DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 26 November 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 15-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22 and 25 are amended.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are currently pending.
Applicant is reminded of the proper form for amendments to the claims in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.121. Specifically, Claim 1 now recites newly added language “applies to” that was not underlined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 21 and 25 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 21 and 25 recite (emphasis added by the Office) “…responsibility for enforcing a first portion of a policy is to be allocated to a portion of the communication system.” The claims subsequently recite (emphasis added by the Office) “maintaining, within the core network, enforcement of remaining portions of the policy for the first type of network traffic not exhibiting the defined condition.” Looking to the specification, paragraphs 0036-0038 describe allocation responsibility for enforcing a portion of policy as follows (emphasis added by the Office):
[0036]In block 208d, the conditions identified as part of block 204d may be analyzed. For example, based on the analysis a determination may be made whether enforcement of some or all of a policy pertaining to a generation or handling of traffic should be allocated (or, analogously, reallocated) from a first entity (e.g., a core network) to one or more other entities (an edge or perimeter of a network, a UE, etc.), or vice versa. If the determination of block 208d is answered in the affirmative, flow may proceed from block 208d to block 212d; otherwise, flow may proceed to block 204d to (continue) monitoring the conditions.
[0037]In block 212d, enforcement of at least a portion of the policy may be allocated (or reallocated) in accordance with the determination of block 208d. Block 212d may include a transmission of the policy or a command/instruction pertaining to the policy. The policy may be enforced on the basis of the transmission. For example, enforcement of the policy may include imposing a respective data rate cap/limit on one or more applications. To demonstrate, a first application may be subject to a first data rate limit, and a second application may be subject to a second data rate limit that may be the same as, or different from, the first data rate limit. From block 212d, flow may proceed to block 204d to (continue) monitoring the conditions.
[0038]As the above description makes clear, management or enforcement of a policy may be dynamic in nature, adaptable to the conditions that may be at hand. For example, aspects of the method 200d may enable a core network to distribute/delegate responsibility for managing a policy (or a part/portion thereof) in relation to traffic/load during periods of elevated network traffic (e.g., “congestion”), while at the same time providing an ability for the core network to reclaim such responsibilities at a future point in time (e.g., during periods of lightly loading of network/system traffic). In practical applications, responsibility for managing or enforcing a policy may be shared amongst entities, or may be allocated to a particular entity, at one or more points in time.
These paragraphs highlight two issues with the newly added claim language. First, the specification does not clearly indicate how many portions are comprised within each policy. Presuming, based on paragraph 0038, that a policy has at least two portions (one of which is allocated to the UE for enforcement), this would mean that the core network would retain a remaining portion of the policy, which is not commensurate in scope with the claim language “remaining portions.” Second, paragraph 0038 does not clearly indicate what is done with the “remaining portions” of the policy after a “part/portion thereof” is allocated to the UE. Paragraph 0038 above indicates that the core network can “reclaim such responsibilities at a future point in time” in reference delegated portions of policy, but is silent on whether or not remaining parts/portions of the policy are “maintained” in the core network. For these reasons, the newly added claim language regarding enforcement of the “remaining portions of the policy” being “maintained” in the core network, as well as the number of remaining portions being plural, is considered new matter. Claims 2-14, 22-24 and 26 are rejected by virtue of respective dependency on the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 21 and 25 recite (emphasis added by the Office) “…responsibility for enforcing a first portion of a policy is to be allocated to a portion of the communication system.” The claims subsequently recite (emphasis added by the Office) “maintaining, within the core network, enforcement of remaining portions of the policy for the first type of network traffic not exhibiting the defined condition.” However, the number of portions of the policy is not clearly claimed; therefore, it is unclear whether the policy comprises a remaining portion or remaining portions. Claims 2-14, 22-24 and 26 are rejected by virtue of respective dependency on the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 21, 23, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0073282), hereinafter Speicher in view of Madey et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20120131155), hereinafter Madey.
Regarding Claim 1, Speicher discloses a device (Figure 4 and paragraph 0060, intermediary network node PCRF), comprising:
a processing system including a processor (Figure 4, processor 402); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Figure 4, memory 404; paragraph 0062 – the memory stores computer programs or logic that are run on processor 402), the operations comprising:
monitoring first conditions associated with a communication system that includes a core network (Figure 3A, step 314 and paragraph 0058 – the PCRF receives RAN congestion information; Figure 1 and paragraphs 0022-0023 – the RAN congestion information is for a group of subscribers in a 3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS) architecture, which includes an access network and core network (e.g., comprising PCRF)).
However, Speicher does not disclose determining, based on the monitoring of the first conditions, that responsibility for enforcing a first portion of a policy is to be allocated to a portion of the communication system that is different from the core network, resulting in a first determination, wherein the first portion of the policy applies to a first type of network traffic exhibiting a defined condition, and the portion of the communication system comprises user equipment; allocating, based on the first determination, enforcement of the first portion of the policy to the user equipment, resulting in a first allocation, wherein the allocation of the enforcement of the first portion of the policy causes the user equipment to enforce the first portion of the policy for the first type of network traffic exhibiting the defined condition; and maintaining, within the core network, enforcement of remaining portions of the policy for the first type of network traffic not exhibiting the defined condition. In analogous art, Madey discloses this. Specifically, Madey discloses a dynamic-policy unit 102 receiving context-based data from context-based data sources 106, which may include sensors at the mobile device, followed by an endpoint policy-management unit 104 sending commands to enforce the network policy to a mobile-device control unit 108 that controls mobile-device hardware and software 110 (paragraphs 0035 and 0046). The criteria for the determination and the policies that are sent for enforcement is shown in the policy matrix of Figure 3 and described at paragraph 0039 (related to software applications and security settings, for example). As described in paragraph 0038, this determination related to policies that are then enforced at the mobile device are part of a device and service management platform as part of a centralized platform for group management of mobile devices (e.g., core). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Speicher and Madey. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow dynamic control of mobile device capabilities based on context-specific scenarios.
Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory machine readable medium performing the same steps as recited in Claim 1. Speicher discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor (Figure 4, memory 404; paragraph 0062 – the memory stores computer programs or logic that are run on processor 402), facilitate performance of the operations recited in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasoning as presented above for Claim 1.
Claim 25 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the device of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasoning as presented above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 3 and 23, the combination of Speicher and Madey discloses the portion of the communication system includes an operating system of the user equipment (paragraphs 0035 and 0046 – the policy is enforced by mobile device software). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Speicher and Madey. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow dynamic control of mobile device capabilities based on context-specific scenarios.
Regarding Claims 4 and 24, the combination of Speicher and Madey discloses the portion of the communication system includes an application of the user equipment (paragraphs 0035 and 0046 – the policy is enforced by mobile device software specific to applications running on the mobile device). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Speicher and Madey. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow dynamic control of mobile device capabilities based on context-specific scenarios.
Regarding Claim 7, Speicher discloses the determining is based on a capacity of resources that are available in the communication system (paragraph 0059 – the PCRF makes a policy decision based on aggregated RAN congestion information).
Regarding Claim 8, Speicher discloses based on the first allocation a first application generates first data subject to a first data rate limit of the first portion of the policy and a second application generates second data subject to a second data rate limit of the first portion of the policy (paragraph 0059 – the PCRF can throttle connections using high bandwidth (e.g., voice and audio data streams)).
Regarding Claim 10, Speicher discloses the first data is video data and the second data is non-video data (paragraph 0059 – the PCRF can selecting throttle connections using high bandwidth (e.g., voice and audio (non-video) data streams)).
Regarding Claim 11, Speicher discloses the first portion of the policy pertains to an amount of video traffic that is generated in the communication system (paragraph 0034 – UEs connected to the network initiate video traffic; paragraph 0059 –selectively throttles connections such as video data streams).
Regarding Claim 12, Speicher discloses the first portion of the policy pertains to first video traffic that is generated by a first user equipment and a second video traffic that is generated by a second user equipment (paragraph 0034 – UEs connected to the network initiate video traffic; paragraph 0059 – the PCRF selectively throttles connections such as video data streams).
Claims 5, 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher in view of Madey, as applied to Claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Mukherjee et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20190394672), hereinafter Mukherjee.
Regarding Claims 5 and 26, the combination of Speicher and Madey discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 25, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the portion of the communication system includes a mobile edge computing device. In an analogous art, Mukherjee discloses this. Specifically, Mukherjee discloses a traffic controller taking congestion control actions that causes an MEC or end device to throttle user plane traffic in the uplink and/or the downlink (paragraph 0036). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Speicher/Madey and Mukherjee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the traffic sent to and received from the core network (paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Speicher, Madey and Mukherjee discloses the mobile edge computing device administers a radio access network for the user equipment (Mukherjee Figure 1C and paragraphs 0033-0036 - the MEC system comprises a traffic controller that administers traffic control for the access network and end devices shown in Figure 1A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Speicher/Madey and Mukherjee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the traffic sent to and received from the core network (paragraph 0010).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher in view of Madey, as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Liebhart et al (WIPO Publication 2014/187477), hereinafter Liebhart. The combination of Speicher and Madey discloses the limitations of Claim 8, as described above. Speicher further discloses the second application is different from the first application (paragraph 0059 – the PCRF can select throttle connections using high bandwidth (e.g., voice and audio (non-video) data streams)). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the second data rate limit is different from the first data rate limit. In an analogous art, Liebhart discloses this. Specifically, Liebhart discloses setting rules for a congestion event based on subscription levels of the users (e.g., bronze, silver, etc) that correspond to different data rates when a congestion event occurs (page 12, line 28 – page 13, line 7). For example, the maximum bit rate for bronze and silver users can be decreased to 64 kbit/second (page 13, lines 15-18). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Speicher/Madey and Liebhart. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce user plane congestion, either as function of cell capacity or backhaul capacity (page 4, lines 5-7 of Liebhart).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher in view of Madey, as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Sridhar et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0039175), hereinafter Sridhar. The combination of Speicher and Madey discloses the limitations of Claim 12, as described above. Speicher further discloses the first video traffic and the second video traffic traverse at least a second portion of the communication system (paragraph 0034 – UEs connected to the network initiate video traffic; Figure 1, UEs 12a-12c are connected to the core network via respective access networks). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose a first amount of the first video traffic is greater than a second amount of the second video traffic, and wherein the first user equipment is entitled to generate the first amount of the first video traffic under the portion of the policy based on a payment of a subscription fee. In an analogous art, Sridhar discloses this. Specifically, Sridhar discloses generating a policy for a congested eNB for UEs that subscribe to various service levels (e.g., silver, gold, or platinum packages) to transmit either all types of data (including video) or solely voice/text (paragraph 0041). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Speicher/Madey with Sridhar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow an eNB to flexibly load balance in a congestion scenario without waiting for instruction from the core network (paragraph 0003 of Sridhar).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speicher in view of Madey, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210068005), hereinafter Huang. The combination of Speicher and Madey discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose subsequent to the first allocation, monitoring second conditions associated with the communication system, the second conditions being different from the first conditions; determining, based on the monitoring of the second conditions, that the responsibility for enforcing the first portion of a policy is to be allocated to the core network, resulting in a second determination; and allocating, based on the second determination, the enforcement of the portion of the policy to the core network, resulting in a second allocation. In an analogous art, Huang discloses this. Specifically, Huang discloses adaptive congestion control that evaluates an overall load level and determines whether congestion is predicted (paragraph 0075). If the predicted congestion level is at a warning level, the core network determines that the application server in the wide-area network should throttle traffic destined for UEs in the congested cell (paragraph 0076). If the predicted congestion is at a critical level, the core network may send an instruction to the eNB to control traffic originating from the UE (paragraph 0077). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Speicher/Madey and Huang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to pre-emptively throttle traffic in a network and avoid congestion (paragraphs 0014-0015 of Huang).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472