DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 13 are presented for examination. Claims 9-11, and 13 are withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 5-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas et al. (US Pub. 20170311198 A1) in view of Kavuri et al. (US Pub. 20070198797 A1) in further view of Khawer et al. (US 20160249255 A1).
For claims 1 and 12, Monjas discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium [0066] comprising a computer program product stored thereon, comprising program code instructions for implementing a detection method (Figs. 8 or 9) when the instructions are executed by a processor of an equipment monitoring use of resources of a radio communication network [0003, 0117, 0219],
wherein the instructions configure the equipment monitoring the use of the resources of the radio communication network, to detect a level of the resources of at least one area to be monitored (detecting a level of congestion of an area) [0015-16, 0112, 0143] comprising at least one cell constituting a radio communication network by:
receiving, coming from an invoicing-rules management equipment (400, PCRF), at least one identifier of the area to be monitored, and an identifier of at least one mobile terminal to be monitored present in the area to be monitored (Steps 800-806 or Steps 703-707) [0038, 0112, 0143], based on monitoring activation parameters indicating that the mobile terminal to be monitored benefits from a tariff management method (based on monitoring triggers in a method e.g. step 804, indicating the monitored UE is to be benefited from congestion mitigation) [0161, 0148];
obtaining at least one value representing the use of the resources of the area to be monitored (S800-S804) [0015];
detecting the level of the resources of the area [0143, 0016-20];
transmitting, to the invoicing-rules management equipment, according to the tariff management method for the mobile terminal to be monitored (methods of Fig. 7 or 8), the identifier of the area to be monitored, a parameter indicating the level of the resources of the area to be monitored and the identifier of the mobile terminal to be monitored (Step 710 or 701, Step 1113 transmitting a cell ID and congestion data of the cell to be monitor for a potential handover/switching operation) [0183-185],
But Monjas doesn’t explicitly monitoring a level of underuse resources of the area using the at least one obtained value.
However, Kavuri discloses monitoring a level of underuse resources of the area using the at least one obtained value [0167-170].
Kavuri also discloses obtaining at least one value representing the use of the resources of the area to be monitored [0167-170].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource utilization used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Monjas with Kavuri to ensure dynamic allocation of resources for the network to improve performance and reduce or eliminate resource exhaustion [Kavuri, 0036].
But Monjas and Kavuri don’t explicitly teach determining, by the invoicing-rules management equipment which tariff management method to apply to the mobile terminal to be monitored.
However, Khawer discloses determining, by the invoicing-rules management equipment which tariff management method to apply to the mobile terminal to be monitored (Figs. 4-5) [0023-26, 0043-44].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource utilization used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Monjas and Kavuri with Khawer to ensure different billing policy can be optimized to improve charging accuracy for the commination sessions.
Claim 1 differs from claim 12 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Monjas further discloses a detection method (Figs. 7-9) of detecting underuse of resources of at least one area to be monitored comprising at least one cell constituting a radio communication network, the detection method being implemented by an equipment monitoring use of the resources of the radio communication network [0003, 0117, 0219]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 2, Monjas as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, Kavuri further discloses the detecting step comprises in a comparison of the at least one obtained value with a threshold of underuse of the resources (Step 715) [0167-170]. See motivation to combine all the references from the above.
For claim 5, Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, discloses the detection of an underuse of the resources of the area triggers sending, to an equipment monitoring a mobility of the mobile terminals, of a request to obtain identifiers of the mobile terminals present in the area to be monitored [0030, 0085], the detection method further comprises:
identifying the identifier of at least one mobile terminal to be monitored among the identifiers of the mobile terminals present in the area to be monitored [0016, 0149, 0167].
For claim 6, Monjas as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, Kavuri further discloses detecting a nominal use of the resources of the area (Fig. 6)[0167-170]; and
Monjas further discloses transmitting, to the invoicing-rules management equipment, the identifier of the area to be monitored, a parameter indicating the level use of the resources of the area to be monitored and the identifier of the mobile terminal to be monitored (Step 710 or 701, Step 1113 transmitting an cell ID and congestion data of the cell to be monitor for a potential handover/switching operation) [0183-185]. See motivation to combine all the references from the above.
For claim 7, Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, discloses the area to be monitored comprises at least two cells constituting the radio communication network, the equipment monitoring the use of the resources of the radio communication network detects underuse of the resources of the area to be monitored when the resources of the at least two cells constituting the radio communication network included in the area to be monitored are simultaneously underused (Fig. 2, monitoring multiple cells for utilization levels) [0135, 0151-154].
For claim 8, Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, discloses the equipment for monitoring the use of the resources of the radio communication network detects nominal use of the resources of the area to be monitored when the resources of at least one of the two cells constituting the radio communication network included in the area to be monitored are being used nominally (Fig. 2, monitoring multiple cells for utilization levels) [0135, 0151-154].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas et al. (US Pub. 20170311198 A1) in view of Kavuri et al. (US Pub. 20070198797 A1) in further view of Khawer et al. (US 20160249255 A1) in further view of Murthy et al. (US Pub. 20130173804 A1).
For claim 3, Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, doesn’t explicitly discloses the following limitation taught by Murthy.
Murthy discloses the threshold of underuse of the resources is received during the receiving step (Step 508) [0021, 0032].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource utilization used in a networked device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Monjas, Kavuri and Khawer with Murthy to ensure proper detection or measurement of targeted resources, thus, improving data accuracy in the network.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjas et al. (US Pub. 20170311198 A1) in view of Kavuri et al. (US Pub. 20070198797 A1) in further view of Khawer et al. (US 20160249255 A1) in further view of Fonseca et al. (US Pub. 20140146700 A1).
For claim 4, Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Monjas, as modified by Kavuri and Khawer, doesn’t explicitly discloses the following limitation taught by Fonseca.
Fonseca discloses the at least one obtained value is a mean value of the use of the resources of the area to be monitored [0024, 0090].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource utilization used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Monjas, Kavuri and Khawer with Fonseca to ensure proper detection or measurement of targeted resources, thus, improving data accuracy in the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights