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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, field on 09/18/2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 6-20 have been amended and Claims 1, 3-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 09/18/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art fail to disclose the limitation “receiving first network performance information for a second area from the data analytics network device, wherein the first network performance information comprises one or both first information for the second area in a second time period and a quantity of terminals in the second area in the second time period, wherein the second time period is a sub-period of the first time period, and the second area is a subarea of the first area”. Applicant further contends that the cited references do not disclose a “hierarchy of time period” required by amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, although Applicant characterizes the claim as requiring a “hierarchy of time periods,” amended claim 1 doesn’t recite such hierarchical data structure of a specialized mechanism for defining parent/child time period or areas. Instead, the claim merely requires that: a second time period be a sub-period of a first time period, and a second area be a subarea of the first area.
Under broadest reasonable interpretable, a sub-period of a first time period could be the first time period itself because the definition of a subset includes the set itself.
Inclusive Definition: A sub-period (subset) is defined as a period where every point in time within the sub-period is also within the original period. Since every point in the original period is within the original period, it fits the definition of a sub-period.
For the same reason explained above, the second area being a subarea of the first area could also be equivalent to the first area. In addition, table 6.6.3-1 of 3GPP’288 further teaches the area subset being TA or Cell ID within the requested area of interest as defined in clause 6.6.1.
For the reasons discussed above: 3GPP TS 23.503 and TS 23.288 teaches or suggests:
receiving network performance information for different areas (the area subset being TA or Cell ID within the requested area of interest, as defined in clause 6.6.1 of 3GPP TS 23.288; area subset is smaller than requested area of interest) and a particular time period (second time period could be same as first time period, correspond to the analytics target period, see table 6.6.3-1 of 3GPP TS 23.288);
With respect to Applicant’s argument that prior art fail to disclose i) receiving second network performance information from the data analytics network device, the second network performance information is degraded network performance information compared with the first network performance information; ii) determining a second policy for the first area based on the second network performance, wherein the second policy comprises one or more background data transfer policies; iii) sending the second policy to a requesting device”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For i) receiving second network performance information from the data analytics network device, the second network performance information is degraded network performance information compared with the first network performance information.
3GPP TS 23.503 explicitly disclose that the PCF obtains network performance information from the NWDAF, which is a data analytics network function. As stated in Section 6.1.2.4, Note 7, “the PCF knows that the network performance in the area of interest goes below the criteria set by the operator from the NWDAF.” This disclosure teaches receiving network performance information from a data analytics network device, as claimed. The knowledge that network performance has fallen below operator-defined criteria inherently represents degraded network performance information relative to normal or acceptable network performance (Assuming the first network information falls within the acceptable network performance).
ii) Determining a second policy based on degraded network performance information
3GPP TS 23.503 further discloses that, upon determining that network performance is degraded, the PCF retrieves appliable background data transfer (BDT) policies from the UDR and notifies affected application functions. This retrieval and selection of policies based on degraded network performance constitutes determining a second policy for the affected area based on the degraded network performance information.
iii) sending the second policy to a requesting device
Page 35, Section 6.1.2.4 of 3GPP TS 23.503 further discloses that, the PCF notifies the Application Service Provider (ASP) on both the BDT policies that is not valid any longer and the candidate background data transfer (BDT) policies via NEF if requested by the ASP.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the Renneke’s “maximum response time” is limited to a power-saving latency for an initial downlink IP packet and therefore does not teach or suggest the claimed “time information” that represents a maximum response time period for a waiting response of the requesting device for a second policy associated with a first area”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claimed “time information” is not limited to a particular protocol layer, packet type, or operational trigger (e.g., power saving activation), but broadly encompasses any parameter that defines a maximum acceptable response time or waiting period for a response by the network device. Accordingly, any disclosed parameter that defines a maximum response or delay tolerance for a requesting device reasonably falls within the scope for the claimed “time information”.
Second, Ronneke expressly discloses that a device includes a request a parameter such as “maximum response time”, “maximum delay”, or “maximum latency” to inform the network of the maximum acceptable time decided by the application (see Ronneke, [0067]).
In telecommunication system, bounding response time is a fundamental design principle used across many domains, including
policy and charging control,
network analytic feedback,
QoS enforcement,
Congestion and load management,
Background data transfer scheduling
Ronneke’s “maximum response time” is not a power saving-specific feature, but rather a generalized mechanism for bounding acceptable response latency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably apply this principle to other network areas, including policy delivery and area-based network control, without departing from Ronneke’s teachings.
For the reasons stated above, Examiner believes the 103 rejection should be maintained.
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 1, 3-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (3GPP TS 23.503 v16.4.1), hereinafter as “3GPP’503, in view of (3GPP TS 23.288 V16.3.0), hereinafter as 3GPP’288, further in view of Ronneke et al (US 2016/0205622).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 3GPP’503 teaches a policy determining method, comprising:
a communication interface configured to:
sending a first request to a data analytics network device, wherein the first request is for requesting network performance information, and area of interest, expected number of UEs of this ASP in the Area of Interest) following the procedure and services described in TS 23.288”).
receiving first network performance information for a second area from the data analytics network device,
determining a first policy for the first area comprising one or more background data transfer policies based on the first network performance information (Section 6.1.2.4, “Afterwards, the PCF shall determine, based on the information provided by the AF, the analytics on "Network Performance" if available and other available information (e.g. network policy and existing background transfer policies) one or more background transfer policies”);
receiving second network performance information from the data analytics network device, wherein the second network performance information is degraded network performance information compared with the first network performance information (Section 6.1.2.4, below Note 7: “When the PCF knows that the network performance in the area of interest goes below the criteria set by the operator from the NWDAF as described in TS 23.288”);
determining, by the first network device, a second policy for the first area based on the second network performance information, wherein the second policy comprises one or more background data transfer policies (Section 6.1.2.4, below Note 7: “When the PCF knows, from the NWDAF as described in TS 23.288 [24], that the network performance in the area of interest goes below the criteria set by the operator, the PCF retrieves all the background transfer policies from the UDR, check the BDT policies that are not applicable due to the degradation of the network performance and calculates a list of new candidate BDT policies for the ASP to select”); and
sending the second policy to a requesting device (page 35, Section 6.1.2.4, “the PCF notifies the Application Service Provider (ASP) on both the BDT policies that is not valid any longer and the candidate background data transfer (BDT) policies via NEF if requested by the ASP”); and
st paragraph, “the PCF shall provide the candidate list of background transfer policies or the selected background transfer policy to the AF via NEF together with the Background Data Transfer Reference ID”).
3GPP’503 doesn’t explicitly teach that 1) the first request comprises information about a first area and information about a first time period; 2) the first network performance comprises one or both of first information for the second area in a second time period and a quantity of terminals in the second area in the second time period, wherein the second time period is a sub-period of the first time period, and the second area is a subarea of the first area.
3GPP’288 teaches that 1) the first request comprises information about a first area and information about a first time period (Section 6.6.1: the network performance analytics is obtained by the PCF from the NWDAF using a request, wherein the request indicates an “area of interest” correspond to a first area and “Analytics target period” correspond to a first time period recited in the claim); 2)the first network performance comprises one or both of first information for the second area in a second time period and a quantity of terminals in the second area in the second time period (Section 6.6.1, it discloses that the NWDAF provides for an “area subset” network performance statistics or predictions, including the load in the Area of Interest and the number of UEs”), wherein the second time period is a sub-period of the first time period (It’s noted that a sub-period (subset) is defined as a period where every point in time within the sub-period is also within the original period. Since every point in the original period is within the original period, it fits the definition of a sub-period; thus sub-period of the first time period could be the first time period itself, which correspond to “Analytics target period” stated above), and the second area is a subarea of the first area (Section 6.6.3, “Area subset” in Table 6.6.3-1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of 3GPP’288 in the system disclosed by 3GPP’503 for the purpose of optimizing network performance by analyzing real-time and historical data.
The aforementioned references do not explicitly teach that setting time information indicates a maximum response period of the requesting device.
Ronneke teaches that setting time information indicates a maximum response period of the requesting device ([0067], “the device in addition comprises in the request a new parameter ‘maximum response time’ (or ‘maximum delay’ or ‘maximum latency’ etc) to inform the network about the maximum acceptable response time decided by the application”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Ronneke in the system disclosed by 3GPP’503 in view of 3GPP’288 for performance optimization which ensures systems respond within a reasonable timeframe.
Regarding claim 14, 3GPP’503 teaches a communication system comprising:
an apparatus and a data analytics network device that communicates with the apparatus (Section, 5.3.11, “Interactions between NWDAF and PCF”, NWDAF stands for Network Data Analytics Function, PCF stands for Policy Control Function), wherein the apparatus is configured to:
send a first request to a data analytics network device, wherein the first request is for requesting network performance information, and the
receive first network performance information for a second area from the data analytics network device,
receive second network performance information from the data analytics network device, wherein the second network performance information is degraded network performance information compared with the first network performance information (Section 6.1.2.4, below Note 7: “When the PCF knows that the network performance in the area of interest goes below the criteria set by the operator from the NWDAF as described in TS 23.288”; The knowledge that network performance has fallen below operator-defined criteria inherently represents degraded network performance information relative to normal or acceptable network performance; it’s noted that the first network information can be assumed falling within the acceptable network performance):
determine first policy for the first area comprising one or more background data transfer polices based on the first network performance information (Section 6.1.2.4, “The PCF may retrieve analytics on "Network Performance" from NWDAF in the area where the UEs of this ASP are expected to be located at a certain time period. The "Network Performance" Analytics includes the tuple-(expected load in the area of interest, expected number of UEs of this ASP in the Area of Interest) following the procedure and services described in TS 23.288[24]. Afterwards, the PCF shall determine, based on the information provided by the AF, the analytics on "Network Performance" if available and other available information (e.g. network policy and existing background transfer policies) one or more background transfer policies”), determine a second policy for the first area based on the second network performance information, wherein the second policy comprises one or more background data transfer policies (Section 6.1.2.4, below Note 7: “When the PCF knows, from the NWDAF as described in TS 23.288 [24], that the network performance in the area of interest goes below the criteria set by the operator, the PCF retrieves all the background transfer policies from the UDR, check the BDT polices that are not applicable due to the degradation of the network performance and calculates a list of new candidate BDT polices for the ASP to select”), and
send the second policy to a requesting device (page 35, Section 6.1.2.4, “the PCF notifies the Application Service Provider (ASP) on both the BDT policies that is not valid any longer and the candidate background data transfer (BDT) policies via NEF if requested by the ASP”),
st paragraph, “the PCF shall provide the candidate list of background transfer policies or the selected background transfer policy to the AF via NEF together with the Background Data Transfer Reference ID”); and
the data analytics network device is configured to provide first network performance information of a network in a second area for the apparatus (Section 6.1.2.4: “The PCF may retrieve analytics on "Network Performance" from NWDAF in the area where the UEs of this ASP are expected to be located at a certain time period”, it’s noted that NWDAF stands for network performance analytics function),
3GPP’503 doesn’t explicitly teach that 1) the first request comprises information about a first area and information about a first time period; 2) the first network performance comprises one or both of first information for the second area in a second time period and a quantity of terminals in the second area in the second time period.
3GPP’288 teaches that 1) the first request comprises information about a first area and information about a first time period (Section 6.6.1: the network performance analytics is obtained by the PCF from the NWDAF using a request, wherein the request indicates an “area of interest” correspond to a first area and “Analytics target period” correspond to a first time period recited in the claim); 2)the first network performance comprises one or both of first information for the second area in a second time period and a quantity of terminals in the second area in the second time period (Section 6.6.1, it discloses that the NWDAF provides for an “area subset” network performance statistics or predictions, including the load in the Area of Interest and the number of UEs”), wherein the second time period is a sub-period of the first time period (It’s noted that a sub-period (subset) is defined as a period where every point in time within the sub-period is also within the original period. Since every point in the original period is within the original period, it fits the definition of a sub-period; thus sub-period of the first time period could be the first time period itself, which correspond to “Analytics target period” stated above), and the second area is a subarea of the first area (Section 6.6.3, “Area subset” in Table 6.6.3-1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of 3GPP’288 in the system disclosed by 3GPP’503 for the purpose of optimizing network performance by analyzing real-time and historical data.
The aforementioned references do not explicitly teach that setting time information indicates a maximum response period of the requesting device.
Ronneke teaches that setting time information indicates a maximum response period of the requesting device ([0067], “the device in addition comprises in the request a new parameter ‘maximum response time’ (or ‘maximum delay’ or ‘maximum latency’ etc) to inform the network about the maximum acceptable response time decided by the application”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Ronneke in the system disclosed by 3GPP’503 in view of 3GPP’288 for performance optimization which ensures systems respond within a reasonable timeframe.
Regarding claims 15, the aforementioned references further teach that the second time period is the first time period (3GPP’288, Section 6.6.1, “Interest at the time indicated in the Analytics target period is requested or any UE”, sub-period of the first time period could be same as the first time period) or a sub-period of the first time period, and the second area is the first area or a subarea of the first area (3GPP’288, 6.6.3, “Area subset” in Table 6.6.3-1).
Regarding claims 3, 16, the aforementioned references further teach that the first information comprises an average value of one or more of the following information of a network in the second area in the second time period: a session creation success rate, a terminal handover success rate (3GPP’288, Table 6.6.3-1, Ratio of successful handover), a terminal registration success rate, resource usage of a base station (3GPP’288, Table 6.6.3-1, “Average usage of assigned resources (CPU, memory, disk”) or a core network device, a usage ratio of the base station or the core network device, and load of the base station or the core network device.
Regarding claims 4, 17, the aforementioned references further teach that the first policy is a first policy for the first area (3GPP’503, “Afterwards, the PCF shall determine, based on the information provided by the AF, the analytics on "Network Performance" if available and other available information (e.g. network policy and existing background transfer policies) one or more background transfer policies”), the first area comprises one or more second areas, there are one or more first areas (3GPP’288, 6.6.3, “Area subset” in Table 6.6.3-1), and the first policy for the first area comprises one or more background data transfer policies (3GPP’503, “Afterwards, the PCF shall determine, based on the information provided by the AF, the analytics on "Network Performance" if available and other available information (e.g. network policy and existing background transfer policies) one or more background transfer policies”).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned references further teach that when the first area comprises a plurality of second areas, the plurality of second areas comprised in the first area have same first network performance information (3GPP’288, 6.6.3, “Area subset” in Table 6.6.3-1).
Regarding claims 6, 18, the aforementioned references further teach that the method further comprises: determining, by the first network device, a first target background data transfer policy for the first area, wherein the first target background data transfer policy is one of the one or more background data transfer policies (3GPP’503, page 34, “the PCF shall provide the candidate list of background transfer policies or the selected background transfer policy to the AF via NEF together with the Background Data Transfer Reference ID”); and sending, by the first network device, the first target background data transfer policy and one or both of an identifier of the first target background data transfer policy and the information about the first area to a network storage network device (3GPP’503, page 34, “The selected background transfer policy is finally stored by the PCF in the UDR as part of the Policy Data Set”).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned references further teach that the determining, by the first network device, a first target background data transfer policy for the first area comprises: the first policy for the first area comprises one background data transfer policy, determining, by the first network device, the background data transfer policy as the first target background data transfer policy (3GPP’503, page 34, “The selected background transfer policy is finally stored by the PCF in the UDR as part of the Policy Data Set”).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned references further teach the method further comprises: receiving, by the first network device in the maximum response time period (Ronneke, [0067]), a second target background data transfer policy fed back by the requesting device, wherein the second target background data transfer policy is one of the plurality of one or more background data transfer policies comprised in the second policy; and sending, by the first network device, the second target background data transfer policy and one or both of an identifier of the second target background data transfer policy and the information about the first area to a network storage network device (3GPP’503, page 34, “AF received more than one background transfer policy, the AF shall select one of them and inform the PCF about the selected background transfer policy”).
Regarding claims 9, 19, the aforementioned references further teach that: determining, by the first network device, to delete a first target background data transfer policy that is for the first area; and sending, by the first network device, a first deletion message to a network storage network device, wherein the first deletion message is used to notify the network storage network device to delete the first target background data transfer policy that is for the first area (3GPP’503, page 35, “The PCF notifies the ASP on both the BDT policies that is not valid any longer and the candidate BDT policies via NEF if requested by the ASP. The PCF removes the BDT policy stored in the UDR for the corresponding background data transfer reference ID”).
Regarding claims 12,20, the aforementioned references further teach that: receiving, by the first network device, a second request from the requesting device, wherein the second request is for requesting a background data transfer policy corresponding to the first area, and the second request comprises the information about the first area and the information about the first time period (3GPP’503, Section 6.1.2.4, “The AF may contact the PCF via the NEF (and Npcf_BDTPolicyControl_Create service operation) to request a time window and related conditions for future background data transfer”, “The AF request shall contain an ASP identifier, the volume of data to be transferred per UE, the expected amount of UEs, the desired time window, the External Group Identifier and optionally, Network Area Information, request”); and sending, by the first network device, the first policy and one or both of the information about the first area and an identifier of the first policy to the requesting device (3GPP’508, page 34, “the PCF shall provide the candidate list of background transfer policies or the selected background transfer policy to the AF via NEF together with the Background Data Transfer Reference ID”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights