DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 13 are presented for examination. Claims 9-11, and 13 are withdrawn. Please canceled unelected claims. This Action is made FINAL.
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 latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation (i) Detecting underuse using an obtained value. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because the rejection relies on Kavuri for the known underuse-detection technique and Monjas for its application in a radio-communication network. Monjas teaches that the RCAF collects raw RAN resource information and, based on received parameters and their values, determines and reports a resource-utilization level. Monjas [0007]-[0015]. Kavuri expressly teaches monitoring operational values, including capacity and data-path-load metrics, comparing those values with thresholds, and identifying resources whose operating thresholds are not exceeded as “underutilized resources.” Kavuri [0164]-[0168]. Applying Kavuri’s threshold-based underutilization determination to the radio-resource values already obtained by Monjas would therefore detect underuse of resources in the monitored radio area using at least one obtained value, as recited.
With regards to the argument for the limitation (ii) Transmitting an underuse parameter to invoicing-rules management equipment. Monjas already discloses the claimed communication path and report structure: the RCAF transmits RUCI over the Np interface to a Policy Control and Charging Rules Function (“PCRF”), which corresponds to the recited invoicing-rules management equipment. Monjas [0005], [0012]-[0013]. The transmitted report is generated from received parameter values and includes a resource-utilization level, location information identifying the monitored cell or area, and identifiers of affected UEs. Monjas [0015]-[0020]. Kavuri teaches classifying resources as underutilized based on monitored values and maintaining or communicating information identifying those underutilized resources. Kavuri [0167]-[0168], [0173]. Thus, using Kavuri’s underutilization classification as the utilization level reported through Monjas’s existing RCAF-to-PCRF interface would predictably result in transmission to the invoicing-rules management equipment of a parameter indicating underuse in the monitored area.
With regards to the argument for the limitation (iii) Receiving identifiers from the invoicing-rules management equipment based on monitoring-activation parameters. Applicant’s argument that neither Monjas nor Kavuri discloses this limitation fails to address Khawer, which is expressly included in the rejection for the tariff-management features. Monjas teaches receiving from the PCRF data identifying which particular UEs are selected for application of a network policy, and further teaches that the PCRF sends a prioritized policy together with the UE identifier to which the policy applies. Monjas [0043], [0062], [0103]-[0108]. Khawer teaches that a PCRF transmits a UE-session-specific charging policy to a base station and that the transmitted policy includes activation and deactivation parameters specifying when the policy is applicable. Khawer [0031], [0033], [0036]-[0038]. The combined teachings therefore provide receiving, from invoicing-rules management equipment, identifiers of mobile terminals subject to an activated tariff-management policy.
With regards to the argument for the limitation (iv) Determining which tariff-management method applies to the monitored terminal. Khawer directly contradicts Applicant’s assertion concerning this limitation. Khawer discloses a PCRF that performs policy-control decision-making, obtains the subscriber profile and available tariffs for a particular UE, and then defines a policy governing which tariff-based allocation rules apply to that UE’s requested session. Khawer [0026], [0029], [0036]-[0037]. Khawer further teaches that the PCRF may define new policies when network traffic, base-station loading, or other conditions change and may transmit those policies for application to the UE’s session. Khawer [0042]-[0044]. Accordingly, Khawer expressly teaches invoicing-rules management equipment determining which tariff-management policy or method is to be applied to the particular mobile terminal being monitored.
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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