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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on April 29, 2025. Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 29, 2025 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US PGPUB No. US 20210014734 A1), hereinafter, Liu.
Regarding claim 1:
Liu teaches:
A method for access traffic controlling, comprising:
receiving, by a first network function device from a second network function device, an access traffic rule for a multi-access protocol data unit (MA PDU) session of a user equipment (UE), wherein the access traffic rule defines information on how to handle a traffic flow associated with the MA PDU session over multiple data paths corresponding to different access networks (Fig. 7, step 1, establishing a multi-access PDU session of UE. Fig. 7, step 3a, shows receiving, by a UPF (first network function device) from a SMF, ATSSS policy (traffic rule) as explained in paragraph 0061. Paragraph 0049 discloses PCF (second network function) defines the ATSSS rule and delivers to the UPF via SMF as shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 7, step 1, shows a UE establishes a PDU session over 3GPP and non-3GPP access networks. Paragraph 0047 discloses multi-access PDU session.);
receiving, by the first network function device from a third network function device, network performance data related to the access traffic rule (paragraph 0061 discloses receiving by the UPF performance measurement from SMF (third network function) as stated “Step 6. UE performs path performance measurement, e.g. the data loss rate, latency, the radio signal quality and reports the results to the SMF based on the configured report condition. Step 7. SMF update the ATSSS policy based on UE feedback; alternatively, SMF transfer the feedback in step 6 to UPF”); and
performing, by the first network function device, access traffic controlling of the traffic flow over the multiple data paths in accordance with the access traffic rule and the network performance data (paragraph 0061 discloses switching, by the UPF, path from one access network to another for downlink data based on the ATSSS rule as stated “Step 9. UPF adjusts the path, e.g. switching the path from one access to another one or start/stop splitting operation for the downlink data based on the updated ATSSS rule; or based on the feedback from UE.”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Liu further teaches wherein the access traffic rule is an access traffic steering, switching, and splitting (ATSSS) rule (paragraph 0061 discloses ATSSS rule).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Liu further teaches wherein the ATSSS rule comprises ATSSS rule timer information indicating a periodic interval which the ATSSS rule needs to be checked and executed; and the method further comprises: setting, by the first network function device, an ATSSS rule timer in accordance with the ATSSS rule timer information (paragraphs 0068 and 0069 discloses interval of sending performance measurement based on which the ATSSS rule are updated).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Liu further teaches wherein the ATSSS rule comprises at least one of: access type information indicating an access type of an access network, network type information indicating a network type of a network to which the ATSSS rule will be applied, or network identifier information indicating an identifier of a network associated with the ATSSS rule (paragraph 0050 discloses ATSSS include access network type like whether 3GPP or non-3GPP ).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Liu further teaches wherein the ATSSS rule comprises at least one of a dual access connectivity time restriction or a dual access connectivity location restriction (paragraph 0051 disclose dual access connectivity restriction based on the user location).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Liu further teaches wherein the ATSSS rule comprises at least one of: a location-based steer mode in which a traffic controlling decision is made based on a location of the UE or based on a predicted UE location; a time-based steer mode in which different traffic control rules are provided for use based on different time windows; a customized-performance-based steer mode in which a traffic controlling decision is made based on a home operator who owns a subscription of the UE, can define its own performance criteria defined by the home operator; or an ultra reliable low latency communication (URLLC) steer mode for URLLC traffic in which a traffic controlling decision is made based on a performance metric of combining a delay and a reliability (paragraph 0051 discloses the ATSSS rule includes traffic controlling based on user location whether the user is at home or office).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Liu further teaches the method further comprising: obtaining, by the first network function device, at least one of statistics information or prediction information; and sending, by the first network function device to the UE, the at least one of: the statistics information or the prediction information for UE uplink traffic controlling over the multiple data paths corresponding to the different access networks (paragraph 0063 discloses UPF receives performance data and reports to SMF to sends the feedback to the UE for controlling uplink data over the different access network as stated “Step 5. UE sends the uplink data to the UPF via the selected access path. Step 6. UPF performs path performance measurement, e.g., the data loss rate, latency, the radio signal quality, and reports the results to the SMF based on the configured report condition. Steps 7a, 7b, and 8. SMF updates the ATSSS policy based on UPF feedback; alternatively, SMF transfer the feedback in step 6 to UE. Step 9. UE adjusts the path, e.g., switching the path from one access to another one or start/stop splitting operation for the uplink data based on the updated ATSSS rule; or based on the feedback from UE. Step 10. UE sends the uplink data to the UPF via the adjusted access path.” ).
Regarding claim 10:
Liu teaches:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
establishing, by the UE, a multi-access protocol data unit (MA PDU) session with a first network function device over multiple data paths corresponding to different access networks (Fig. 8, step 1, shows a UE establishes a PDU session with UPF (first network function) over 3GPP and non-3GPP access networks. Paragraph 0047 discloses multi-access PDU session);
receiving, by the UE from a second network function device, an access traffic rule that defines information on how to handle a traffic flow for the MA PDU session over the multiple data paths corresponding to the different access networks (Fig. 8, step 3, shows receiving, by the UE (first network function device) from a SMF, ATSSS policy (traffic rule) as explained in paragraph 0063. Paragraph 0049 discloses PCF (second network function) defines the ATSSS rule and delivers to the UPF via SMF as shown in Fig. 4.);
receiving, by the UE, performance data related to the access traffic rule (paragraph 0063 discloses receiving, by the UE, performance data as stated “Step 6. UPF performs path performance measurement, e.g., the data loss rate, latency, the radio signal quality, and reports the results to the SMF based on the configured report condition. Steps 7a, 7b, and 8. SMF updates the ATSSS policy based on UPF feedback; alternatively, SMF transfer the feedback in step 6 to UE.”); and
transmitting, by the UE, traffic data of the traffic flow over the multiple data paths in accordance with the access traffic rule and the performance data (paragraph 0063 discloses transmitting, by the UE, uplink data as per the ATSSS rule as stated “Step 9. UE adjusts the path, e.g., switching the path from one access to another one or start/stop splitting operation for the uplink data based on the updated ATSSS rule; or based on the feedback from UE. Step 10. UE sends the uplink data to the UPF via the adjusted access path.”).
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards an apparatus performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards an apparatus performing the method of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar 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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ly et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20230056442 A1), hereinafter, Ly.
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Liu further teaches wherein the first network function device is a user plane function (UPF) device, the second network function device is a policy configuration function (PCF) device or a home network device, and the [[third network function device is a network data analytic function (NWDAF) device]] (Fig. 7 shows UPF receiving ATSSS rule. Paragraph 0049 discloses PCF defines the ATSSS rule and delivers to the UPF via SMF as shown in Fig. 4).
Liu does not teach third network function device is a network data analytic function (NWDAF) device.
Ly teaches third network function device is a network data analytic function (NWDAF) device (paragraph 0149 discloses using NWDAF for data analysis for ATSSS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teaching of Ly about using NWDAF for data analysis for ATSSS. One would be motivated to do that to use dedicated data analytics to collect data from relevant NFs and to provide a holistic approach for traffic steering (see paragraphs 0149 and 0150 of Ly).
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wong et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20230308971 A1), hereinafter, Wong.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Liu does not teach further comprising: sending, by the first network function device to the UE, an ATSSS indication indicating an ATSSS capability supported by at least one of the different access networks.
Wong teaches further comprising: sending, by the first network function device to the UE, an ATSSS indication indicating an ATSSS capability supported by at least one of the different access networks (paragraph 0038 disclose rule include the indication whether ATSSS capability is supported by access network ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teaching of Wong about ATSSS capability supported by at least one of the different access networks. One would be motivated to do that to implement ATSSS using different access network (see paragraphs 0001-0004 of Wong).
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
June 17, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights