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
This office action is in response to the claims received on 3/13/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-45, 48, 51-54, 57 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Telephone Election
During a telephone conversation with Mr. William Pagán, Reg. No. 67,192, on 8/26/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, formed by Claims 41-48, 50-57 (claims 41, 50 are currently canceled). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 59 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Independent claims 40, 49, 58 link groups I and II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 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 specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Plain Meaning (MPEP 2111.01): MPEP 2111.01 states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). MPEP 2111.01 part III explains that in some cases it is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In this case:
Circuitry: In claims 49-58, “circuitry” is not a nonce word or a replacement for "means". The specification mentions this term several times, e.g., in page 16 lines 15-30, without redefining it. Therefore, it has its original meaning. The customary meaning of "circuitry" is a system of circuits, which has definite structure and is not a replacement for “means”. MPEP 2181 explains that “The following are examples of structural terms that have been found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "circuit," "detent mechanism," "digital detector," "reciprocating member," "connector assembly," "perforation," "sealingly connected joints," and "eyeglass hanger member." See Mass. Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1355-1356, 80 USPQ2d at 1332 (the court found the recitation of "aesthetic correction circuitry" sufficient to avoid pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, treatment because the term circuit, combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connoted sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.)".
"Non-transitory computer readable medium": Claim 58 recites this term in the preamble, and the specification mentions a similar term on page 16 line 22 without redefining it; the specification also mentions "non-transitory" on page 17 line 27, without redefining it. Therefore, this term has its original meaning, which excludes transitory embodiments, and claim 58 is eligible under 35 USC 101.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 40, a method claim, is the broadest independent claim. Claim 40 requires a 5G core network session management function (SMF) which receives a traffic report from a user plane function (UPF). Responsive to the traffic report, the SMF installs a load reduction policy into the UPF. The load reduction policy contains rules about how to identify the user or users which are subject to the load reduction policy.
Mindler et al (publication number 2022/0191737), hereinafter Mindler, teaches (please refer to Fig. 1D) a 5G core network where a user plane function (UPF) reports traffic data to a session management function (SMF). When traffic exceeds a predefined threshold, the UPF notifies the SMF and may even identify one or more high-consumption user device which are consuming an excessively high amount of traffic. The SMF then deploys a traffic-limiting policy into the UPF, including a process for identifying specific user devices.
Zhang et al (Publication Number 2015/0245238), hereinafter Zhang, teaches (please refer to Zhang Fig. 2) a Public Data Network (PDN) Gateway (P-GW) in the core of a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) network (4G). Zhang's P-GW periodically receives from each base station, Radio Access Network (RAN) status reports which include the traffic load status of the RAN. When a RAN load exceeds a predefined threshold, Zhang's P-GW requests a traffic handling policy from a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) which is also in the same core network. The traffic handling policy usually is to block certain smart phone applications or "apps" which generate high traffic. The P-GW then enforces such policy or policies in order to contain the traffic load increase.
Nithiyanantham et al (publication number 2021/0099909), hereinafter Nithiyanantham, teaches a 5G SMF which configures (arms) a UPF for charge usage reporting via Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) by creating URRs at the UPF. A URR includes trigger conditions (thresholds) indicating when the UPF has to generate a usage report. Trigger conditions or "types" include: (1) Time Limit (Time Limit Threshold), (2) Volume Limit (Volume Limit Threshold), (3) Time Quota Exhausted, (4) Volume Quota Exhausted, (5) Quota Holding time, and (6) Immediate Reporting; and “With Quota” or “Without Quota.”
Regarding claims 42, 51, Mindler teaches policy types such as enforcing a throughput limit, holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput, dropping packets, or reducing a priority of traffic for the high-consumption user device; Mindler teaches UDR in par. 32. However, Mindler falls short of registering, in a Unified Data Repository (UDR), the one or more users as being of a user type that corresponds to a type of load reporting of the load report.
Regarding claims 43, 52, Nithiyanantham teaches that UPF 110 performs usage reporting to SMF 104 via a Packet Forwarding Control Protocol (PFCP) message which may be part of a PFCP Session Establishment Exchange. SMF 104 queries usage reports via a PFCP Modification Request message to the UPF; however, Nithiyanantham falls short of receiving a PFCP association request from the UPF, indicating that the UPF supports providing a load report.
Regarding claims 44, 53, Nithiyanantham teaches types of charging, online and offline in par. 31, and that the usage reports are for generating a charge for a subscriber; however, Nithiyanantham falls short of fetching the load reduction policy rule from the PCF and sending the load reduction policy rule to the UPF in a PFCP session update request to update the PCC rules.
Regarding claims 45, 54, Mindler defines categories of services in par. 36, Zhang defines categories of traffic or "traffic types" which may cause different levels of traffic congestion; however, neither Mindler or Zhang teach a load report which breaks down the load by user category.
Regarding claims 48, 57, Mindler teaches all limitations of the independent claims. Mindler determines that the network is no longer overloaded and reverses the corrective action in Fig. 4 step 450 as described in Mindler par 63. However, Mindler doesn't go as far as claims 48, 57, which require to install a second policy rule that eliminates the user from being subject to the load reduction policy rule.
As a result from a search for double-patenting issues, patent number 12,015,971 has claims which are similar to the instant case, and the inventive entity is the same; however, the reference patent claims don't have the same inventive concept as the instant claims, which is to manage traffic on a 5G user plane function (UPF).
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 58 is objected to due to the following informalities: "…via an interface circuitry…" Inherently, the wireless communication network in the preamble would necessarily include circuitry; however, appropriate correction is required. Claim 59 is objected to due to an incorrect status identifier. Claim 59 should be identified as "withdrawn", "withdrawn— currently amended", or canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 40, 46-47, 49, 55-56, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nithiyanantham et al (publication number 2021/0099909), hereinafter Nithiyanantham, and further in view of Mindler et al (publication number 2022/0191737), hereinafter Mindler.
Nithiyanantham uses the following terminology and acronyms:
[0012] and FIG. 1: Policy Control Function (PCF) 102, Session Management Function (SMF) 104, Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) 106, Unified Data Management (UDM) entity/function108 having a unified data repository or UDR, a User Plane Function (UPF) 110, at least two Access Networks (ANs) 112, and one or more data networks (DNs) 114, user equipment (UE) 116, Charging Function (CHF) 118.
[0018] SMF 104 configures UPF 110 with Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) associated with Packet Detection Rules (PDRs).
[0020] Packet Forwarding Control Protocol (PFCP) messages.
Regarding claim 40, Nithiyanantham teaches a method, implemented in a Session Management Function (SMF) in a wireless communication network (please refer to Nithiyanantham [0069] wireless networks; method represented in Fig. 3 involving SMF 104 AND UPF 110), the method comprising:
sending, to a User Plane Function (UPF), one or more requests to activate one or more types of load reporting (Nithiyanantham [0018] SMF 104 configures UPF 110 with Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) [0021] Report trigger “type” means type of triggers that cause UPF 110 to send the usage report. [0029] SMF 104 configures (arms) UPF 110 for charge usage reporting via Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) by creating URRs at UPF 110. A URR includes trigger conditions (thresholds) indicating when UPF 110 has to generate a usage report. [0030] Trigger conditions or "types" include: (1) Time Limit (Time Limit Threshold), (2) Volume Limit (Volume Limit Threshold), (3) Time Quota Exhausted, (4) Volume Quota Exhausted, (5) Quota Holding time, and (6) Immediate Reporting; and “With Quota” or “Without Quota.”), wherein at least one of the requests to activate indicates a trigger for sending a load report (Nithiyanantham [0020] Once configured with an URR, UPF 110 detects “trigger conditions” that are set by an URR. Upon detection of a trigger condition, UPF 110 generates and sends a “usage report” to SMF 104);
installing a load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Nithiyanantham [0040] Fig. 3 arrow 132: URR1 and URR2 are instantiated (e.g., installed) at UPF 110 via a PFCP exchange),
Nithiyanantham does not explicitly teach: "responsive to receiving the load report from the UPF"; "wherein the load reduction policy rule comprises a criterion for identifying one or more users subject to the load reduction policy rule".
Mindler uses the following terminology (please refer to Fig. 1E):
Policy and charging rules function: Mindler uses acronyms "PCF" and "PCRF" interchangeably (Mindler par. 15, 32, 61).
"Policy": Mindler's "policy" performs corrective action for addressing devices which consume amounts of traffic exceeding a threshold and for addressing a congested network carrying traffic above a threshold (Mindler par. 29, 36).
Session management function (SMF) 178 (Mindler par. 32). User plane function (UPF) 180 (Mindler par. 9, 32).
"Load", "traffic", "consumption", "throughput" are interchangeable (par. 13, 37, 38).
Mindler teaches: responsive to receiving the load report from the UPF (Mindler par. 36: UPF 180 reports traffic by applying rules pertaining to packet routing, traffic reporting, and handling user plane QoS; par. 38: Core network devices notify, one each another, to limit throughput. UPF 180 notifies SMF 178 of a high-consumption user device; par. 56, 57: Fig. 4 is a method performed by SMF 178; in step 410, SMF 178 receives traffic data of user devices in a coverage area), installing a load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Mindler par. 37: SMF 178 provides the policy to UPF 180 to enforce the policy. The policy comprises limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput, dropping packets, or reducing a priority of traffic for the high-consumption user device. Mindler's "holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput" is an example of a policy rule. Mindler meets claimed "responsive to" in Mindler Fig. 4 when the SMF 178 performs corrective action 440 responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data 410. Also, Mindler par. 38 explains that SMF 178 takes action to limit throughput for the high-consumption user device responsive to UPF 180 notifying SMF 178 of a high-consumption user device), wherein the load reduction policy rule comprises a criterion for identifying one or more users subject to the load reduction policy rule (Mindler par. 59 in reference to Fig. 4 block 430: identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold. The high-consumption user device is identified by its subscriber information, such as its 5G subscriber information);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Nithiyanantham, by enabling the SMF to perform corrective action responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data, the corrective action including providing a policy to the UPF to enforce the policy, the policy comprising limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, by identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold, and by deploying Mindler's hardware components, as suggested by Mindler, in order to enable user devices, core network devices, application network devices to maintain faster traffic flows for the majority of subscribers, and user devices experience less latency and better connection quality, and also to identify a high-consumption user device that is consuming a large amount of bandwidth while the network is congested, and to determine a corrective action to alleviate congestion, the corrective action being in connection with a load of the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 8-10). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 46, 55, Nithiyanantham does not explicitly teach wherein the load report comprises a list of user identifiers corresponding to users responsible for load indicated in the load report.
Mindler teaches: wherein the load report comprises a list of user identifiers corresponding to users responsible for load indicated in the load report (Mindler [0012] FIG. 1A: Property data includes information relating to one or more user devices, e.g., UE 1, UE 2, UE 3, in a particular coverage area and one or more application network devices providing content to the user devices. Property data includes user device identification information, e.g., Internet protocol (IP) address, identification number… [0024] Traffic control platform 102 identifies a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold, and may determine to take a corrective action to limit throughput for the high-consumption user device);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Nithiyanantham, by enabling the SMF to perform corrective action responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data, the corrective action including providing a policy to the UPF to enforce the policy, the policy comprising limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, by identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold, and by deploying Mindler's hardware components, and by including in the report property data including information relating to one or more user devices, e.g., UE 1, UE 2, UE 3, as suggested by Mindler, in order to enable user devices, core network devices, application network devices to maintain faster traffic flows for the majority of subscribers, and user devices experience less latency and better connection quality, and also to identify a high-consumption user device that is consuming a large amount of bandwidth while the network is congested, and to determine a corrective action to alleviate congestion, the corrective action being in connection with a load of the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 8-10) and to take a corrective action to limit throughput for the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 24). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 47, 56, Nithiyanantham does not explicitly teach wherein installing the load reduction policy rule in the UPF is responsive to determining that the UPF is overloaded based on the load report.
Mindler teaches: wherein installing the load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Mindler par. 37: SMF 178 provides the policy to UPF 180 to enforce the policy. The policy comprises limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput, dropping packets…) is responsive to determining that the UPF is overloaded based on the load report (Mindler [0007] To address an overload situation, a core network device may limit throughput for the network component and do so evenly for all subscribers, as part of a fair application of a remedy.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Nithiyanantham, by enabling the SMF to perform corrective action responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data, the corrective action including providing a policy to the UPF to enforce the policy, the policy comprising limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, by identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold, and by deploying Mindler's hardware components, and by addressing an overload situation by a core network device limiting throughput, as suggested by Mindler, in order to enable user devices, core network devices, application network devices to maintain faster traffic flows for the majority of subscribers, and user devices experience less latency and better connection quality, and also to identify a high-consumption user device that is consuming a large amount of bandwidth while the network is congested, and to determine a corrective action to alleviate congestion, the corrective action being in connection with a load of the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 8-10) and to take a corrective action to limit throughput for the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 24) as part of a fair remedy (Mindler par. 7). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 49, Nithiyanantham teaches a Session Management Function (SMF, please refer to Nithiyanantham [0069] wireless networks; method represented in Fig. 3 involving SMF 104 AND UPF 110) comprising:
interface circuitry (Nithiyanantham [0075] Network adapter card or network interface; [0076] circuitry) configured to receive a load report from a User Plane Function, UPF (Nithiyanantham [0020] Once configured with an URR, UPF 110 detects “trigger conditions” that are set by an URR. Upon detection of a trigger condition, UPF 110 generates and sends a “usage report” to SMF 104); and
processing circuitry communicatively connected to the interface circuitry (Nithiyanantham [0075] Network adapter card or network interface; [0076] circuitry), wherein the processing circuitry (Nithiyanantham [0068] processing circuitry) is configured to:
send, to the UPF via the interface circuitry (Nithiyanantham [0075] Network adapter card or network interface; [0076] circuitry), one or more requests to activate one or more types of load reporting (Nithiyanantham [0018] SMF 104 configures UPF 110 with Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) [0021] Report trigger “type” means type of triggers that cause UPF 110 to send the usage report. [0029] SMF 104 configures (arms) UPF 110 for charge usage reporting via Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) by creating URRs at UPF 110. A URR includes trigger conditions (thresholds) indicating when UPF 110 has to generate a usage report. [0030] Trigger conditions or "types" include: (1) Time Limit (Time Limit Threshold), (2) Volume Limit (Volume Limit Threshold), (3) Time Quota Exhausted, (4) Volume Quota Exhausted, (5) Quota Holding time, and (6) Immediate Reporting; and “With Quota” or “Without Quota.”), wherein at least one of the requests to activate indicates a trigger for sending a load report (Nithiyanantham [0020] Once configured with an URR, UPF 110 detects “trigger conditions” that are set by an URR. Upon detection of a trigger condition, UPF 110 generates and sends a “usage report” to SMF 104); and
install a load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Nithiyanantham [0040] Fig. 3 arrow 132: URR1 and URR2 are instantiated (e.g., installed) at UPF 110 via a PFCP exchange).
Nithiyanantham does not explicitly teach: "responsive to receiving the load report from the UPF"; "wherein the load reduction policy rule comprises a criterion for identifying one or more users subject to the load reduction policy rule".
Mindler teaches:
responsive to receiving the load report from the UPF (Mindler par. 36: UPF 180 reports traffic by applying rules pertaining to packet routing, traffic reporting, and handling user plane QoS; par. 38: Core network devices notify, one each another, to limit throughput. UPF 180 notifies SMF 178 of a high-consumption user device; par. 56, 57: Fig. 4 is a method performed by SMF 178; in step 410, SMF 178 receives traffic data of user devices in a coverage area), installing a load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Mindler par. 37: SMF 178 provides the policy to UPF 180 to enforce the policy. The policy comprises limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput, dropping packets, or reducing a priority of traffic for the high-consumption user device. Mindler's "holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput" is an example of a policy rule. Mindler meets claimed "responsive to" in Mindler Fig. 4 when the SMF 178 performs corrective action 440 responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data 410. Also, Mindler par. 38 explains that SMF 178 takes action to limit throughput for the high-consumption user device responsive to UPF 180 notifying SMF 178 of a high-consumption user device), wherein the load reduction policy rule comprises a criterion for identifying one or more users subject to the load reduction policy rule (Mindler par. 59 in reference to Fig. 4 block 430: identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold. The high-consumption user device is identified by its subscriber information, such as its 5G subscriber information);
interface circuitry (Mindler par. 53 "interface" and par. 54 "circuitry", in reference to the generic "device 300" represented in Fig. 3); processing circuitry (Mindler par. 52 "processor" and par. 54 "circuitry", in reference to the generic "device 300" represented in Fig. 3) communicatively connected to the interface circuitry (Mindler par. 53 "interface" and par. 54 "circuitry", in reference to the generic "device 300" represented in Fig. 3); a non-transitory computer readable medium (Mindler par. 53, 54 "non-transitory computer-readable medium") storing a computer program product (Mindler par. 54 "set of instructions (e.g., one or more instructions, code, software code, and/or program code)") comprising software instructions (Mindler par. 54 "set of instructions (e.g., one or more instructions, code, software code, and/or program code)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Nithiyanantham, by enabling the SMF to perform corrective action responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data, the corrective action including providing a policy to the UPF to enforce the policy, the policy comprising limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, by identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold, and by deploying Mindler's hardware components, as suggested by Mindler, in order to enable user devices, core network devices, application network devices to maintain faster traffic flows for the majority of subscribers, and user devices experience less latency and better connection quality, and also to identify a high-consumption user device that is consuming a large amount of bandwidth while the network is congested, and to determine a corrective action to alleviate congestion, the corrective action being in connection with a load of the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 8-10). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 58, Nithiyanantham teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product (Nithiyanantham [0056] Memory 186; non-transitory computer readable storage media; [0073] computer program product includes a computer readable storage medium) for controlling a Session Management Function (SMF, please refer to Nithiyanantham [0069] wireless networks; method represented in Fig. 3 involving SMF 104 AND UPF 110) in a wireless communication network, the computer program product comprising software instructions (Nithiyanantham [0073] The computer program product includes computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor; [0076] software) that, when run on the SMF, cause the SMF to:
send, to a User Plane Function (UPF) via the interface circuitry (Nithiyanantham [0075] Network adapter card or network interface; [0076] circuitry), one or more requests to activate one or more types of load reporting (Nithiyanantham [0018] SMF 104 configures UPF 110 with Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) [0021] Report trigger “type” means type of triggers that cause UPF 110 to send the usage report. [0029] SMF 104 configures (arms) UPF 110 for charge usage reporting via Usage Reporting Rules (URRs) by creating URRs at UPF 110. A URR includes trigger conditions (thresholds) indicating when UPF 110 has to generate a usage report. [0030] Trigger conditions or "types" include: (1) Time Limit (Time Limit Threshold), (2) Volume Limit (Volume Limit Threshold), (3) Time Quota Exhausted, (4) Volume Quota Exhausted, (5) Quota Holding time, and (6) Immediate Reporting; and “With Quota” or “Without Quota.”), wherein at least one of the requests to activate indicates a trigger for sending a load report (Nithiyanantham [0020] Once configured with an URR, UPF 110 detects “trigger conditions” that are set by an URR. Upon detection of a trigger condition, UPF 110 generates and sends a “usage report” to SMF 104);
install a load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Nithiyanantham [0040] Fig. 3 arrow 132: URR1 and URR2 are instantiated (e.g., installed) at UPF 110 via a PFCP exchange).
Nithiyanantham does not explicitly teach: "responsive to receiving the load report from the UPF"; "wherein the load reduction policy rule comprises a criterion for identifying one or more users subject to the load reduction policy rule".
Mindler teaches:
responsive to receiving the load report from the UPF (Mindler par. 36: UPF 180 reports traffic by applying rules pertaining to packet routing, traffic reporting, and handling user plane QoS; par. 38: Core network devices notify, one each another, to limit throughput. UPF 180 notifies SMF 178 of a high-consumption user device; par. 56, 57: Fig. 4 is a method performed by SMF 178; in step 410, SMF 178 receives traffic data of user devices in a coverage area), installing a load reduction policy rule in the UPF (Mindler par. 37: SMF 178 provides the policy to UPF 180 to enforce the policy. The policy comprises limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput, dropping packets, or reducing a priority of traffic for the high-consumption user device. Mindler's "holding a high-consumption user device to a maximum throughput" is an example of a policy rule. Mindler meets claimed "responsive to" in Mindler Fig. 4 when the SMF 178 performs corrective action 440 responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data 410. Also, Mindler par. 38 explains that SMF 178 takes action to limit throughput for the high-consumption user device responsive to UPF 180 notifying SMF 178 of a high-consumption user device), wherein the load reduction policy rule comprises a criterion for identifying one or more users subject to the load reduction policy rule (Mindler par. 59 in reference to Fig. 4 block 430: identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold. The high-consumption user device is identified by its subscriber information, such as its 5G subscriber information);
interface circuitry (Mindler par. 53 "interface" and par. 54 "circuitry", in reference to the generic "device 300" represented in Fig. 3); processing circuitry (Mindler par. 52 "processor" and par. 54 "circuitry", in reference to the generic "device 300" represented in Fig. 3) communicatively connected to the interface circuitry (Mindler par. 53 "interface" and par. 54 "circuitry", in reference to the generic "device 300" represented in Fig. 3); a non-transitory computer readable medium (Mindler par. 53, 54 "non-transitory computer-readable medium") storing a computer program product (Mindler par. 54 "set of instructions (e.g., one or more instructions, code, software code, and/or program code)") comprising software instructions (Mindler par. 54 "set of instructions (e.g., one or more instructions, code, software code, and/or program code)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Nithiyanantham, by enabling the SMF to perform corrective action responsive to the SMF receiving traffic data, the corrective action including providing a policy to the UPF to enforce the policy, the policy comprising limiting mechanisms such as enforcing a throughput limit, by identifying, based on determining that the traffic data satisfies the congestion threshold, a high-consumption user device with a load that satisfies a load threshold, and by deploying Mindler's hardware components, as suggested by Mindler, in order to enable user devices, core network devices, application network devices to maintain faster traffic flows for the majority of subscribers, and user devices experience less latency and better connection quality, and also to identify a high-consumption user device that is consuming a large amount of bandwidth while the network is congested, and to determine a corrective action to alleviate congestion, the corrective action being in connection with a load of the high-consumption user device (Mindler par. 8-10). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights