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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,032,556 (“Cook et al.”).
Regarding claim 1, Cook et al. discloses a method of operating a wireless network, the wireless network comprising: a control plane element; and a data repository (FIG. 3, user profile data source subsystem 101); the method comprising:
storing, by the data repository (data store 301), subscriber datasets received from the control plane element (control facility 303) (col. 5, lines 1-9, storing user profile data to data store);
monitoring, by the data repository, a capacity of the data repository (col. 7, lines 56-64, monitor to detect for certain events);
detecting, by the data repository, that the capacity of the data repository is at a threshold value (col. 11, lines 53-67, the predefined resources, including threshold levels for the resources, may be defined in advance and detected);
classifying, by the data repository, a subscriber dataset of the subscriber datasets for handling based on a parameter associated with the subscriber dataset, wherein the handling comprises one of deletion, compression, or preservation of the subscriber dataset (fig. 3, including storing user profile data to the data store 301 and modifying, partitioning, deleting, accessing, searching, and retrieving user profile data stored in the data store 301); and
performing, by the data repository, the handling with respect to the subscriber dataset (col. 4, lines 65-col. 5, line 9, processing and control facility 303 may be configured to access particular portions of user profile data and operate on the portions independently of other user profile data stored in the data store 301).
Regarding claim 10, Cook et al. discloses a method of operating a data repository of a wireless network, comprising:
monitoring a capacity of the data repository, wherein the data repository stores subscriber dataset (col. 7, lines 56-64, monitor to detect for certain events);
detecting that the capacity of the data repository is at a threshold value (col. 11, lines 53-67, the predefined resources, including threshold levels for the resources, may be defined in advance and detected);
classifying a subscriber dataset of the subscriber datasets for handling based on a parameter associated with the subscriber dataset, wherein the handling comprises one of deletion, compression, or preservation of the subscriber dataset (fig. 3, including storing user profile data to the data store 301 and modifying, partitioning, deleting, accessing, searching, and retrieving user profile data stored in the data store 301); and
performing the handling with respect to the subscriber dataset (col. 4, lines 65-col. 5, line 9, processing and control facility 303 may be configured to access particular portions of user profile data and operate on the portions independently of other user profile data stored in the data store 301).
Regarding claim 17, Cook et al. discloses a data repository of a wireless network comprising (data store 301): one or more computer-readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer-readable storage media (col. 2, lines 1-7); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the data repository to:
monitor a capacity of the data repository, wherein the data repository stores subscriber datasets (col. 7, lines 56-64, monitor to detect for certain events);
detect that the capacity of the data repository is at a threshold value (col. 11, lines 53-67, the predefined resources, including threshold levels for the resources, may be defined in advance and detected);
classify a subscriber dataset of the subscriber datasets for handling based on a parameter associated with the subscriber dataset, wherein the handling comprises one of deletion, compression, or preservation of the subscriber dataset (fig. 3, including storing user profile data to the data store 301 and modifying, partitioning, deleting, accessing, searching, and retrieving user profile data stored in the data store 301); and
perform the handling with respect to the subscriber dataset (col. 4, lines 65-col. 5, line 9, processing and control facility 303 may be configured to access particular portions of user profile data and operate on the portions independently of other user profile data stored in the data store 301).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Cook et al. discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the handling comprises preservation based on the parameter comprising a type of transaction data associated with the subscriber dataset (preserved data based on portion of user profile data needed, col. 4, lines 56-64, on-demand copying of one or more portions of user profile data over connection 207 from the user profile data source subsystem 101).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,032,556 (“Cook et al.”) in view of US Publication No. 2018/0165013 (“Biesemann”).
Regarding claim 2, 11 and 18, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 1, wherein the handling comprises deletion based on the parameter comprising a timestamp of recency of activity.
In the same field of endeavor, Biesemann discloses lifecycle of data management including determining that a trigger associated with performing a memory management process has occurred, a period of time parameter from a last access corresponding to deletion is identified. The parameter is compared to a current time and the most recent time of access for each instance, and instances where the comparison meets or exceeds the period of time parameter are deleted.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use timestamp as a deletion parameter as disclosed by Biesemann as a threshold for maintaining up-to-date data.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 20, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 3, wherein the handling comprises compression based on the parameter comprising a recency of activity associated with the subscriber dataset.
In the same field of endeavor, Biesemann discloses lifecycle of data management including determining that a trigger associated with performing a memory management process has occurred, a period of time parameter from a last access corresponding to deletion is identified. The parameter is compared to a current time and the most recent time of access for each instance, and instances where the comparison meets or exceeds the period of time parameter are deleted.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use timestamp as a compression parameter as disclosed by Biesemann as a threshold for maintaining up-to-date data.
Regarding claim 8, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 2, wherein classifying the subscriber dataset for deletion comprises identifying session data older than a specified time for deletion.
In the same field of endeavor, Biesemann discloses lifecycle of data management including determining that a trigger associated with performing a memory management process has occurred, a period of time parameter from a last access corresponding to deletion is identified. The parameter is compared to a current time and the most recent time of access for each instance, and instances where the comparison meets or exceeds the period of time parameter are deleted.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use timestamp as a deletion parameter as disclosed by Biesemann as a threshold for maintaining up-to-date data.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,032,556 (“Cook et al.”) in view of US Publication No. 8,971,185 (“Pankajakshan”).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 2, wherein the handling comprises compression based on the parameter comprising a subscription status associated with the subscriber dataset, wherein the subscription status is one of suspended and deactivated with respect to the wireless network. However in a similar field of endeavor, Pankajakshan discloses subscribers receive different compression treatments based on subscriber tiers. The header compression parameters may also include an activation status that may activate or deactivate header compression. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have applied subscription status parameters in order to maintain updated subscriber data sets.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 4, wherein the handling comprises compression based on one or more Quality of Service parameters associated with the subscriber dataset. However in a similar field of endeavor, Pankajakshan discloses subscribers receive different compression treatments based on subscriber tiers. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have applied quality of service based parameters in order to optimize overall user experience.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 6, wherein the handling comprises preservation based on the parameter comprising a Wireless Priority Service status associated with the subscriber dataset. However in a similar field of endeavor, Pankajakshan discloses subscribers receive different compression treatments based on subscriber tiers, where higher tiered subscribers receive different service than lower tiered ones. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have preservation to subscribers with Wireless Priority Service status in order to optimize overall user experience for emergency service. A dynamic, tiered-subscriber service allows the bandwidth allotted to users subscribing to different levels of service to be adjusted between sessions to accommodate changing network conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,032,556 (“Cook et al.”) in view of EP 3955609 (“Pulipati et al”).
Regarding claim 9, Cook et al. does not specify the method of claim 2, wherein the control plane element comprises one of: a Unified Data Manager, a Policy Charging Function, and a Network Exposure Function, and wherein the data repository comprises a Unified Data Repository.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pulipati et al. discloses method of maintaining shared data. In 5G, unified data management (UDM) manages network user data in a centralized element. UDM can be paired with a user data repository (UDR) that can store user information, such as customer subscription information, customer authentication information, and/or security credentials. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a UDM and UDR as the control plane and data repository for the subscriber data, the shared data feature allows optimized handling of subscription data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIRAPON TULOP whose telephone number is (571)270-7491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/JIRAPON TULOP/Examiner, Art Unit 2693