DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on April 8th, 2026.
Claims 1, 3~8, 10, 11, and 13~16 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks, that Li does not disclose that the AF request itself includes an indication of a traffic steering policy that includes a first traffic steering policy for uplink traffic and a second traffic steering policy for downlink traffic that are different from each other. Rather, Li indicates that the PCF transforms AF requests into policies, suggesting the policy is generated by the PCF rather than being included in the AF request from the AF. Li does not teach direction-specific (UL and DL) traffic steering policies being included in the AF's request. Accordingly, Li fails to anticipate amended claim 1 in accordance with MPEP 2131. Examiner respectfully disagree because Garcia taught the first and second traffic steering policies are applicable to the traffic in one direction with respect to the user equipment, i.e. in this case DownLink (DL). In other cases, said one direction may be UpLink (UL)]. In order to make it possible for the traffic steering server 120 to apply the first and second traffic steering policies, the policy server 110 sends the policy request to the traffic steering server 120 [¶60~¶61; ¶64]. In some instances, first and second traffic steering policies may be applied simultaneously, but for different instances of the same application [¶55]. Furthermore, Li taught the PCF 206 authorizes the request (i.e. the AF request) received from the AF 202 based on information received from the AF 202, operator's policy, etc. and determines for each DNAI, a traffic steering policy ID (derived from the routing profile ID provided by the AF 202 in the AF request) and/or the N6 traffic routing information (as provided by the AF 202 in the AF request) to be sent to the SMF 204 as part of the PCC rules [¶82]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the indication of the traffic steering policy in this case, is the information sent by the AF 202 as stated above. Since Garcia taught the policy server 110 may decide to activate a traffic steering rule, such as a TS Rule, to steer traffic of the user equipment, possibly for a certain application id of an application by generating a policy request comprising the traffic steering policies (a first traffic steering policy for a UL and a second traffic steering policy for DL) with respect to the user equipment [¶50], the combination of Li and Garcia teaches the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3~8, 10, 11, 14~16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. hereinafter Li (U.S 2022/0109633) in view of Garcia Azorero et al. hereinafter Garcia (U.S 2019/0268232).
Regarding Claim 1,
Li taught a method, performed by a first network node implementing an Application Function, AF, in a wireless communications network for influencing traffic routing associated with a wireless communications device in the wireless communications network, the method comprises:
transmitting, to a second network node implementing a network exposure function of the wireless communications network or to a third network node implementing a policy and charging function of the wireless communications network a request to influence the traffic routing associated with the wireless communications device [¶56, AF requests are sent to the PCF 206 between PCF 206 and AF 202, (e.g. in the case of requests targeting specific on-going PDU Sessions of individual UE(s) and an AF allowed to interact directly with the 5GC NFs, as illustrated in FIG. 3) or via the NEF 20],
wherein the request includes an indication of a traffic steering policy for a specific traffic on a specific user session associated with the wireless communications device (121) [¶92, step 302, when the AF 202 sends the AF request via the NEF 208, the AF 202 sends the AF request targeting an individual UE address to the NEF 208. This request corresponds to an AF request to influence traffic routing that targets an individual UE address; ¶56].
Li did not specifically teach wherein the indication of the traffic steering policy includes an indication of a first traffic steering policy for uplink traffic and a second traffic steering policy for downlink traffic, and wherein the first traffic steering policy and the second traffic steering policy are different.
Garcia taught wherein the indication of the traffic steering policy includes an indication of a first traffic steering policy for uplink traffic and a second traffic steering policy for downlink traffic, and wherein the first traffic steering policy and the second traffic steering policy are different [¶60~¶61, the first and second traffic steering policies are applicable to the traffic in one direction with respect to the user equipment, i.e. in this case DownLink (DL). In other cases, said one direction may be UpLink (UL); ¶176, traffic steering policy is locally configured in TSSF and can be used for uplink, downlink or for both directions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Garcia’s teaching with the teachings of Li, because the combination would allow a dynamic, and possibly also relatively fast, adaptation of the network such that a service may be executed according to the requirements and needs as demanded by the market [Garcia: ¶4].
Regarding Claim 3,
Li-Garcia taught wherein the indication of the traffic steering policy includes identifiers of the traffic steering policy [¶34, Traffic-Steering-Policy-Identifier-DL]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 2, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 4,
Li taught wherein the request to the second network node or the third network node further includes a network address of the wireless communications device or includes a network public identity of the wireless communications device or of a group of wireless communications devices [¶56, AF request targeting an individual UE address to the relevant PCF].
Regarding Claim 5,
Li taught wherein the specific user session associated with the wireless communications device is a user Protocol Data Unit, PDU, session [¶37, an AF may send requests to influence SMF routing decisions for a traffic of a protocol data unit (PDU) Session].
Regarding Claim 6,
Li taught the indication of the traffic steering policy for the specific traffic on the specific user session is specific to an access to a data network identified by a Data Network Access Identifier, DNAI, in the request [¶60, for each DNAI, the N6 traffic routing requirements may contain a routing profile ID and/or N6 traffic routing information].
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 14~16, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1 and 3~6 respectively and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights