plurality of QUIC connections for transmitting the data packet (Paragraph 302-304, 316-317); allocate a new stream in the first QUIC connection, wherein the new stream (i.e. second transmission method) is configured to transmit data traffic using the first steering mode (Paragraph 343, 345); and send the data packet using the new stream (i.e. transmits service flow using second transmission method) (Paragraph 342-343, 374-375) Yu does not teach traffic descriptor and select a first steering rule in the set of steering rules, wherein the first steering rule comprises a first steering mode and a traffic descriptor that matches the data packet. Gkellas teaches traffic descriptor (Paragraph 25) and select a first steering rule in the set of steering rules, wherein the first steering rule comprises a first steering mode and a traffic descriptor that matches the data packet (Paragraph 25, 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gkellas’s teaching in Yu’s teaching to come up with having traffic descriptor and select steering rule comprising steering mode and traffic descriptor. The motivation for doing for enabling proper QoS enforcement and to enforce maximum bit rate and perform charging. With respect to claim 2, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 1, but Yu further teaches wherein each QUIC connection has at least one QUIC stream and wherein each QUIC stream is associated with context information comprising one or more steering mode (Paragraph 324), a transport mode, a destination IP address, and a destination port (Paragraph 483) With respect to claim 3, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 1, but Gkellas further teaches wherein to establish the plurality of QUIC connections, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to indicate a QoS flow identity associated with each QUIC connection (Paragraph 34) With respect to claim 4, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 3, but Gkellas further teaches wherein the associated QoS flow identity is indicated using a HTTP settings parameter or a QUIC transport parameter (Paragraph 37-38) With respect to claim 5, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 1, but Gkellas further teaches wherein to select the first QUIC connection, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to map the data packet to a particular QoS flow based on the QoS rules of the multiaccess data connection and wherein the first QUIC connection is associated with the particular QoS flow (Paragraph 34-35, 73) With respect to claim 6, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 1, but Yu further teaches wherein to transmit the data packet using the new stream, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit a transport mode to use to send the data packet (Paragraph 343, 345) With respect to claim 7, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 6, wherein the new QUIC stream has a first stream identifier (ID) wherein the selected transport mode is a stream mode, and wherein to transmit the data packet using the stream mode, the least one processor is configured to cause the UE to encapsulate the data packet within a stream frame with a stream ID equal to the first stream ID (Paragraph 281, 454); and transmit the stream frame via the first QUIC connection (Paragraph 316). With respect of claim 9, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 6, but Yu further teaches wherein to select transport mode, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to identify a data delivery preference associated with the data packet (Paragraph 302-304, 316-317), and wherein the data delivery preference is identified using one or more of: a toleration of out-of-order packets, a need for packet duplication, a transport preference of an application generating the data packet, the first steering mode (Paragraph 264) or combination thereof. With respect of claim 10, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 9, but Yu further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the data packet using a datagram mode based on the data delivery preference indicating that in-sequence reception is not required, or does not indicate that no duplicate packet reception is required (Paragraph 273) or both. With respect of claim 11, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 9, but Yu further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the data packet using a stream mode based on the data delivery preference indicating that in-sequence reception is not required, or does not indicate that no duplicate packet reception is required (Paragraph 273) or both. With respect of claim 12, Yu and Gkellas teaches the UE of claim 1, but Yu further teaches wherein the data packet initiates a new data flow, the data flow being a sequence of data segments going to the same destination address and port and wherein the new QUIC stream is used to send all data segments of the new data flow (Paragraph 483) With respect to claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 respectively. With respect to claim 15, Yu and Gkellas the processor of claim 13, but Yu further teaches wherein to establish the plurality of QUIC connection, the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to indicate a QoS flow identity associated with each QUIC connection (Paragraph 34, 37-38), wherein the associated QoS flow identity is indicated using a HTTP settings parameter or a QUIC transport parameter (Paragraph 37-38) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A). Li et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0074934 B). Salkintzis et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2022/0116327 C). Venkataraman et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0320883 D). Mestery et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2023/0085513 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm. 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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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. DHAIRYA A. PATEL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2453 /DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602512
DATA RESOLUTION USING USER DOMAIN NAMES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598242
METHOD FOR SENDING MULTIMODAL DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587266
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING FLIGHT DATA RECORDER DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579302
TOKEN AND PRIVACY DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556462
MOBILITY-AS-A-SERVICE (MAAS) DATA SHARING THROUGH A DATASPACE CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.7%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 726 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month