DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/970,381) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/970,381, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed December 5, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.”
Fig. 5, items 502–508 are reference characters that do not indicate a surface or cross section on which they are each placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hassidim et al. (US 2013/0117466 A1; filed Aug. 22, 2012) in view of Walker et al. (US 2026/0143319 A1; filed Oct. 4, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, while Hassidim teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (fig. 6, item 604) comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions when executed by at least one data processor (fig. 6, item 602) of a network management system (fig. 6, item 600), cause the system to:
receive, by a core network (fig. 1, item 100), information indicating a capacity (“the total amount of data flow from source network node 102 to destination network node 114 is a flow of seven units (e.g., c1+c2=5+2=7), at maximum” at ¶ 22) of data links (fig. 1, items 120–136) of the core network,
wherein the data links are associated with first core network node (fig. 1, item 110) and second core network node (fig. 1, item 112);
obtain traffic data (fig. 1, items 112, 130) for the first core network node and the second core network node (intended use in italics);
determine, by the core network, (1) a first volume (fig. 1, item C6=3) of the traffic data for the first core network node and (2) a second volume (fig. 1, item C8=1) of the traffic data for the second core network node, using the capacity of the data links,
wherein a sum (fig. 1, items C6=3 and C8=1 is a sum of 4) of the first volume and the second volume is less than (the sum of 4 is less than the maximum of 7) or equal to the received capacity of the data links; and
transmit the first volume of the traffic data to the first core network node (fig. 1, item 124) and the second volume of the traffic data to the second core network node (fig. 1, item 134),
wherein the first core network node throttles traffic through the first core network node that is above the first volume of the traffic data (C6=3 and C10=3 at fig. 1, thus item 110 prevents any data flow above 3; “For example, data link 120 may support a maximum flow of data of 10 Mb/s. The actual flow of data over a particular data link may differ from that of its capacity.” at ¶ 20), and
wherein the second core network node throttles traffic through the second core network node that is above the second volume of the traffic data (C8=3 and C9=1 at fig. 1, thus item 112 prevents any data flow above 1; “For example, data link 120 may support a maximum flow of data of 10 Mb/s. The actual flow of data over a particular data link may differ from that of its capacity.” at ¶ 20),
Hassidim does not teach (A) the data links being a Unified Data Repository (UDR); (B) the core network nodes being core network applications; and (C) the core network being a network function of a core network.
Walker teaches a UDR (fig. 8, item 812; “a unified data repository (UDR) 812” at ¶ 63);
core network applications (“core network applications” at ¶ 69); and
a network function (“network functions” at ¶ 65) of a core network (fig. 8, item 806).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Hassidim’s data links to be a UDR, for Hassidim’s core network nodes to be core network applications, and for Hassidim’s core network to be a network function of a core network as taught by Walker for “improving an overall system performance.” Walker ¶ 16.
Regarding claim 2, while Hassidim teaches wherein the determined first volume of the traffic data (fig. 1, item C6=3) is equal to a capacity (fig. 1, item 100 can accept a data flow of 3) of the first core network node (fig. 1, item 110), wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
prevent transmission of additional traffic data from the network to the first core network node (C6=3 and C10=3 at fig. 1, thus item 110 prevents any data flow above 3; “For example, data link 120 may support a maximum flow of data of 10 Mb/s. The actual flow of data over a particular data link may differ from that of its capacity.” at ¶ 20),
Hassidim does not teach (A) the core network nodes being core network applications; and (B) the core network being a network function of a core network.
Walker teaches core network applications (“core network applications” at ¶ 69); and
a network function (“network functions” at ¶ 65) of a core network (fig. 8, item 806).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Hassidim’s core network nodes to be core network applications and for Hassidim’s core network to be a network function of a core network as taught by Walker for “improving an overall system performance.” Walker ¶ 16.
Regarding claim 3, Hassidim teaches wherein the determined first volume of the traffic data (fig. 1, item C6=3) is equal to the determined second volume of the traffic data (fig. 1, item C7=3)1.
Regarding claim 4, Hassidim teaches wherein the determined first volume of the traffic data (fig. 1, item C6=3) is different from the determined second volume of the traffic data (fig. 1, item C8=1).
Regarding claim 5, while Hassidim teaches
wherein the instructions further cause the system to prioritize (fig. 3 illustrates prioritizing items 124 and 132 over item 134) the transmission of the first volume of the traffic data (figs. 1 and 3, item C6=3) to the first core network node (fig. 1, item 110) and the second volume of the traffic data (fig. 1, item C7=3)2 to the second core network node (fig. 1, item 114) 3 based on predefined criteria (¶¶ 39–41),
Hassidim does not teach (A) the core network nodes being core network applications; and (B) wherein the first core network application is a 5G application, and wherein the second core network application is a 4G application.
Walker teaches core network applications (“core network applications” at ¶ 69);
a 5G application (“a 5G next generation (NG) core network included in a 5G wireless telecommunications system” at ¶ 62); and
a 4G application (“4G core network” at ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Hassidim’s data links to be a UDR, for Hassidim’s first core network application to be a 5G application, and for Hassidim’s second core network application to be a 4G application as taught by Walker for “improving an overall system performance.” Walker ¶ 16.
Regarding claim 6, while Hassidim teaches wherein the network receives the information from one or more of: the data links (fig. 1, items C3=5 and C4=2), the first core network application, or the second core network application,
Hassidim does not teach (A) the data links being a UDR; and (B) the core network being a network function of a core network.
Walker teaches a UDR (fig. 8, item 812; “a unified data repository (UDR) 812” at ¶ 63); and
a network function (“network functions” at ¶ 65) of a core network (fig. 8, item 806).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Hassidim’s data links to be a UDR and for Hassidim’s core network to be a network function of a core network as taught by Walker for “improving an overall system performance.” Walker ¶ 16.
Regarding claim 8, Hassidim teaches a system (fig. 6, item 600) for managing network load of wireless devices (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02) comprising: at least one hardware processor (fig. 6, item 602); and at least one non-transitory memory (fig. 6, item 604) storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claims 9–13, claims 2–6, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 2–6 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 9–13.
Regarding claim 15, Hassidim teaches a method for managing network load of wireless devices (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02) to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 15.
Regarding claims 16–19, claims 2–4 and 6, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 2–4 and 6 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 16–19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US-20160308758-A1; US-20130182716-A1; US-20070223377-A1; US-20150133081-A1; US-20250088838-A1; US-20240373285-A1; US-20170201940-A1; US-20180091426-A1; US-20230305726-A1; and US-20090125675-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes Hassidim’s fig. 1, item 112 (the claimed “second core network node”) in the rejection of claim 1 can be replaced with fig. 1, item 114. Thus, the claimed “determined second volume of the traffic data” would be fig. 1, item C7=3.
2 See n. 1 supra.
3 See n. 1 supra. Thus, the second core network node would be fig. 1, item 114.
Prosecution Insights