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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 1,2,6,9,10,14,17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo (US 20210258869) in view of Feng (US 20250063432).
Re claim 1:
Di Girolamo discloses a method comprising: receiving analytics at a customer access and mobility management function from a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) application function, the analytics based on monitoring a dynamic traffic status of one or more nodes servicing a subscriber device (Para.[0098] In step 3, at some point the buffering load exceeds the threshold. The NWDAF1 sends a MonitorNotify Request to the AMF. This may include a list of UEs that are contributing to the buffer overflow and Para.[0095] The NWDAF provides advanced analytical data about core network 1. For example, AMF1 may subscribe to monitor: user plane UL and/or DL loads in RAN; user plane UL and/or DL loads in core network; control plane UL and/or DL loads in RAN; control plane UL and/or DL loads in core network; or buffering load in the core network, e.g., for UEs that are not reachable);
receiving negotiated service rate plans from a plurality of mobile network operator (MNO) networks (Para.[0065] TrackUS needed complete national coverage and so it negotiated preferred rates with two national operators (namely Operator 1 and Operator 3). Both rates are very good, but the rate from Operator 1 is slightly better. As a result, TrackUS would prefer that its devices/sensors connect to Operator 1); and
determining one or more policies managing a traffic distribution of subscriber devices within the plurality of MNO networks (Para.[0059] A UE may be steered to a specific PLMN using “Steering of Roaming”. If the UE receives a command of type “Steering of Roaming”, it is expected to take certain actions. First, the UE should replace the highest priority entries in the “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list stored in the UE with the list provided in the received command. Second, the UE should delete the PLMNs identified by the list in the received command from the Forbidden PLMN list, if they are present in these lists. Third, the UE should take the new information into account in subsequent attempts to access a higher priority PLMN. Last, the UE should immediately attempt to obtain service on a higher priority PLMN); and
dynamically switching telecommunications traffic by sending instructions to the subscriber device to modify a prioritized list of the plurality of MNO networks in accordance with the one or more policies (Para.[0059] A UE may be steered to a specific PLMN using “Steering of Roaming”. If the UE receives a command of type “Steering of Roaming”, it is expected to take certain actions. First, the UE should replace the highest priority entries in the “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list stored in the UE with the list provided in the received command. Second, the UE should delete the PLMNs identified by the list in the received command from the Forbidden PLMN list, if they are present in these lists. Third, the UE should take the new information into account in subsequent attempts to access a higher priority PLMN. Last, the UE should immediately attempt to obtain service on a higher priority PLMN).
As shown above, Di Girolamo discloses receiving analytics from an MVNO application function. Di Girolamo does not explicitly disclose receiving analytics at a customer application from a MVNO application function.
Feng discloses receiving analytics at a customer application from a MVNO application function (Fig.3A NWDAF and AF ref. 338 and Para.[0174] the analytics result derived by the NWDAF and Para.[0185] The QoS parameter information may be QoS parameter information included in the subscription message feedback message obtained by the NWDAF and Fig.3B ref. S354 Notification message of the DT policy #1).
Di Girolamo and Feng are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Girolamo to include receiving analytics at an AF from an AF as taught by Feng in order to improve a feedback result and assist the AF in accurately and efficiently selecting a policy (Para.[0219,0314]).
Re claim 2:
Di Girolamo discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: determining to move a subset of the subscriber devices within a location from a first MNO network to a second MNO network based on receiving the analytics and the negotiated service rate plans; identifying subscriber devices within the subset of the subscriber devices that belong to the location (Para.[0127] For example, based on the information collected from the core networks and the application servers, the M2M/IoT server may generate a number of PLMN selection lists, which are based on the UE's current location and current active applications); and
sending a steering of roaming (SoR) request to all the subscriber devices to modify the prioritized list of the plurality of MNO networks to prioritize the first MNO network over the second MNO network (Para.[0133] The M2M/IoT server may then send these lists to the UE, for example through a USAT command or through the core network to which the UE is currently registered and Para.[0059] A UE may be steered to a specific PLMN using “Steering of Roaming”. If the UE receives a command of type “Steering of Roaming”, it is expected to take certain actions. First, the UE should replace the highest priority entries in the “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list stored in the UE with the list provided in the received command).
Re claim 6:
Di Girolamo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more policies is based on running a cost analysis for its subscriber devices across each MNO network (Para.[0065] TrackUS needed complete national coverage and so it negotiated preferred rates with two national operators (namely Operator 1 and Operator 3). Both rates are very good, but the rate from Operator 1 is slightly better. As a result, TrackUS would prefer that its devices/sensors connect to Operator 1).
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Di Girolamo further discloses a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus (Fig. 26 processor and memory).
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3,4,11,12,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo (US 20210258869) in view of Feng (US 20250063432) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Olvera-Hernandez (US 20250113291).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Di Girolamo in view of Feng meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Di Girolamo discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: determining a roaming partner's list (RPL) for the subscriber device based on a current load of the one or more nodes and a configured load (Para.[0059] A UE may be steered to a specific PLMN using “Steering of Roaming”. If the UE receives a command of type “Steering of Roaming”, it is expected to take certain actions. First, the UE should replace the highest priority entries in the “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list stored in the UE with the list provided in the received command and Para.[0011] For example, the determination is based on: a UL load, a DL load, a buffer load, or a signaling load, or some combination thereof. The UE transfer request may include, for instance: a list of UEs, locations of UEs, UE network loads);
modifying a steering of roaming (SoR) request for the subscriber device (Para.[0059] A UE may be steered to a specific PLMN using “Steering of Roaming”. If the UE receives a command of type “Steering of Roaming”); and
(Para.[0059] A UE may be steered to a specific PLMN using “Steering of Roaming”. If the UE receives a command of type “Steering of Roaming”).
Di Girolamo does not explicitly disclose sending the SoR request to a Unified Data Management (UDM) service to.
Olvera-Hernandez discloses sending the SoR request to a Unified Data Management (UDM) service to (Fig.2B ref. 232 is a request to a UDM and ref. 236 is the triggered SoR).
Di Girolamo and Olvera-Hernandez are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Girolamo to include sending a SoR request to a UDM as taught by Olvera-Hernandez in order to improve a feedback result and assist the AF in order to improve information available to a WTRU in roaming scenarios (Olvera-Hernandez Para.[0080]).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Di Girolamo in view of Feng meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Di Girolamo does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more policies include an operator specific policy of a second MNO network that is applied to the subscriber device when the subscriber device is dynamically moved from a first MNO network to the second MNO network.
Olvera-Hernandez discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more policies include an operator specific policy of a second MNO network that is applied to the subscriber device when the subscriber device is dynamically moved from a first MNO network to the second MNO network (Para.[0079] Generally, one example purpose of the control plane approach for a steering of roaming in 5GS procedure in a PLMN is to allow the HPLMN to update a parameter in a WTRU, such as the “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list, by providing the HPLMN protected list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations or a secured packet via NAS signaling. If the selected PLMN is a VPLMN, the HPLMN may provide the steering of roaming information to the WTRU using the control plane mechanism during and after registration. The HPLMN may update the “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” based on the operator policies, which may be based on the registered VPLMN, the location of the WTRU, or the like).
Di Girolamo and Olvera-Hernandez are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Girolamo to include sending a SoR request to a UDM as taught by Olvera-Hernandez in order to improve a feedback result and assist the AF in order to improve information available to a WTRU in roaming scenarios (Olvera-Hernandez Para.[0080]).
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo (US 20210258869) in view of Feng (US 20250063432) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bai (US 20240305533).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Di Girolamo in view of Feng meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Di Girolamo does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics provides to the customer application function, for each MNO network, one or more of a volume of traffic specific to Data Network Name (DNN) slices to divide a physical network infrastructure associated with each MNO network into multiple virtual networks, each with its own resources and quality of service (QoS) requirements.
Bai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the analytics provides to the customer application function, for each MNO network, one or more of a volume of traffic specific to Data Network Name (DNN) slices to divide a physical network infrastructure associated with each MNO network into multiple virtual networks, each with its own resources and quality of service (QoS) requirements (Para.[0003] In order to fulfill diverse communication requirements for different industry segments, mobile network operators (MNOs) have adopted network slicing, which allows multiple logical and virtualized networks to run on a common physical infrastructure. Network slicing requires careful design to ensure each network slice fulfils their negotiated service level agreements (SLAs) and to provision network resources (e.g., radio resources, and the like) in a resource efficient manner and Para.[0040] As examples, the candidate RAN measurements/metrics 250 include per-flow physical resource blocks (PRB) utilization level measurements, per-UE PHY rate measurements (e.g., CQI and/or the like), slice/DRB traffic volume and Para.[0041] Once the INSM 150 determines how the RAN configuration should be updated to assure SLA based on RAN measurements, the INSM 150 sends control signaling to instruct DU 1015 to update its configuration. For example, the INSM 150 may send a network slicing configuration to the DU 1015).
As shown above, Di Girolamo, Feng, and Bai all disclose DNN and slice. Bai does not explicitly disclose DNN slice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a DNN slice is used in order to identify information about a service. Hu (US 20230216798) is further evidence relied upon to show a DNN slice (Para.[0039] the information about the service to be accessed by the UE includes a data network name DNN and a slice instance ID).
Di Girolamo and Bai are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Girolamo to include network slices with their own requirements as taught by Bai in order to provide efficient and flexible resource allocations for diverse requirements (Bai Para.[0011]).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7,8,15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo (US 20210258869) in view of Feng (US 20250063432) as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of Krishan (US 20230180056).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Di Girolamo in view of Feng meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Di Girolamo does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more policies managing the traffic distribution move connections from the subscriber device from a first MNO network to a second MNO network based on a DNN slice of the subscriber device.
Krishan discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more policies managing the traffic distribution move connections from the subscriber device from a first MNO network to a second MNO network based on a DNN slice of the subscriber device (Para.[0037] The producer NF can implement a traffic shedding policy based on, e.g., one or more of the following parameters: [0038] Requested method type, data network name (DNN), subscriber identifier range, or the like [0039] For example, during an overload level 1, reject any new sessions of DNN type “internet” or new sessions from SUPI range X-Y and Para.[0071] A first row 302 specifies a rule that, at a 55% load level, the PCF will drop SUPI range from A to B and a serving scope of Scope1 from its NF Profile at NRF. A second row 304 specifies a rule that, at a 70% load level, the PCF will drop DNN of “dnn1” from its NF Profile at NRF. A third row 306 specifies a rule that, at a 90% load level, the PCF will drop SUPI range from X to Y, a DNN of “dnn2,” and a serving scope of Scope2 from its NF Profile at NRF).
As shown above, Di Girolamo, Feng, and Krishan all disclose DNN and slice. Krishan does not explicitly disclose DNN slice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a DNN slice is used in order to identify information about a service. Hu (US 20230216798) is further evidence relied upon to show a DNN slice (Para.[0039] the information about the service to be accessed by the UE includes a data network name DNN and a slice instance ID).
Di Girolamo and Krishan are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Girolamo to include a policy based on DNN and SUPI as taught by Krishan in order to decrease the number of traffic failures and rejections and improve latency and performance (Krishan Para.[0056]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Di Girolamo in view of Feng meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Di Girolamo does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more policies managing the traffic distribution move connections from the subscriber device from a first MNO network to a second MNO network based on a 5G globally unique Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI) range of the subscriber device.
Krishan discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more policies managing the traffic distribution move connections from the subscriber device from a first MNO network to a second MNO network based on a 5G globally unique Subscription Permanent Identifier (SUPI) range of the subscriber device (Para.[0037] The producer NF can implement a traffic shedding policy based on, e.g., one or more of the following parameters: [0038] Requested method type, data network name (DNN), subscriber identifier range, or the like [0039] For example, during an overload level 1, reject any new sessions of DNN type “internet” or new sessions from SUPI range X-Y and Para.[0071] A first row 302 specifies a rule that, at a 55% load level, the PCF will drop SUPI range from A to B and a serving scope of Scope1 from its NF Profile at NRF. A second row 304 specifies a rule that, at a 70% load level, the PCF will drop DNN of “dnn1” from its NF Profile at NRF. A third row 306 specifies a rule that, at a 90% load level, the PCF will drop SUPI range from X to Y, a DNN of “dnn2,” and a serving scope of Scope2 from its NF Profile at NRF).
Di Girolamo and Krishan are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Girolamo to include a policy based on DNN and SUPI as taught by Krishan in order to decrease the number of traffic failures and rejections and improve latency and performance (Krishan Para.[0056]).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends Di Girolamo in view of Feng does not disclose receiving analytics at a customer application from a MVNO application function.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Feng discloses receiving analytics at a customer application from a MVNO application function (Fig.3A NWDAF and AF ref. 338 and Para.[0174] the analytics result derived by the NWDAF and Para.[0185] The QoS parameter information may be QoS parameter information included in the subscription message feedback message obtained by the NWDAF and Fig.3B ref. S354 Notification message of the DT policy #1). The NWDAF is a MVNO application function and the AF is a customer application. The DT Policy #1 sent to the AF includes the analytics from the NWDAF (Para.[0185] The QoS parameter information may be QoS parameter information included in the subscription message feedback message obtained by the NWDAF).
The claim is not limited to the customer application receiving analytics directly from the MVNO application function. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the teaching in Feng of the NWDAF sending the analytics to the PCF, then the PCF sending the analytics to the NEF, and then the NEF sending the analytics to the AF reads on the limitation as claimed.
In the remarks, Applicant contends a motivation to combine Di Girolamo in view of Feng does not exist because the principle of operation of Di Girolamo’s system would change.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Di Girolamo to include receiving analytics at an AF from an AF as taught by Feng is to improve a feedback result and assist the AF in accurately and efficiently selecting a policy (Para.[0219,0314]).
The principle of operation of Di Girolamo would not change because similar components are used in Feng. Di Girolamo does just not explicitly show all the details of the signaling involved.
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 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 MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights