DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on September 27th, 2024.
Claims 1~17 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/24 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because in claim 16, the “program” is an intangible software per se, not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In claim 17, the “carrier…is one of an electronic signal, an optical signal, a radio signal and a computer readable medium” would not cause the claim to be statutory since under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover an ineligible signal per se unless defined otherwise in the application as filed.
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, 4~7, 10, 11, and 14~17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. hereinafter Li (U.S 2022/0109633).
Regarding Claim 1,
Li taught a method, performed by a first network node (131) implementing an Application Function, AF, in a wireless communications network (100) for influencing traffic routing associated with a wireless communications device (121) in the wireless communications network (100), the method comprises:
transmitting (601), to a second network node (132) implementing a network exposure function of the wireless communications network (100) or to a third network node (133) implementing a policy and charging function of the wireless communications network (100) a request to influence the traffic routing associated with the wireless communications device (121) [¶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].
Regarding Claim 4,
Li taught wherein the request to the second network node (132) or the third network node (133) further includes a network address of the wireless communications device (121) or includes a network public identity of the wireless communications device (121) 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 (121) is a user Protocol Data Unit, PDU, session [¶37, an AF may send requests to influence SMF routeing 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 10, 11, and 14~17, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1 and 4~7 respectively and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Garcia Azorero et al. hereinafter Garcia (U.S 2019/0268232).
Regarding Claim 2,
Li-Garcia taught wherein the indication of the traffic steering policy includes an indication of a first traffic steering policy for uplink traffic and/or a second traffic steering policy for downlink traffic [¶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)].
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 Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13, the claims are similar in scope to claims 2 and 3 respectively and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
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