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 submission filed on 08/16/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over their respective independent claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10904827 and 12063592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely broader versions of the ‘827 and ‘592 claims.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8-12, 14, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 20210274366 A1) in view of Dao (US 20180262924 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) and Trossen (US 20170277806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a first user plane system [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066], comprising:
one or more processors [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066 (inherent)];
a memory [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066 (inherent)]; and
one or more components stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066 (inherent)] to perform operations comprising:
determining a first latency based at least in part on … (E2E latency is determined [Abstract]); and
transmitting, to a signaling system, latency information based at least partly on the first latency (Reported to the service producer [par. 0076, 90]).
Although Yao discloses latency, as discussed above, Yao does not explicitly disclose transmitting a first measurement request toward a radio access network (RAN); receiving, from the RAN, a first measurement response in response to the first measurement request; the first measurement request and the first measurement response. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Dao.
In the same field of endeavor, Dao discloses:
transmitting a first measurement request toward a radio access network (RAN) (The NWDA sends the RAN/UE a measurement request [par. 0060, 62, fig. 2, 12-C]);
receiving, from the RAN, a first measurement response in response to the first measurement request (The UE/RAN sends the NWDA a measurement response [par. 0060, 62, fig. 2, 12-C]); and
transmitting, to a signaling system [fig. 2, 12-C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao with Dao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of network policy optimization [Dao par. 0002].
Although Yao and Dao disclose latency and first measurement requests/responses, as discussed above, Yao and Dao do not explicitly disclose time period between transmitting the … request and receiving the … response. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Trossen.
In the same field of endeavor, Trossen discloses:
time period between transmitting the … request and receiving the … response [par. 0010, fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao and Dao with Trossen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing latency [Trossen par. 0002].
Regarding claim 8, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Yao further discloses a computing device [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066], comprising: one or more processors [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066 (inherent)]; a memory [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066 (inherent)]; and one or more components stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors [fig. 1 no. 134, 2 no. 201, par. 0066 (inherent)].
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Yao, Dao, and Trossen disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Yao and Dao further disclose the operations further comprising:
periodically transmitting a second measurement request toward the RAN [Dao par. 0049, 52, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any specific requests/responses are performed periodically];
determining a second latency [Yao, as discussed above] between the second measurement request and a second measurement response received from the RAN [Dao par. 0049, 52, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any specific requests/responses are performed periodically]; and
transmitting, to the signaling system, updated latency information [Yao, as discussed above] based at least partly on the second latency [Yao, as discussed above, Dao par. 0049, 52, 79, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any specific requests/responses are performed periodically]
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Yao, Dao, and Trossen disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Yao and Dao further disclose the operations further comprising:
providing services from a data network to a user device in response to receiving a request from the signaling system (Dynamic policies based on information received (i.e., ultimately providing services from network to user) [par. 0003-04]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Yao, Dao, and Trossen disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Yao and Dao further disclose:
wherein the latency information identifies the first user plane system and the first latency, the first latency being lower than a second latency associated with a second user plane system configured to provide services to the user device [Dao par. 0073, 80, where Yao discloses the latency info as discussed above].
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Yao, Dao, and Trossen disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Yao and Dao further disclose:
wherein determining that the first user plane system is associated with the lower latency than the second user plane system includes comparing first latency information and second latency information [Dao par. 0073, 80, where Yao discloses the latency info as discussed above].
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Yao, Dao, and Trossen disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Yao and Dao further disclose:
wherein the latency information indicates at least one of a measurement of a time period between transmitting the first measurement request and receiving the first measurement response [Abstract, par. 0076, 90], an indication of whether the time period is greater than a predetermined delay, or an indication of whether the time period is greater than a level that can change over time.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, Dao, and Trossen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Stammers (US 20190254083 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Yao, Dao, and Trossen disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Yao discloses wherein the latency information identifies the first user plane system and the first latency, as discussed above, Yao, Dao, and Trossen do not explicitly disclose the first user plane system being further in physical proximity to a user device than a second user plane system. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Stammers.
In the same field of endeavor, Stammers discloses:
the first user plane system being further in physical proximity to a user device than a second user plane system [par. 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao, Dao, and Trossen with Stammers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of selecting session management and UP functions for use in a UE session [Stammers par. 0002].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights