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 .
Application 18/259,583 is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/071954, filed 01/14/2022, which in turn claims priority to PCT/CN2021/072057, filed 01/15/2021.
Applicant’s response dated 10/16/2025 has been received and made of record.
Claims 1, 5, 15, 18, and 38 have been amended.
Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 38 are pending in Application 18/259,583.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the claim objection to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment of the same date. The claim objection to claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-13, 15-18, and 38 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach that the resource allocation status notification is required by the ARF as recited by the newly amended independent claims. Applicant asserts that instead Lopez Serrano describes that the notification is desired (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation. For a computing device to “desire” and subscribe to a notification is equivalent to the computing device “requiring” the notification (note that in the case where the node subscribes to the resource allocation status notification, the notification is required). If a different meaning is intended, Applicant is advised to amend the claim language accordingly.
See also the additional reference of Consoli (WO 2022111831 A1), relied upon for the remainder of the claim amendment(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez Serrano (US 2021/0058904 A1) in view of Xin (US 2020/0374743 A1) and further in view of Consoli (WO 2022111831 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lopez Serrano discloses a method of operation of an application related function (ARF) (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0086], “Application Function AF 4”), the method comprising:
transmitting, (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0087], “a Service Capability Exposure Function SCEF 5”), a request comprising a resource allocation confirmation indication that indicates whether a resource allocation status notification is required (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”),
wherein the resource allocation status notification indicates resource allocation success or resource allocation failure (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0048], “notifying said TDF node that said resources for said detected particular OTT application can not be successfully allocated”; it is understood that the status notification would cover both success and failure conditions).
Lopez Serrano does not explicitly disclose that the transmission is to the exposure function. However, Xin teaches this feature (Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”).
Lopez Serrano and Xin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Xin’s NEF arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano to allow for greater efficiency and improved monitoring in that additional elements can perform data collection.
Lopez Serrano and Xin do not explicitly disclose that the notification is required by the ARF and is to be sent by the EF to the ARF. However, Consoli teaches this feature (Consoli: Figure 9 and Page 20 Line 26-Page 21 Line 10, “indicating whether the create operation was successful or not. The indication is passed on by the NEF 820 to the AF 300”).
Lopez Serrano, Xin, and Consoli are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Consoli’s event notification arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano and Xin to allow for improved monitoring.
The combination of Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the request further comprises a resource allocation status feature that indicates whether the ARF supports a resource allocation status (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 3. The method of claim 2 further comprising receiving, from the EF, a response comprising a status response feature that indicates whether both the ARF and the EF support the resource allocation status (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”; Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”; the status response inherently indicates that the nodes support the status).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 4. The method of claim 3 wherein when the resource allocation confirmation indication indicates that the resource allocation status notification is required by the ARF and the status response feature indicates that both the ARF and the EF support the resource allocation status, the response further comprises a resource allocation status notification (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”; Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 5. The method of claim 3 wherein when the resource allocation confirmation indication indicates that the resource allocation status notification is not required by the ARF, the status response feature indicates that at least one of the ARF and the EF does not support the resource allocation status, or when the resource allocation confirmation indication indicates that the resource allocation status notification is not required by the ARF and the status response feature indicates that at least one of the ARF and the EF does not support the resource allocation status, the method further comprises refraining from waiting for a resource allocation status notification from the EF (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 6. The method of claim 5 wherein when the resource allocation confirmation indication indicates that the resource allocation status notification is not required by the ARF, the method further comprises refraining from waiting for a resource allocation status notification from the EF (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 7. The method of claim 5 wherein when the status response feature indicates that at least one of the ARF and the EF does not support the resource allocation status, the method further comprises refraining from waiting for a resource allocation status notification from the EF (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”; it is implicit that if support is not available, the devices would not be programmed to wait for non-existent messages).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 8. The method of claim 3, wherein:
the request is:
a request to set up an application server (AS) session or an application function (AF) session with required quality of service (QoS) (Xin: Paragraph [0004], “determining QoS description information and a method for transmitting QoS description information, so that a service-related network element in a network can participate in a process of selecting QoS description information”);
a request to update the AS session or the AF session with required QoS;
a request to set a chargeable party at an AS session set-up or an AF session set-up;
or a request to change the chargeable party during the AS session or the AF session;
and the response is:
a response to set up an AS session or an AF session with required QoS (Xin: Paragraph [0004], “determining QoS description information and a method for transmitting QoS description information, so that a service-related network element in a network can participate in a process of selecting QoS description information”);
a response to update the AS session or the AF session with required QoS;
a response to set a chargeable party at an AS set-up or an AF session set-up;
or a response to change the chargeable party during the AS session or the AF session, respectively.
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 9. The method of claim 3, wherein:
a bitmask is used for the resource allocation confirmation indication to indicate whether a resource allocation status notification is required (it is implicit, if not inherent, in the cited references that the request uses a bitmask in the broadest sense of the term, i.e., a series of bits, as indicia);
a bitmask is used for the resource allocation status feature to indicate whether the ARF supports the resource allocation status;
or a bitmask is used for the status response feature to indicate whether both the ARF and the EF support the resource allocation status.
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 10. The method of claim 3, wherein:
the ARF is in a Fifth Generation system;
the ARF is an application function (AF);
and the EF is a network exposure function (NEF) (Xin: Paragraphs [0110]-[0111], “5th generation (5G) mobile communications system… an application function (AF) network element (also including a service server), a core network element, an access network element, a terminal device, and a network capability exposure (NEF) network element”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 11. The method of claim 10, wherein:
the request is:
a request to set up an application function (AF) session with required quality of service (QoS) (Xin: Paragraph [0004], “determining QoS description information and a method for transmitting QoS description information, so that a service-related network element in a network can participate in a process of selecting QoS description information”);
a request to update the AF session with required QoS;
a request to set a chargeable party at an AF session set-up;
or a request to change the chargeable party during the AF session;
and the response is:
a response to set up an AF session with required QoS (Xin: Paragraph [0004], “determining QoS description information and a method for transmitting QoS description information, so that a service-related network element in a network can participate in a process of selecting QoS description information”);
a response to update the AF session with required QoS;
a response to set a chargeable party at an AF session set-up;
or a response to change the chargeable party during the AF session, respectively.
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 12. The method of claim 3, wherein:
the ARF is in a Fourth Generation system (Xin: Paragraph [0110], “The wireless communications system includes a long term evolution (LTE) system provided in the 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP), a 5th generation (5G) mobile communications system”; LTE is 4th gen);
the ARF is a services capability server or an application server (SCS/AS) (Xin: Paragraph [0125], “a third-party application (App) server,”);
and the EF is a service capability exposure function (SCEF) (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0086], “SCEF, 5”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 13. The method of claim 12, wherein:
the request is:
a request to set up an application server (AS) session with required quality of service (QoS) (Xin: Paragraph [0004], “determining QoS description information and a method for transmitting QoS description information, so that a service-related network element in a network can participate in a process of selecting QoS description information”);
a request to update the AS session with required QoS;
a request to set a chargeable party at an AS session set-up;
or a request to change the chargeable party during the AS session;
and the response is:
a response to set up an AS session with required QoS (Xin: Paragraph [0004], “determining QoS description information and a method for transmitting QoS description information, so that a service-related network element in a network can participate in a process of selecting QoS description information”);
a response to update the AS session with required QoS;
a response to set a chargeable party at an AS session set-up;
or a response to change the chargeable party during the AS session, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, Lopez Serrano discloses a network node that implements an application related function (ARF) (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0086], “Application Function AF 4”), the network node comprising:
a network interface (Lopez Serrano: Claim 19, “receiver circuitry; transmitter circuitry; and processing circuitry”);
processing circuitry associated with the network interface (Lopez Serrano: Claim 19, “receiver circuitry; transmitter circuitry; and processing circuitry”);
and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the network node (Lopez Serrano: Claim 19, “receiver circuitry; transmitter circuitry; and processing circuitry”, and Paragraph [0137], “computer program may be stored/distributed on a suitable medium…”) to:
transmit, (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0087], “a Service Capability Exposure Function SCEF 5”), a request comprising a resource allocation confirmation indication that indicates whether a resource allocation status notification is required (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”),
wherein the resource allocation status notification indicates resource allocation success or resource allocation failure (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0048], “notifying said TDF node that said resources for said detected particular OTT application can not be successfully allocated”; it is understood that the status notification would cover both success and failure conditions).
Lopez Serrano does not explicitly disclose that the transmission is to the exposure function. However, Xin teaches this feature (Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”).
Lopez Serrano and Xin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Xin’s NEF arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano to allow for greater efficiency and improved monitoring in that additional elements can perform data collection.
Lopez Serrano and Xin do not explicitly disclose that the notification is required by the ARF and is to be sent by the EF to the ARF. However, Consoli teaches this feature (Consoli: Figure 9 and Page 20 Line 26-Page 21 Line 10, “indicating whether the create operation was successful or not. The indication is passed on by the NEF 820 to the AF 300”).
Lopez Serrano, Xin, and Consoli are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Consoli’s event notification arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano and Xin to allow for improved monitoring.
The combination of Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 16. The network node of claim 15 wherein the request further comprises a resource allocation status feature that indicates whether the ARF supports a resource allocation status (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”).
Lopez-Serrano-Xin-Consoli teaches 17. The network node of claim 16 wherein the network node to further receive, from the EF, a response comprising a status response feature that indicates whether both the ARF and the EF support the resource allocation status (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”; Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”; the status response inherently indicates that the nodes support the status).
Regarding claim 18, Lopez Serrano discloses a method of operation of an exposure function (EF) (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0087], “a Service Capability Exposure Function SCEF 5”), the method comprising:
receiving, (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0086], “Application Function AF 4”), a request comprising a resource allocation confirmation indication that indicates whether a resource allocation status notification is required (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”),
wherein the resource allocation status notification indicates resource allocation success or resource allocation failure (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0048], “notifying said TDF node that said resources for said detected particular OTT application can not be successfully allocated”; it is understood that the status notification would cover both success and failure conditions).
Lopez Serrano does not explicitly disclose that the transmission is from the exposure function to the application function. However, Xin teaches this feature (Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”).
Lopez Serrano and Xin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Xin’s NEF arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano to allow for greater efficiency and improved monitoring in that additional elements can perform data collection.
Lopez Serrano and Xin do not explicitly disclose that the notification is required by the ARF and is to be sent by the EF to the ARF. However, Consoli teaches this feature (Consoli: Figure 9 and Page 20 Line 26-Page 21 Line 10, “indicating whether the create operation was successful or not. The indication is passed on by the NEF 820 to the AF 300”).
Lopez Serrano, Xin, and Consoli are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Consoli’s event notification arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano and Xin to allow for improved monitoring.
Regarding claim 38, Lopez Serrano discloses a network node that implements an exposure function (EF) (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0087], “a Service Capability Exposure Function SCEF 5”), the network node comprising:
a network interface (Lopez Serrano: Claim 19, “receiver circuitry; transmitter circuitry; and processing circuitry”);
processing circuitry associated with the network interface (Lopez Serrano: Claim 19, “receiver circuitry; transmitter circuitry; and processing circuitry”);
and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the network node (Lopez Serrano: Claim 19, “receiver circuitry; transmitter circuitry; and processing circuitry”, and Paragraph [0137], “computer program may be stored/distributed on a suitable medium…”) to:
receive, (Lopez Serrano: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0086], “Application Function AF 4”), a request comprising a resource allocation confirmation indication that indicates whether a resource allocation status notification is required (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0037], “The advantage of the embodiment described above is that a TDF node may decide itself whether it desired to be notified on the outcome of the resource allocation for the detected OTT application. More specifically, the embodiment describes the situation in which the PCRF node receives a subscription request from the TDF node for being notified with respect to a status of the resource allocation for the detected particular OTT application”),
wherein the resource allocation status notification indicates resource allocation success or resource allocation failure (Lopez Serrano: Paragraph [0048], “notifying said TDF node that said resources for said detected particular OTT application can not be successfully allocated”; it is understood that the status notification would cover both success and failure conditions).
Lopez Serrano does not explicitly disclose that the transmission is from the exposure function to the application function. However, Xin teaches this feature (Xin: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0154], “the data analytics network element may communicate with the service server through an NEF, and the data analytics network element, the NEF, and the service server may communicate with each other through a uniform northbound interface. Specifically, the service server may request service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element through the uniform northbound interface; or the service server requests service identifier information allocation from the NEF through the uniform northbound interface, and then the NEF requests service identifier information allocation from the data analytics network element”).
Lopez Serrano and Xin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Xin’s NEF arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano to allow for greater efficiency and improved monitoring in that additional elements can perform data collection.
Lopez Serrano and Xin do not explicitly disclose that the notification is required by the ARF and is to be sent by the EF to the ARF. However, Consoli teaches this feature (Consoli: Figure 9 and Page 20 Line 26-Page 21 Line 10, “indicating whether the create operation was successful or not. The indication is passed on by the NEF 820 to the AF 300”).
Lopez Serrano, Xin, and Consoli are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to resource allocation and network management. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Consoli’s event notification arrangement into the system of Lopez Serrano and Xin to allow for improved monitoring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou (US 2022/0345932 A1) describes a reporting system for application functions and network exposure functions regarding resource allocation.
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 IMAD HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 ET.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/IMAD HUSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453