DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noureddin et al. (US Pub. 20160127210 A1) in view of Rybak (US Pub. 20070254628 A1) in further view of Poon et al. (US Pub. 20120231785 A1).
For claims 1, 11, and 18, Noureddin discloses a method comprising:
allocating, to multiple distributed account management network devices in different area and by a centralized account management device (18/190/12/52), different pre-authorized consumption limits (usage thresholds) of common network currency consumption counter for a shared consumption plan (Fig. 30, 1500, shared plan that shows pre-authorized usage limits for multiple users using a common usage tracker) [0212, 0227, 0281, 0405];
wherein each of the pre-authorized consumption limits indicates a different subset of a total consumption limit that is available to user devices associated with the shared consumption plan (Fig. 30, limits for different users that includes a total overall usage limit and the available limits left for each user for the share plan) [0004, 0206-208, 0007, 0400];
receiving, by the centralized account management device and from one of the multiple distributed account management network devices, a request for an additional consumption limit (488/414) of common network currency consumption counters from the shared consumption plan (Step 254, request to add more data to increase the data limit, Fig 30 further shows pre-authorized usage limits for multiple users using a common usage tracker for a share plan) [0208, 0372, 0264];
allocating, to the one of the multiple distributed account management network devices and by the centralized account management device, the additional consumption limit (Figs. 30-31; adding data to the users tied to the shared plan by adjusting the limit) [0264, 0281]; and
updating, by the centralized account management device, an account balance for the shared consumption plan based on allocating the additional consumption limit (Figs. 30-31; displaying real-time tracking, updated, monitoring of the usage and usage limit/balance info) [0004, 0206-208, 0007].
But Noureddin doesn’t explicitly disclose pre-authorized consumption limits from one of the multiple distributed account management network device.
Rybak discloses wherein each of the pre-authorized consumption limits indicates a different subset of a total consumption limit that is available, from one of the multiple distributed account management network devices (one of the servers e.g. 104, 109), to user devices associated with the shared consumption plan (Figs. 4 and 8, steps 400-434) [0013, 0031-38, 0058];
Rybak also discloses different pre-authorized consumption limits of common network currency consumption counter for a shared consumption plan [0051-53];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing telecommunication techniques use in a network 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 Noureddin with Rybak to ensure the network can obtain critical information from various data nodes, thus, improving system efficiency.
But Noureddin and Rybak don’t explicitly teach multiple distributed account management network devices in different core network data centers.
However, Poon discloses multiple distributed account management network devices in different core network data centers [0034, 0045, 0057, 0039].
allocating, to multiple distributed account management network devices in different geographical locations core network data centers (220-230) and by a centralized account management device (Figs. 4-5, 110/150) different pre-authorized consumption limits (usage limits/contracts) [0034, 0045, 0057, 0039].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing telecommunication techniques use in a network 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 Noureddin and Rybak with Poon to ensure different locations can host different data center for network service needs, thus, improving network adaptability.
Claim 11 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Noureddin further discloses a system comprising: multiple distributed account management network devices; and a centralized account management device, the centralized account management device including one or more processors (Figs. 2-4) [0221]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 18 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Noureddin further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor, the computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions to cause the at least one processor (Figs. 2-4) [0217-220, 0133]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 15, Noureddin discloses receiving, by the one of the multiple distributed account management network devices, data usage information for one of the user devices using the shared consumption plan [0206-208, 0007]; and
storing, by the one of the multiple distributed account management network devices, the data usage information [0269-273].
For claim 3, Noureddin discloses sending, by the one of the multiple distributed account management network devices, the request for the additional consumption limit when one of the pre-authorized consumption limits reaches an exhaustion threshold (Fig. 31, 1552, request to adjust usage limit that had reached a threshold) [0406, 0281].
For claims 4 and 16, Noureddin discloses sending, by the one of the multiple distributed account management network devices, an account usage report on a periodic basis when one of the pre-authorized consumption limits fails to reach an exhaustion threshold (Figs. 30-31; displaying real-time tracking, updated, monitoring of the usage and usage limit/balance info after reaching a threshold) [0004, 0206-208, 0007].
For claims 5 and 19, Noureddin discloses the shared consumption plan includes a consumption limit shared among the user devices (Figs. 30-31) [0208, 0372, 0264].
For claim 7, Noureddin discloses receiving the request for the additional consumption limit includes receiving the request via a standardized interface between the centralized account management device and the one of the distributed account management network devices (Figs. 30-31; displaying real-time tracking, updated, monitoring of the usage and usage limit/balance info between mobile users) [0004, 0206-208, 0007].
For claim 9, Noureddin discloses each of the multiple distributed account management network device is included within a regional Converged Charging System (the data connection/charging provider can be a local area network provider) [0212, 0298, 0342].
For claim 12, Noureddin as modified by Rybak. Rybak further discloses the centralized account management device is included in a core network (Fig. 1) [0025, 0017]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claim 13, Noureddin discloses when updating the account balance, the one or more processors is further to: update a charging data record (CDR) for the shared consumption plan (Record for billing 409) [0263-265].
Claims 6, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noureddin et al. (US Pub. 20160127210 A1) in view of Rybak (US Pub. 20070254628 A1) in further view of Poon et al. (US Pub. 20120231785 A1) in further view of Panikkar et al. (US Pub. 20220342952 A1).
For claim 6, 14, and 20, Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Panikkar.
Panikkar discloses the multiple distributed account management network devices are associated with different edge network locations (tracking edge for the mobile users) [0044-45].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing telecommunication techniques use in a network 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 Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, with Panikkar to ensure the network can actively and accurately predict the usage needs in various edge networks, thus, improving data traffic management.
For claims 8 and 17, Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Panikkar.
Panikkar discloses calculating, by the centralized account management device, the pre-authorized consumption limit based on predicted usage of edge locations by the user devices in the shared consumption plan (tracking usage limits on edge locations for the mobile users) [0044-45].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing telecommunication techniques use in a network 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 Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, with Panikkar to ensure the network can actively and accurately predict the usage needs in various edge networks, thus, improving data traffic management.
For claim 10, Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Panikkar.
Panikkar discloses allocating the pre-authorized consumption limits includes predicting edge data centers to be used by the user devices on the shared consumption plan [0044-45].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing telecommunication techniques use in a network 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 Noureddin, as modified by Rybak and Poon, with Panikkar to ensure the network can actively and accurately predict the usage needs, thus, improving data traffic management.
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