DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/11/26 has been entered.
Priority
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 14/214492 (provisional dated 3/15/2013) provides adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For examination purposes, this is determined to be the priority date of the application.
Any applications filed earlier than 3/15/2013 that applicant believes provide support for specific claim limitations must be cited and provided under 42 CFR 1.105 Requirements for information:
(1) In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, including a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example: (iii) Related information: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ahmad et al., US 20130303114 A1.
Claim 31 (New): A method comprising:
providing a network system configured to provide one or more services to one or more end-user devices, (see Ahmad, ¶ 106 “The VNMF 502 may interact directly with the end user or WTRU to help the WTRU choose the suitable radio access network and operator's core network paths for control or data purposes with respect to the services or applications the mobile device end user selected based on the end user or WTRU's location or attachment point with the network”) communicatively coupled to the network system over a wireless access network, (see Ahmad, claim 19 “within a radio access network (RAN)… receiving, via a brokerage control unit (BCU) an allocation behavior report for a participating operator from a network node”), the network system including a policy enforcement function, (see Ahmad, ¶ 77), a policy element and a network element communicatively coupled to the policy enforcement function and the policy element, (See Ahmad, claim 19 “resource allocation policy”);
communicating, by the network element having a load balancer, policy information between the policy enforcement function and the policy element, wherein the policy element comprises a virtual policy element instance that executes in a policy element cloud system, (see Ahmad, figs. 6 and 7 “load balancing”, ¶ 102 “cloud network”); and
selecting or assigning, by the load balancer, the virtual policy element instance for communication of the policy information for communication of the policy information to the policy enforcement function, (see Ahmad, claim 19 “allocation behavior report” “transmitting a message to the participating operator to adjust the usage of the resource allocated to the participating operator”); and
communicating, by the selected or assigned virtual policy element instance, the policy information to the policy enforcement function that enforces the policy information, (see Ahmad, claim 19 “allocation behavior report” “transmitting a message to the participating operator to adjust the usage of the resource allocated to the participating operator”).
Claim 32 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the policy enforcement function provides access control for the one or more network services provided to the one or more end- user devices, (see Ahmad, ¶ 106 “ensure that the user has the required financial or charging credentials to access the virtual network system”).
Claim 33 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the policy element cloud system includes an on-line charging system (OCS) decision layer, (see Ahmad, ¶ 191 “Resources may also be allocated on a first-request-first-serve basis such that an earlier request may be satisfied first”).
Claim 34 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the network system includes an on-line charging system (OCS) interaction layer interposed between the policy enforcement function and the network element, (see Ahmad, fig. 16, ¶ 189 “capacity allocation request/response message exchange 1600 that may be used to ask for more resources from a RAN operator”).
Claim 35 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the load balancer selects or assigns the virtual policy element instance based on an association of the policy information with a network or network type, (see Ahmad, ¶ 161 “a resource type (e.g., guaranteed bit rate (GBR) bearer vs. non-GBR bearer), priority, packet delay budget, and/or packet error loss rate”).
Claim 36 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the load balancer selects or assigns the virtual policy element instance based on an association of the policy information with a network operator or a service design center administrator, (see Ahmad, ¶ 5 “The network sharing scheme may be flexible enough to accommodate the capacity needs of hosted operators on a real-time basis”).
Claim 37 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the load balancer selects or assigns the virtual policy element instance based on an estimate of a processing demand associated with implementing one or more policies for the one or more end-user devices, (see Ahmad, ¶ 225 “The S1 load may be used to estimate the congestion level of a backhaul link”).
Claim 38 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the load balancer selects or assigns the virtual policy element instance is based on an association of the policy information with a first service activity available to at least a portion of the plurality of end-user devices communicatively coupled to the network system over the wireless access network, (See Ahmad, ¶ 77 “mobility management functions, such as handoff triggering, tunnel establishment, radio resource management, traffic classification, quality of service (QoS) policy enforcement, and the like”)(emphasis added).
Claim 39 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the load balancer selects or assigns the virtual policy element instance is based on an association of the policy information with a device group or a user group associated with a subset of the plurality of end-user devices communicatively coupled to the network system over the wireless access network, (See Ahmad, ¶ 77 “mobility management functions, such as handoff triggering, tunnel establishment, radio resource management, traffic classification, quality of service (QoS) policy enforcement, and the like”)(emphasis added).
Claim 40 (New): The method of claim 31, wherein the load balancer selects or assigns the virtual policy element instance is based on an association of the policy information with a network operator or a service design center administrator, (see Ahmad, ¶ 5 “The network sharing scheme may be flexible enough to accommodate the capacity needs of hosted operators on a real-time basis”).
Claims 21-30 contain the same or similar features as claims 31-40 above, and are therefore rejected on the same basis and rationale herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ahmad's discussion of resource allocation policies at ¶ 77 is very different from the "policy enforcement function" of independent claim 21. The claim recites a structural network component, namely a "policy element," and further requires that the policy element comprise "a virtual policy element instance." A "resource allocation policy" under BRI is considered to include the claimed "policy element." The claimed structural network component is merely a virtual policy element, so therefore anticipated by a rule governing allocation of shared resources. A rule can be a virtual policy element instance under BRI. A policy enforcement function is a specific type of policy element. Ahmad discloses that the methods described may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution (i.e. “policy enforcement function”) by a computer or processor, (see Ahmad, ¶ 261).
Applicant argues that the Office Action identifies no disclosure in Ahmad of virtual policy element instances, however these are disclosed in Ahmad, (see Ahmad, ¶ 114), policy threads, cloud-hosted policy engines, (see Ahmad, ¶ 102, 103)(“The architecture may be a multidimensional virtualization architecture that can be characterized as an architecture of a network or networks that may include…a cloud network. In one of the dimensions, the operators may be virtualized. In another dimension, the service providers may be virtualized. In another dimension, the network resources… may be virtualized in the cloud… the WTRU resources (e.g., computation resources, storage resources, networking logic, protocol and algorithm logic) may be virtualized in the cloud”).
Applicant argues that the purpose of Ahmad's load-balancing mechanisms is to improve utilization of radio resources and alleviate congestion in a shared RAN environment. In response to applicant's argument that the claimed load balancer performs a specific function (i.e. selecting or assigning a virtual policy element instances and directing policy communications to such selected or assigned instance), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ahmad is capable of performing the claimed limitations. Although the claims recite communicating policy information, mere communication between network elements is not sufficient to add structure to the recited intended use.
Applicant argues that exemplary claim 21 operates within a cloud. However, as noted by applicant’s remarks dated 9/1/2026, Ahmad teaches that network functions may be implemented, i.e. executed, in a cloud environment, (see Ahmed ¶ 102).
Applicant argues that claims 21-40 requires a policy element “configured to enforce” and a policy element “configured to execute", and that Ahmad does not disclose this arrangement of components. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. There is nothing to indicate that the arrangement of Ahmad is not capable of performing the steps recited in the claims because a policy enforcement function is a specific type of executable policy element, which is taught by Ahmad.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
