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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, although Qiao and Salkintzis generally disclose URSP rules and RSDs, they do not disclose the detailed limitations and specific relationships as recited in these claims. Consequently, these claims are allowable.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiao (US 20220264370 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Qiao discloses a user equipment (UE) [fig. 3 no. 100], comprising:
one or more memories [fig. 3 no. 326] storing processor-executable code [fig. 3 no. 328]; and
one or more processors [fig. 3 no. 318] coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
transmit, via a first protocol stack of a plurality of protocol stacks of the UE, an indication of a capability of the UE to steer data traffic associated with the UE via the first protocol stack or a second protocol stack of the plurality of protocol stacks, wherein the first protocol stack corresponds to a first subscription of a plurality of subscriptions of the UE (The UE transmits MA-PDU capability (i.e., multiple protocol stacks via a protocol stack), which correspond to some subscription [par. 0199, 160, 234-244, fig. 16 “Reg req with USCI”, fig. 17 “Reg req w/ UMACI”, fig. 18-20]) and the second protocol stack corresponds to a second subscription of the plurality of subscriptions (Multiple protocol stacks corresponding to [multiple] subscriptions [par. 0234-244, fig. 16 “Reg req with USCI”, fig. 17 “Reg req w/ UMACI”, fig. 18-20]);
receive, based at least in part on the capability of the UE, a first set of UE route selection policy (URSP) rules for steering the data traffic associated with the UE (URSP received by UE (for data steering) [Abstract, fig. 16 “URSP rule”, fig. 17 “URSP rule”, fig. 18-20]); and
routing, via a higher layer of the UE based at least in part on the first set of URSP rules and on the capability of the UE, the data traffic associated with the UE via one or both of the first protocol stack or the second protocol stack ([fig. 16 “UE initiate PDU session based on URSP rule” (which is also based on UE capability), fig. 17 “UE initiate PDU session based on URSP/ATSSS rule” (which is also based on UE capability), fig. 18-20]).
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the network, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Qiao further discloses network entity [fig. 3 no. 105], comprising: one or more memories [fig. 3 no. 346] storing processor-executable code [fig. 3 no. 348]; and one or more processors [fig. 3 no. 344].
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Qiao discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Qiao further discloses:
wherein the first set of URSP rules is received via the higher layer (Received at higher layer (at some point) [par. 0030, 060]) of the UE and is associated with both the first protocol stack and the second protocol stack [fig. 14, par. 0181-184, 187].
Regarding claim 12, Qiao discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Qiao further discloses wherein, to route the data traffic via one or both of the first protocol stack or the second protocol stack [fig. 14, par. 0181-184, 187], the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
route the data traffic via both of the first protocol stack or the second protocol stack [fig. 14, par. 0181-184, 187].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 13 and 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao as applied to claims 1 and 14 respectively, and further in view of Salkintzis (WO 2022268344 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Qiao discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Qiao discloses wherein the first set of URSP rules is received via the first protocol stack, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, via the second protocol stack and based at least in part on the capability of the UE, a … set of URSP rules for steering the data traffic, wherein the first set of URSP rules is associated with the first protocol stack and the … set of URSP rules is associated with the second protocol stack [fig. 14, par. 0181-184, 187], and as discussed above, Qiao does not explicitly disclose second set of USRP rules. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Salkintzis.
In the same field of endeavor, Salkintzis discloses:
second set of USRP rules [fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiao with Salkintzis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of enabling enhanced features and functionalities in 5G systems [Salkintzis par. 0023].
Regarding claim 13, Qiao discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Qiao discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: initiate, at the first protocol stack, a first protocol data unit (PDU) session; transmit, to a core network and via the first protocol stack, a first request to establish the first PDU session [fig. 14, par. 0181-184, 187], and as discussed above, Qiao does not explicitly disclose second set of USRP rules. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Salkintzis.
In the same field of endeavor, Salkintzis discloses:
initiate, at the second protocol stack, a second PDU session [par. 0102-107, 181, fig. 14];
wherein the first request indicates an identifier associated with the second protocol stack and an identifier associated with the second PDU session; and transmit, to the core network and via the second protocol stack, a second request to establish the second PDU session, wherein the second request indicates an identifier associated with the first protocol stack and an identifier associated with the first PDU session [par. 0102-107, fig. 3-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiao with Salkintzis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of enabling enhanced features and functionalities in 5G systems [Salkintzis par. 0023].
Regarding claims 18-19, they are substantially similar to claim 13, except are from the perspective of the network, and are rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Conclusion
Kim (US 20260222961 A1) and Patil (US 20250097812 A1) disclose USRP rules and communication similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights