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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references in combination fail to disclose the limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ward discloses a data flow detection method, comprising:
receiving, by an access network device (FOTA campaign agent/base station, refer to par 0014), eighth indication information from a session management network element (core device that contains SMF, refer to par 0030), wherein the eighth indication information indicates the access network device to perform in-situ flow information telemetry on a data flow of a terminal device (FOTA agent/base station coordinate the update delivery session between end devices and core device, refer to par 0031 and to determine the data flow/local RF condition of the end devices and traffic information); and
performing, by the access network device, in-situ flow information telemetry on the data flow of the terminal device based on the eighth indication information (obtain the traffic information from UE, refer to par 0031).
Velev, in analogous art, is introduced to further prosecution by disclosing it is well known in the art such as to receive indication information from a session management network element (refer to refer to par 0058).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, the rejection is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al hereinafter Ward (US 2022/0357939) in view of Velev et al hereinafter Velev (US 2021/0153070).
Referring to Claim 17. Ward discloses a data flow detection method, comprising:
receiving, by an access network device (FOTA campaign agent/base station, refer to par 0014), eighth indication information from a session management network element (core device that contains SMF, refer to par 0030), wherein the eighth indication information indicates the access network device to perform in-situ flow information telemetry on a data flow of a terminal device (FOTA agent/base station coordinate the update delivery session between end devices and core device, refer to par 0031 and to determine the data flow/local RF condition of the end devices and traffic information); and
performing, by the access network device, in-situ flow information telemetry on the data flow of the terminal device based on the eighth indication information (obtain the traffic information from UE, refer to par 0031).
Velev, in analogous art, is introduced to further prosecution by disclosing it is well known in the art such as to receive indication information from a session management network element (refer to refer to par 0058).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ward with Bertz because Bertz’s teaching would allow the system to effectively export the telemetry to the controller.
Referring to Claim 18. Ward with Bertz disclosed method according to claim 17, Ward discloses wherein in uplink transmission, the performing, by the access network device, in-situ flow information telemetry on the data flow of the terminal device based on the eighth indication information comprises:
receiving, by the access network device, a fourth uplink data packet from the terminal device, wherein the fourth uplink data packet comprises a second detection rule, and the second detection rule indicates an action of performing, by the access network device, in-situ flow information telemetry on the fourth uplink data packet (receive the terminal devices subscription/profile information, refer to par 0031); and
performing, by the access network device, in-situ flow information telemetry based on the second detection rule, to obtain an execution result (and based on the profile/subscription information to execute the algorithm to detect, refer to par 0036).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 17 and 18.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights