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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024; 01/18/2024; 04/18/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 56 is 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.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “the prevailing load condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 35-41, 44-55, and 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Törnkvist, Robert (hereinafter “Törnkvist” WO 2019/068360; Cited in IDS) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0198452).
Regarding claims 35 and 52, Törnkvist discloses a network node configured for operation as a Charging Function (CHF) and a method performed by the Charging Function (CHF) of a communication network, the method comprising:
determining overload control features to be applied by a Charging Trigger Function (CTF) with respect to payload portions of messages sent to the CHF by the CTF (page 2 lines 30-32; page 10 lines 8-10; e.g., respective use at the OCS 120 and at least one CTF 125, the rate-also referred to as the "pace"-of charging requests incoming to the OCS 120 is reduced via the prioritized application of one or more abatement treatments at the at least one CTF 125) and (page 11 lines 8-10; e.g., the CTF 125 enables the OCS 120 to determine what overload control features are supported by the CTF 125);
generating a message for the CTF, indicating overload control features (page 9 lines 29-31); and
sending the message towards the CTF (page 9 lines 33-34; e.g., the OCS 120 is configured to provide real time charging control by processing the charging requests incoming from the CTFs 125, in association with requested resource usages).
Törnkvist discloses resource usage to detect the relevant chargeable involve the submission of a multimedia message of a certain size, but fails to specifically disclose determining a payload size limit and indicating the payload size limit.
However, Chen discloses determining a payload size limit and indicating the payload size limit (paragraphs [0020], [0097]; e.g., specify a payload size limit and the data payload associated with the first payment request may be compressed in accordance with the payload size limit).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Törnkvist in combination of Chen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to determining a payload size limit and indicating the payload size limit for controlling charge related signal in a network for advantages of providing fraud prevention services and other ancillary services in connection with handling payment requests (Chen: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 46 and 59, Törnkvist discloses a network node configured to operate as a Charging Trigger Function (CTF) in a communication network and a method performed by the Charging Trigger Function (CTF) of a communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a message from a Charging Function (CHF) of the communication network (page 11 lines 19-22; page 12 lines 11-14), the message indicating overload control features to be applied by the CTF with respect to payload portions of messages sent to the CHF by the CTF (page 2 lines 30-32; page 10 lines 8-10; e.g., respective use at the OCS 120 and at least one CTF 125, the rate-also referred to as the "pace"-of charging requests incoming to the OCS 120 is reduced via the prioritized application of one or more abatement treatments at the at least one CTF 125) and (page 11 lines 8-10; e.g., the CTF 125 enables the OCS 120 to determine what overload control features are supported by the CTF 125) and (page 9 lines 33-34; e.g., the OCS 120 is configured to provide real time charging control by processing the charging requests incoming from the CTFs 125, in association with requested resource usages); and
overload control features of one or more messages sent towards the CHF by the CTF, according to overload control features (page 9 lines 29-31).
Törnkvist discloses resource usage to detect the relevant chargeable involve the submission of a multimedia message of a certain size, but fails to specifically disclose the message indicating a payload size limit and limiting payload sizes.
However, Chen discloses the message indicating a payload size limit and limiting payload sizes (paragraphs [0020], [0097]; e.g., specify a payload size limit and the data payload associated with the first payment request may be compressed in accordance with the payload size limit).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Törnkvist in combination of Chen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have the message indicating a payload size limit and limiting payload sizes for advantages of providing fraud prevention services and other ancillary services in connection with handling payment requests (Chen: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 36, 47, and 53, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method and the network node of claims 35, 46, and 52, wherein determining the payload size limit is performed in conjunction with the CHF responding to a charging request message from the CTF, such that generating the message for the CTF comprises generating a charging response message in reply to the charging request message (Törnkvist: page 9 lines 12-14; page 10 lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 37, 48, 54, and 60, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method and the network node of claims 36, 47, 53, and 59, wherein the charging request message is an initial charging request message sent from the CTF for an initial charging event at the CTF (Törnkvist: page 9 line 34 thru page 10 line 4).
Regarding claims 38 and 49, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method of claims 36 and 47, wherein the charging request message is a subsequent charging request message sent from the CTF, and wherein determining the payload size limit comprises re-determining the payload size limit with respect to a prior payload size limit indicated to the CTF by the CHF (Chen: paragraphs [0020], [0097]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Törnkvist in combination of Chen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have the charging request message sent from the CTF, and wherein determining the payload size limit comprises re-determining the payload size limit with respect to a prior payload size limit indicated to the CTF by the CHF for advantages of providing fraud prevention services and other ancillary services in connection with handling payment requests.
Regarding claim 39, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the subsequent charging request message includes a trigger indication, indicating that the subsequent charging request message was triggered at the CTF because of the prior payload size limit, and wherein re-determining the payload size limit is performed responsive to the trigger indication (Chen: paragraphs [0020], [0054], [0097]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Törnkvist in combination of Chen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have charging request message includes a trigger indication, indicating that the subsequent charging request message was triggered at the CTF because of the prior payload size limit, and wherein re-determining the payload size limit is performed responsive to the trigger indication in order to providing fraud prevention services and other ancillary services in connection with handling payment requests.
Regarding claims 40 and 55, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method and the network node of claims 35 and 52, further comprising calculating the payload size limit in dependence on any one or more of: a service indicated by the CTF in a charging request message sent by the CTF to the CHF, profile information associated with a subscriber indicated in the charging request message, and load conditions at the CHF (Chen: paragraphs [0089]-[0090]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Törnkvist in combination of Chen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to calculating the payload size limit in dependence on any one or more of: a service indicated by the CTF in a charging request message sent by the CTF to the CHF, profile information associated with a subscriber indicated in the charging request message, and load conditions at the CHF in order to providing fraud prevention services and other ancillary services in connection with handling payment requests.
Regarding claim 41, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method of claim 35, wherein determining the payload size limit comprises calculating the payload size limit as a function of prevailing load conditions at the CHF (Törnkvist: page 11 line 4; page 12 lines 25-27; e.g., the OCS 120 may not send configuration information to the CTF 125 except when it wishes to establish an initial configuration at the CTF 125, or to update the current configuration, e.g., in view of a changing load situation at the OCS 120).
Regarding claims 44, 50, and 57, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method and the network node of claims 35, 46, and 52, wherein determining the payload size limit comprises determining at least one of: a size limit for payloads transmitted without compression, a size limit before compression for payloads transmitted with compression, and a size limit after compression for payloads transmitted with compression (Chen: paragraph [0097]; e.g., the data payload for the first payment request may be compressed in accordance with the payload size limit for the destination gateway when generating the data payload for the second payment request).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Törnkvist in combination of Chen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to determining the payload size limit comprises determining at least one of: a size limit for payloads transmitted without compression, a size limit before compression for payloads transmitted with compression, and a size limit after compression for payloads transmitted with compression in order to providing fraud prevention services and other ancillary services in connection with handling payment requests.
Regarding claims 45, 51, and 58, Törnkvist in combination with Chen discloses the method and the network node of claims 35, 46, and 52, wherein the message sent towards the CTF by the CHF indicates an applicability scope of the payload size limit (Törnkvist: page 11 lines 19-22; page 12 lines 11-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42, 43, and 56 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 42, 43, and 56, the prior arts of records fail to teach, or render obvious, alone or in combination, a method performed by a Charging Function (CHF) of a communication network comprising the claimed means and their components, relationships, and functionalities as specifically recited in claims 42, 43, and 56 and independent claims 35 and 52, respectively that claims 42, 43, and 56 depend on.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharma (US 2017/0289784) discloses a system and a method for offline charging including Charging Trigger Function (CTF) and Charging Data Function (CDF).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648