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 filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered. Independent Claims 1, 8, 14, and 19 have been amended. Dependent claims 25 and 27 have been amended. Claims 7 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 37-38 are new ad have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 7- 9, 11, 13-14, 19, and 24-36 are still pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 14, and 19 under 35 USC § 103, have been considered have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specified challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/11/2026 on page 10 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim # under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Gormley fails to teach that a rejection of the session is distinct from the other sessions that generate the threshold. However, the claim states “an upper data rate limit of the target network slice”, which does not bring the further explanation for what the upper data rate is, and how one network slice is added or not within the upper data rate. See MPEP 2111.01 II for importing claim limitations from the specification. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention that a rejection of the session is distinct from the other sessions that generate the threshold from the teachings of Gormley. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-9, 14, 19, 29, 33, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (Pub. No.: US 20030223450 A1, hereafter “Bender”) in view of Gormley (Pub. No.: US 8543685 B1, hereafter “Gormley”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 8, Claim 14, and Claim 19
Bender teaches a Method and System Comprising
A method, comprising: obtaining (Bender Fig. 6: 650), by a policy control network element (Bender Fig. 5: 120), an actual data rate (Bender ¶0040: sum of the data rates) of a target network slice (Bender Fig. 5: 520) that a first session requests to access (Bender ¶0038: link another session), wherein the actual data rate indicates a sum of data rates (Bender ¶0040: sum of the data rates) occupied by all sessions (Bender ¶0040: 510 and 550, at the aggregate data rate) that have accessed the target network slice (Bender ¶0040: underlying links 520), wherein the target network slice has been accessed by a plurality of sessions (Bender ¶0040: multi-link session) other than the first session (Bender ¶0041: test sessions remaining to be linked; Bender teaches process involving a multi-link session for establishing a link in the plurality of links that includes the sum of data rates and aggregate data rates; see Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and ¶0038-¶0041);
Bender does not explicitly teach
rejecting, by the policy control network element, access of the first session to the target network slice when the actual data rate is greater than or equal to an upper data rate limit of the target network slice.
However, Gormley teaches
rejecting by the policy control network element (Gormley Fig. 8: 132), access of the first session (Gormley Fig. 8: 122, service flow) to the target network slice (Gormley Fig. 8: 122) when the actual data rate (Gormley Fig. 8: 126) is greater than or equal to an upper data rate limit (Gormley Fig. 8: 126) of the target network slice (Gormley Fig. 8: 122, service flow; Gormley teaches reducing the threshold for data rate when the data rate threshold is higher than a usage threshold, examiner’s note, the data rate may be zero, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender with Gormley to include an element that teaches reducing the threshold for data rate when the data rate threshold is higher than a usage threshold, as taught by Gormley in Fig. 8, to reduce loss of multiplexing gain and increase frequency diversity.
Claim 8 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art, Bender teaches
At least one processor (Bender Fig. 2: 230); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by the processor (Bender ¶0049: storage medium; Bender teaches computer readable storage that can be executed by a processor)
Claim 14 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art
sending, by a data analytics network element to a policy control network element (Gormley Fig. 1: 22; Gormley teaches the network element sending data analytics, see Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender with Gormley to include an element that teaches the network element sending data analytics, as taught by Gormley in Fig. 1, to reduce loss of multiplexing gain and increase frequency diversity.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 9
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Gormley further discloses
comprises at least one of the following: a guaranteed bit rate service (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or a non-guaranteed bit rate service (Gormley Fig. 7: 94, col. 7 line 32-34; Gormley teaches a non-guaranteed bit rate service, see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender with Gormley to include an element that teaches a non-guaranteed bit rate service, as taught by Gormley in Fig. 7, to reduce loss of multiplexing gain and increase frequency diversity.
Regarding Claim 29 and Claim 33
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Gormley further discloses
receiving (Gormley Fig. 8: 122), by the policy control network element (Gormley Fig. 8: 120), the upper data rate limit from a unified data repository network element (Gormley Fig. 8: 126; Gormley teaches the network element using a usage threshold policy from its memory, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender with Gormley to include an element that teaches the network element using a usage threshold policy from its memory, as taught by Gormley in Fig. 8, to reduce loss of multiplexing gain and increase frequency diversity.
Regarding Claim 37 and Claim 38
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Bender further teaches
wherein the actual data rate of the target network slice is of a target network area (Bender ¶0040: multi-link session), and the target network area is an entire coverage area of the target network slice (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim) or a partial area of the target network slice (Bender ¶0040: underlying links 520; Bender teaches the multi-link session containing underlying links for the purpose for the data rates).
Claim(s) 30-31 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (Pub. No.: US 20030223450 A1, hereafter “Bender”) in view of Gormley (Pub. No.: US 8543685 B1, hereafter “Gormley”), further in view of Senarath (Pub. No.: US 20160352645 A1, hereafter “Senarath”).
Regarding Claim 30 and Claim 34
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Gormley teaches
and wherein rejecting access of the first session (Gormley Fig. 8: 132) comprises rejecting the access when the uplink actual data rate is greater than or equal to an uplink upper data rate limit (Gormley Fig. 8: 126) or when the downlink actual data rate is greater than or equal to a downlink upper data rate limit (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Gormley teaches reducing access when the data rate exceeds a threshold, see Fig. 8).
Bender in view of Gormley does not explicitly teach
wherein the actual data rate comprises an uplink actual data rate and a downlink actual data rate
Senarath teaches
wherein the actual data rate (Senarath ¶0037: data flows) comprises an uplink actual data rate (Senarath ¶0037: uplink) and a downlink actual data rate (Senarath ¶0037: downlink ratio, see ¶0037),
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gormley with Senarath to include an element that teaches reducing access when the data rate exceeds a threshold, as taught by Senarath in ¶0037, to improve communication standards to improve the quality of service and quality of experience for the services that are being provided by using a known method on a known system to allow better data analysis methodology.
Regarding Claim 31 and Claim 35
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 19. Senarath teaches
wherein the policy control network element (Senarath Fig. 4: 410, Traffic Monitoring function) manages (Senarath ¶0037: monitors) a plurality of network slices (Senarath ¶0037: inter-function traffic) including the target network slice (Senarath ¶0037: carried within slice 400; Senarath teaches the traffic monitoring function monitoring multiple network slices within a slice, see Fig. 4 and ¶0037),
Gormley teaches
wherein each of the plurality of network slices has a respective upper data rate limit (Gormley Fig. 8: 126, usage threshold), and wherein the policy control network element is configured to independently control access (Gormley Fig. 8: 140) to each of the plurality of network slices based on the respective upper data rate limit for that network slice (Gormley Fig. 8: 126, usage threshold; Gormley teaches a usage threshold for the policy control function to reduce functionality based on an upper limit, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Senarath with Gormley to include an element that teaches a usage threshold for the policy control function to reduce functionality based on an upper limit, as taught by Gormley in Fig. 8, to reduce loss of multiplexing gain and increase frequency diversity.
Claim(s) 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (Pub. No.: US 20030223450 A1, hereafter “Bender”) in view of Gormley (Pub. No.: US 8543685 B1, hereafter “Gormley”), further in view of Samdanis (Pub. No.: US 20190174498 A1, hereafter “Samdanis”).
Regarding Claim 28 and Claim 32
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Bender in view of Gormley does not explicitly teach
wherein the first session has not yet accessed the target network slice, and wherein rejecting access of the first session comprises performing admission control to prevent the first session from establishing a connection to the target network slice.
However, Samdanis teaches
wherein the first session (Samdanis ¶0040: admission control) has not yet accessed the target network slice (Samdanis ¶0040: traffic prediction), and wherein rejecting access of the first session (Samdanis ¶0039: to be set up) comprises performing admission control to prevent the first session from establishing a connection to the target network slice (Samdanis ¶0040: admission control; Samdanis teaches admission control for a to be set up network connection with traffic prediction, see ¶0039-¶0040).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender in view of Gormley, with Samdanis to have an element that teaches admission control for a to be set up network connection with traffic prediction, as taught by Samdanis in ¶0039-¶0040, to reduce loss of multiplexing gain and increase frequency diversity.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (Pub. No.: US 20030223450 A1, hereafter “Bender”) in view of Gormley (Pub. No.: US 8543685 B1, hereafter “Gormley”), and even further in view of Bor-Yaliniz (Pub. No.: US 20200044943 A1, hereafter “Bor-Yaliniz”).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 11
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Bender in view of Gormley does not teach
wherein the actual data rate is determined based on actual traffic on an N6 interface in the target network area wherein the N6 interfaces are egress interfaces from user plane functions in the target network slice to a data network, and wherein determining the actual data rate comprises summarizing uplink actual data rates and downlink actual data rates of all of the N6 interfaces in the target network area.
However, Bor-Yaliniz discloses
wherein the actual data rate (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: end-to-end data rate) is determined based on actual traffic on an N6 interface in the target network splice (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: average end-to-end) wherein the N6 interfaces are egress interfaces (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: ingress-egress points) from user plane functions in the target network slice (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: network slices) to a data network (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: network slice utilization percentage), and wherein determining the actual data rate (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: end-to-end data rates) comprises summarizing uplink actual data rates (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: KOIs ad QoS requirements) and downlink actual data rates of all of the N6 interfaces (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: monitored ingress-egress points) in the target network slice (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: determining network segment(s)/slice(s); Bor-Yaliniz teaches end-to-end data rates being determined by an average for monitored ingress-egress points for network slices being generated with KOI and QoS requirements, see ¶0233).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender with Gormley, and further with Bor-Yaliniz to teach end-to-end data rates being determined by an average for monitored ingress-egress points for network slices being generated with KOI and QoS requirements, as taught by Bor-Yaliniz in ¶0233, to ensure adequate network service, the communication network should be able to provide enough communication and related resources to support all of its traffic, to improve network operations, accurate and appropriate allocation of the network resources.
Claim 11 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art
wherein the actual data rate (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: end-to-end data rate) is received from the data analytics network element (Bor-Yaliniz ¶0233: CMS/SON; Bor-Yaliniz teaches the end-to-end data rate information is received from a data analytics network element, see ¶0233)
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender in view of Gormley, and further with Bor-Yaliniz to teach the end-to-end data rate information is received from a data analytics network element, as taught by Bor-Yaliniz in ¶0233, to ensure adequate network service, the communication network should be able to provide enough communication and related resources to support all of its traffic, to improve network operations, accurate and appropriate allocation of the network resources.
Claim(s) 24-27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (Pub. No.: US 20030223450 A1, hereafter “Bender”) in view of Gormley (Pub. No.: US 8543685 B1, hereafter “Gormley”), and even further in view of Cooblall (Pub. No.: US 20200344140 A1, hereafter “Cooblall”).
Regarding Claim 24 and Claim 26
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Bender in view of Gormley does not explicitly teach
wherein the upper data rate limit is a maximum of a sum of data rates can be used by a guaranteed bit rate service and a non-guaranteed bit rate service that access the target network slice in the target network area.
However, Cooblall teaches
wherein the upper data rate (Cooblall ¶0018: data rate) limit (Cooblall ¶0018: threshold) is a maximum of a sum of data rates (Cooblall ¶0018: data rate capacity over an area) that can be used by a guaranteed bit rate service (Cooblall ¶0018: high data rate performance) and a non-guaranteed bit rate service (Cooblall ¶0018: minimum data rate policy) that access the target network slice (Cooblall ¶0018: set of network slice policies) in the target network area (Cooblall ¶0018: network level; Cooblall teaches a data rate threshold over an area with a maximum and a minimum data rate policy on a network level, see ¶0018).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender in view of Gormley, and further with Cooblall to teach a data rate threshold over an area with a maximum and a minimum data rate policy on a network level, as taught by Cooblall in ¶0018, to have one or more control plane nodes establish a positive and negative threshold associated with 5G.
Regarding Claim 25 and Claim 27
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 37. Cooblall teaches
wherein a partial area of the target network slice (Cooblall ¶0018: network slice policies) is at least one of the following: a tracking area (Cooblall ¶0018: data rate capacity over an area), a tracking area list (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), a cell (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or a cell list (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Cooblall teaches the network slice policy includes data rate capacity over an area, see ¶0018).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender in view of Gormley, and further with Cooblall to teach the network slice policy includes data rate capacity over an area, as taught by Cooblall in ¶0018, to have one or more control plane nodes establish a positive and negative threshold associated with 5G.
Regarding Claim 36
Bender in view of Gormley teaches the method and the system as explained above in Claim 1. Cooblall teaches
wherein the plurality of sessions is a plurality of PDU sessions (Cooblall ¶0012: PDUs for the communication session).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bender in view of Gormley, and further with Cooblall to teach PDUs for the communication session, as taught by Cooblall in ¶0012, to have one or more control plane nodes establish a positive and negative threshold associated with 5G.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights