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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. A. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of Bala and Baek fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of:
“receiving, from the terminal device, data indicative of a movement of the terminal device…”
However, the Examiner maintains that Bala, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“receiving, from the terminal device, data indicative of a movement of the terminal device…” (= movement information for a subscriber is stored; subscriber location can be determined by a global positioning device or and identity of the transmitters that successfully polled subscriber, see [0017-18 and 0032]; thus, the movement information is obtained from the subscriber).
B. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Baek fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of:
“the data is received in a payload traffic on a user plane”.
However, the Examiner maintains that Baek, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“the data is received in a payload traffic on a user plane” (= optimal user plane function is selected for data session, see, [0167 and 0257]).
C. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of Bala and Baek fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of:
“detecting that the movement of the terminal device is within a reference range, a detection is based on data received from the terminal device”
However, the Examiner maintains that Bala, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“detecting that the movement of the terminal device is within a reference range, a detection is based on data received from the terminal device” (= when the communication system determines it is time to poll the subscriber, the movement information for the subscriber is analyzed to determine the likely current location of the subscriber, see [0019 and 0034]; and a subscriber likely current location could be determined, at least in part, based on the subscriber’s last location, speed, travel direction and time of last location, see [0020]).
D. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of Bala and Baek fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of:
“generating a first control signal for re-defining a first polling frequency to occur at a second polling frequency, the second polling frequency being less than the first polling frequency”
However, the Examiner maintains that Bala, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“generating a first control signal for re-defining a first polling frequency to occur at a second polling frequency, the second polling frequency being less than the first polling frequency” (= if the probability that a subscriber is located at a most likely location exceeds a predetermined threshold, a decision could be made not to poll the subscriber or decrease the frequency of polling the subscriber; conversely, if the probability that the subscriber is at any location does not exceed a threshold, a decision could be made to poll more frequently; and polling frequencies could be adjusted for different periods, see [0023]).
E. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that (1), there is no motivation to combine Bala and Baek references
The Examiner, however respectfully disagrees with such an assertion because the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the combination of Bala and Baek teaches all the claimed limitations as shown in the Office Action.
Therefore, the combination of Bala and Baek is proper and the Office Action is being made FINAL as shown below.
F. The rejection of all the dependent claims, by virtue of their dependency from the independent claims, is also being made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bala et al., (US 20020068580), (hereinafter, Bala) in view of Baek et al., (US 2019/0028866), (hereinafter, Baek).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15-16, Bala discloses a method/network node/system/ computer program product for optimizing a polling of location information of a terminal device, the method, performed by a network node (= polling subscribers of a wireless communication systemin such a way that communication resources of the system are efficiently used, see [0015]; and system can send the communication to subscriber using an appropriate transmitter, see [0016]), comprises:
receiving, from the terminal device, data indicative of a movement of the terminal device (= movement information for a subscriber is stored; subscriber location can be determined by a global positioning device or and identity of the transmitters that successfully polled subscriber, see [0017-18 and 0032]),
detecting that the movement of the terminal device is within a reference range, a detection is based on data received from the terminal device (= when the communication system determines it is time to poll the subscriber, the movement information for the subscriber is analyzed to determine the likely current location of the subscriber, see [0019 and 0034]; and a subscriber likely current location could be determined, at least in part, based on the subscriber’s last location, speed, travel direction and time of last location, see [0020]),
generating a first control signal for re-defining a first polling frequency to occur at a second polling frequency, the second polling frequency being less than the first polling frequency (= if the probability that a subscriber is located at a most likely location exceeds a predetermined threshold, a decision could be made not to poll the subscriber or decrease the frequency of polling the subscriber; conversely, if the probability that the subscriber is at any location does not exceed a threshold, a decision could be made to poll more frequently; and polling frequencies could be adjusted for different periods, see [0023]).
Bala explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“the data is received in a payload traffic on a user plane”.
However, Baek, which is an analogous art, equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of: “the data is received in a payload traffic on a user plane” (see, [0167 and 0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Baek with Bala for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides a method for efficiently controlling pluralities of network devices via path suitable for a service characteristics of the devices.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, Bala further discloses the method/network node wherein a detection that the movement of the terminal device is within the reference range is performed based on one of: data received from the terminal device in response to polling; data received separate to polling (see, [0018 and 0032]).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, Bala further discloses the method wherein the detection that the movement of the terminal device is within the reference range is performed based on an indication, received from the terminal device, that the terminal device is stationary (see, [0018 and 0034]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, Bala further discloses the method/network node wherein a generated first control signal is defined to cause the second polling frequency to be zero so as to prevent the polling (= a decision is made not to poll, see, [0022]).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, Bala further discloses the method/network node further comprising: receiving data indicative of the movement of the terminal device from the terminal device detecting, based on the received data, that the movement of the terminal device is out of the reference range, generating a second control signal for returning the polling to occur at the first polling frequency (= if the probability that the subscriber is at any location does not exceed a threshold, a decision could be made to poll more frequently, see [0023]; whereby poll more frequently is being associated with the “first polling frequency”; and subscriber is at any location does not exceed a threshold is being associated with the “terminal device is out of the reference range”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, Bala explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the data is received by the network node in the payload traffic on the user plane over a communication path established through Service Capability Exposure Function, SCEF.
However, Baek, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the data is received by the network node in the payload traffic on the user plane over a communication path established through Service Capability Exposure Function, SCEF(see, [0167 and 0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Baek with Bala for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides a method for efficiently controlling pluralities of network devices via path suitable for a service characteristics of the devices.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, Bala explicitly fails to disclose the method, wherein the data is received by the network node in the payload traffic on the user plane over a communication path established through Serving GateWay, SGW.
However, Baek, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the data is received by the network node in the payload traffic on the user plane over a communication path established through Serving GateWay, SGW (see, [00147, 167 and 0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Baek with Bala for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides a method for efficiently controlling pluralities of network devices via path suitable for a service characteristics of the devices.
CONCLUSION
4. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.