Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 22 - 40 are presented for examination. Claims 33-38 are withdrawn. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-27, 29-32, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US Pub. 20200366794 A1).
For claim 22, Lee discloses a method performed by a first entity for handling user notifications in a communications network (fig. 7-8, an expiration alarm notification to a UE triggered by an application function), the method comprising:
receiving an indication that a second entity supports a user notification type [0033, 0062, 0082-84, 0089] (the UE requests expiration notification, i.e. user notification type, to the SMF, i.e. second entity, through the AMF, i.e. first entity, "In the method of configuration and notification of the expiration notification by utilizing an NAS layer, the user (UE 110) transmits a threshold for the expiration notification at the time of generation of the corresponding session, thereby requesting the expiration notification from the SMF 130 (operation 801), and the SMF 130 notifies of the UE 110 through a session modification in the case where expiration occurs (operation 813). An example of the method for configuration of usage exhaustion and notification of expected usage exhaustion through the NAS layer is illustrated in FIG. 8 . In operation 801 to operation 803, the UE may configure the expiration notification to the SMF 130, through the AFM 120, by using a POU session modification request including a threshold and a reference ID. In operations 804a to 804b, the SMF 130 may configure an event triggering condition in the UPF 160. In operation 811, the UPF 160 triggers an event, for example, if the usage reaches a threshold, and reports the event to the SMF 130 in operation 812. In operations 813 to 814, the SMF 130 may notify the UE 110 of the usage exhaustion including the reference ID.") [0084];
determining that a user notification of the user notification type shall be transmitted to a user equipment associated with a subscriber of the communications network, the user notification comprising a user identity of the subscriber and a notification content [0033, 0062, 0082-84, 0089] (the notification that needs to be transmitted, the notification contains the usage exhaustion information, i.e. notification content, the UE ID and the reference ID, i.e. user identity , "In operations 804a to 804b, the SMF 130 may configure an event triggering condition in the UPF 160. In operation 811, the UPF 160 triggers an event, for example, if the usage reaches a threshold, and reports the event to the SMF 130 in operation 812.") [0083-84];
selecting the second entity for delivering the user notification of the user notification type to the user equipment (step 813-814, the SMF/AMF is selected for notifying the UE regarding a usage exhaustion with ID) [0084];
transmitting to the second entity the user notification including the user identity and the notification content (step 813,814, the SMF send the command to notify the user to the AMF, i.e. second entity. Also see par.80-82 and fig. 7, another way of notification of usage exhaustion method through an SMF, i.e. first entity, and an AF, i.e. first entity.) [0083-84].
For claim 39, Lee discloses an apparatus for handling user notifications in a communications network (fig. 7-8, an expiration alarm notification to a UE triggered by an application function), the apparatus comprising a processor and a memory [0175], the memory containing instructions executable by the processor such that the apparatus is operable to
receive an indication that a second entity supports a user notification type (the UE requests expiration notification, i.e. user notification type, to the SMF, i.e. second entity, through the AMF, i.e. first entity, "In the method of configuration and notification of the expiration notification by utilizing an NAS layer, the user (UE 110) transmits a threshold for the expiration notification at the time of generation of the corresponding session, thereby requesting the expiration notification from the SMF 130 (operation 801), and the SMF 130 notifies of the UE 110 through a session modification in the case where expiration occurs (operation 813). An example of the method for configuration of usage exhaustion and notification of expected usage exhaustion through the NAS layer is illustrated in FIG. 8 . In operation 801 to operation 803, the UE may configure the expiration notification to the SMF 130, through the AFM 120, by using a POU session modification request including a threshold and a reference ID. In operations 804a to 804b, the SMF 130 may configure an event triggering condition in the UPF 160. In operation 811, the UPF 160 triggers an event, for example, if the usage reaches a threshold, and reports the event to the SMF 130 in operation 812. In operations 813 to 814, the SMF 130 may notify the UE 110 of the usage exhaustion including the reference ID.") [0084];
determine that a user notification of the user notification type shall be transmitted to a user equipment associated with a subscriber of the communications network, the user notification comprising a user identity of the subscriber and a notification content (the notification that needs to be transmitted, the notification contains the usage exhaustion information, i.e. notification content, the UE ID and the reference ID, i.e. user identity , "In operations 804a to 804b, the SMF 130 may configure an event triggering condition in the UPF 160. In operation 811, the UPF 160 triggers an event, for example, if the usage reaches a threshold, and reports the event to the SMF 130 in operation 812.") [0083-84];
select the second entity for delivering the user notification of the user notification type to the user (step 813-814, the SMF/AMF is selected for notifying the UE regarding a usage exhaustion with ID) [0084].
For claims 23 and 40, Lee discloses the indication is received from the second entity or from a user data repository (Fig. 7-8) [0083-84].
For claim 24, Lee discloses receiving from a third entity a notify message including the user identity and the notification content, wherein the transmission of the user notification is determined based on the received notify message (Fig. 7-8, UPF sending message to SMF.) [0082-84].
For claim 25, Lee discloses the user notification and/or notify message further include the IP address of the user equipment of the user (IP address allocated to the UE and transmitted to the network) [0041, 0061, 0079-81].
For claim 26, Lee discloses the notification content comprises a URL to access a service related to the user notification, particularly wherein the service is a web service (URL, return address, the URL is a text, or the reference ID contained in the notification) [0079, 0083].
For claim 27, Lee discloses the notification content comprises a notification text (URL, return address, the URL is a text, or the reference ID contained in the notification) [0079, 0083].
For claim 29, Lee discloses receiving from the second entity a user identity [0082-84]; and
transmitting to the third entity a request for quota exhaustion notifications including the user identity (NEF/PCF or SMF first entity, AF second entity and UPF, third entity) [0082-84, 0090-91].
For claim 30, Lee discloses the user notification type is a quota exhaustion notification [0082-84, 0090-91].
For claim 31, Lee discloses the first entity is a Network Exposure Function, NEF, a Service Capability Exposure Function, SCEF, a Policy and Charging Rules Function, PCRF, a Policy Control Function, PCF, a Charging Function, CHF, or an Online Charging System, OCS (Figs. 6-8);
wherein the second entity is an application server, particularly a push notification server, a Service Capability Server, SCS, or a Mobile Network Operator Application Function, MNO AF (Figs. 6-8).
For claim 32, Lee discloses the first entity is a Network Exposure Function, NEF, a Service Capability Exposure Function, SCEF (Figs. 6-8);
wherein the second entity is an application server, particularly a push notification server, a Service Capability Server, SCS, or a Mobile Network Operator Application Function, MNO AF (Figs. 6-8);
wherein the third entity is a Charging Function, CHF, an Online Charging System, OCS, a Policy and Charging Rules Function, PCRF, or a Policy Control Function, PCF (Figs. 6-8); and
wherein the fourth entity is an Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF, or a Mobility Management Entity, MME (Figs. 6-8).
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 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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Pub. 20200366794 A1) in view of Qiao et al. (US Pub. 20210122261 A1).
For claim 28, Lee discloses receiving from the second entity an identifier [0070, 0088, 0083-84];
transmitting to a fourth entity a subscription request for user equipment register events including the identifier [0070, 0088, 0083-84];
receiving from the fourth entity, in response to a register event of the user equipment, wherein the targeted system of the user equipment corresponds to the identifier, a notification of the user equipment register event including the user identity, an IP address of the user equipment and the identifier [0070, 0088, 0083-84];
transmitting to the second entity a registration request for the user equipment, including the user identity and the IP address [0041, 0061]; and
transmitting to the third entity a request for quota exhaustion notifications including the user identity [0082-84, 0090-91].
Lee doesn’t explicitly teach the targeted system identifier is an operating system identifier.
However, Qiao the targeted system identifier is an operating system identifier [0332, 0393].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing network ids used by a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lee with Qiao to ensure various identifiers can be used to properly track and identify different network functions, thus, improving network data processing abilities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…receiving an indication that a second entity supports a user notification type…”, the Examiner asserts that Lee teaches expiration notification and usage-exhaustion notification procedures described in connection with FIG. 8. Specifically, Lee discloses that the UE requests an expiration notification from the SMF by transmitting a threshold for expiration notification when establishing or modifying a session. Paragraph [0084] states that “the user (UE 110) transmits a threshold for the expiration notification ... thereby requesting the expiration notification from the SMF 130,” and further explains that “the UE may configure the expiration notification to the SMF 130, through the AMF 120, by using a PDU session modification request including a threshold and a reference ID.” Thus, the UE provides an indication that it desires a particular notification type (expiration/usage-exhaustion notification), and the SMF receives and supports that notification request. The signaling path shown in FIG. 8 (operations 801-803) further illustrates the UE sending a PDU Session Modification Request containing an “Expiration Alarm Notification,” “Usage Threshold,” and “Reference ID” to the SMF through the AMF. This corresponds to receiving an indication that a second entity (SMF) supports and will provide the requested user notification type.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “… determining that a user notification of the user notification type shall be transmitted to a user equipment associated with a subscriber of the communications network, the user notification comprising a user identity of the subscriber and a notification content…”, the Examiner asserts that Lee teaches determining that a user notification of the requested notification type should be transmitted to the UE associated with the subscriber. Paragraph [0084] explains that the SMF configures an event-triggering condition in the UPF (operations 804a-804b), and when the UPF detects that usage reaches the configured threshold, it triggers an event and reports the event to the SMF (operations 811-812). Upon receiving the event report, the SMF determines that the notification condition has been satisfied and proceeds to notify the UE. Specifically, paragraph [0084] states that “the SMF 130 may notify the UE 110 of the usage exhaustion including the reference ID” (operations 813-814). The notification therefore contains notification content, namely, usage exhaustion/expiration information and includes the reference ID associated with the subscriber's session. FIG. 8 further shows the notification message (“PDU Session Command (Cause: Usage Expiration Alarm, Application Reference ID)”), indicating that the notification includes both the content of the notification (usage expiration/exhaustion information) and subscriber-identifying information in the form of the Application Reference ID associated with the UE.
Additional support is provided by paragraph [0062], which states that before data usage is exhausted, “the network (SMF) 130 notifies the UE 110 of usage exhaustion,” and before expiration of the data usage period, “the network (SMF) 130 notifies the UE 110 of the usage period expiration.” This confirms that the SMF determines when the notification criteria have been met and transmits the corresponding notification to the UE.
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights