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 .
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.
Claims 1-11, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the multitude use of alternative language renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
As per claim 2, the claim is indefinite because the claim only covers the condition when the rule needs to be updated. If its determined that the rule does not need to be updated the claim would not be given any patentable weight.
As per claim 3, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2. In claim 2, to which claim 3 depends, the claim uses language “at least one of” and has seven alternates. Claim 3 only further defines one of the seven alternatives. Therefore, if the other six of the seven alternatives are rejected, claim 3 would be given no patentable weight.
As per claims 4-5 are rejected for similar reasons as they are dependent on claim 1. In addition claim 4 states “an analytics result” and “a first analytics result”, and claim 1 already has “a first analytics result”. Therefore its not clear which analytics results are being referred to in claim 4.
As per claim 6 is rejected for similar reasons as they are dependent on claim 5. In addition, claim 6 recites “the first analytics result”. Therefore its not clear which result are being referred to.
As per claim 7, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2. In claim 5, to which claim 7 depends, the claim uses language “at least one of” fourteen alternates. Claim 7 only further defines four of the fourteen alternatives. Therefore, if the other ten of the fourteen alternatives are rejected, claim 7 would be given no patentable weight.
As per claim 8, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7.
As per claim 9, it is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
As per claim 10, it states “a fourth message”, however there are no other messages (i.e., first-third message). Therefore the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what applicant interprets as the first-third messages.
As per claim 11, it is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
As per claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10. Also, the claim states “a second analytics identifier”, however there is no first analytics identifier.
As per claim 19, it is rejected for incorporating a rejected claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by OPPO, Convida Wireless (hereinafter OPPO).
As per claim 1, OPPO shows the use of user equipment route selection policy (URSP) rule optimization method, comprising: re-evaluating, by a first communication device, a first URSP rule of a terminal based on target information, to obtain a second URSP rule (e.g., pages 3 and 4); and sending, by the first communication device, the second URSP rule to the terminal, wherein the target information (e.g., pages 3 and 4) comprises at least one of the following: a first analytics result, a first evaluation request, or an abnormality indication; the first analytics result is an analytics result and/or a prediction result requested by the first communication device, the first evaluation request is used for the terminal to request a re-evaluation on the first URSP rule, and the abnormality indication indicates that the first URSP rule is executed abnormally; and the second URSP rule is used for the terminal to select and/or establish a protocol data unit (PDU) session for traffic of an application (e.g., pages 2-4).
As per claim 2, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 1, wherein the re-evaluating, by a first communication device, a first URSP rule of a terminal based on target information, to obtain a second URSP rule comprises: re-evaluating, by the first communication device, the first URSP rule based on the target information, wherein the re-evaluating is used to determine whether the first URSP rule needs to be updated; and in a case that the first URSP rule needs to be updated, performing, by the first communication device, a target operation on the first URSP rule, to obtain the second URSP rule, wherein the target operation comprises at least one of the following: adjusting precedence of a first route selection descriptor in a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule; adjusting precedence of a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule; adjusting a parameter in a first route selection descriptor in a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule; adding a new route selection descriptor to a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule; stopping using a first route selection descriptor in a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule; stopping using a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule; or generating a new URSP rule (e.g., pages 2-3).
As per claim 4, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 1, wherein before the re-evaluating, by the first communication device, the first URSP rule based on the target information, the method further comprises: sending, by the first communication device, a second message to a second communication device, wherein the second message comprises a first analytics identifier; and the second message is used to obtain an analytics result and/or a prediction result corresponding to the first analytics identifier; and receiving, by the first communication device, a third message sent by the second communication device, wherein the third message comprises a first analytics result corresponding to the first analytics identifier (e.g., pages 3 and 4).
As per claim 5, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 4, wherein the first analytics identifier comprises at least one of the following: load level information, service experience, network function load information, network performance, user equipment (UE) mobility, UE communication, an abnormal behavior, user data congestion, quality of service sustainability, session management congestion control experience, redundant transmission experience, wireless local area network (WLAN) performance, UE dispersion, or data network (DN) performance (e.g., pages 3 and 4).
As per claim 6, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 5, wherein the re-evaluating, by the first communication device, the first URSP rule based on the target information comprises: re-evaluating, by the first communication device based on performance of a first analytics object indicated by the first analytics result, the first analytics object in the first URSP rule, wherein the first analytics object comprises at least one of the following: an access mode, a DN, or a slice (e.g., pages 3 and 4).
As per claim 7, not given patentable weight as the limitations of claim 7 are in alternative form and are not covered by the limitations relied upon in claim 5, ie., UE dispersion and claim 6 “slice”. There is no “in a case where the first analytics identifier is UE dispersion”. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
As per claim 8, same issues as claim 7.
As per claim 9, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 1, wherein the re-evaluating, by a first communication device, a first URSP rule of a terminal based on target information, to obtain a second URSP rule comprises: in a case that at least one of the first evaluation request or the abnormality indication is received, re-evaluating, by the first communication device, the first URSP rule, to obtain the second URSP rule (e.g., pages 3 and 4).
As per claim 10, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 1, wherein before the re-evaluating, by a first communication device, a first URSP rule of a terminal based on target information, to obtain a second URSP rule, the method further comprises: sending, by the first communication device, a fourth message to a third communication device, wherein the fourth message comprises the first URSP rule, and the fourth message is used to evaluate execution of the first URSP rule; and receiving, by the first communication device, the abnormality indication sent by the third communication device (e.g., page 3).
As per claim 16, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 14, wherein before the sending, by the terminal, a first evaluation request to the first communication device, the method further comprises: sending, by the terminal, a sixth message to a second communication device, wherein the sixth message comprises a second analytics identifier; and the sixth message is used to obtain an analytics result and/or a prediction result corresponding to the second analytics identifier; and receiving, by the terminal, a seventh message sent by the second communication device, wherein the seventh message comprises a second analytics result corresponding to the second analytics identifier (e.g., pages 3 and 4).
As per claim 12-15, 17-20, it is rejected for similar reasons as above.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OPPO in view of Xu (EP4142372).
As per claim 3, OPPO does not show, but Xu does show wherein the adjusting a parameter in a first route selection descriptor in a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule comprises at least one of the following: adjusting an access mode in the first route selection descriptor, and changing the access mode into an access mode for which performance indicated by the first analytics result meets a first condition; adjusting a data network name (DNN) in the first route selection descriptor, and changing the DNN into a DNN for which performance indicated by the first analytics result meets a second condition; or adjusting single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) in the first route selection descriptor, and changing the S-NSSAI into S-NSSAI for which performance indicated by the first analytics result meets a third condition (e.g., paragraphs 120-128). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of OPPO with the above limitations of Xu because it would provide for optimization of the URSP configuration.
As per claim 11, OPPO shows the use of the method according to claim 10, wherein the fourth message further comprises: a first Internet protocol (IP) descriptor, and the first IP descriptor is used to evaluate the execution of the first URSP rule; and before the sending, by the first communication device, a fourth message to a third communication device, the method further comprises: mapping, by the first communication device, a first traffic descriptor in the first URSP rule to the first IP descriptor (e.g. page 3), but does not show wherein the first traffic descriptor comprises at least one of the following: an application descriptor, a domain descriptor, a data network name, or a connection capability; and the first IP descriptor is a destination IP 3 tuple. However, Xu shows the use of wherein the first traffic descriptor comprises at least one of the following: an application descriptor, a domain descriptor, a data network name, or a connection capability; and the first IP descriptor is a destination IP 3 tuple (e.g., paragraph 108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of OPPO with the above limitations of Xu because it would provide for optimization of the URSP configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is (571)272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
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 (INUSA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights