DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 89-96, 132-140 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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:
Claims 89-94, 96, 132-137, and 139-140 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher et al. (US Pub. 20220131893 A1) in view of Sarkis (US Pat. 11595893 B2) in further view of Wohlert et al. (US Pub. 20140095630 A1).
For claims 89, 132, and 140, Asher discloses a data analysis node (400/320/322) for use in a communication network (300), the data analysis node comprises a processor (400) and a memory (430) [0065, 0068-69], said memory containing instructions executable by said processor whereby said data analysis node is operative to:
receive behavior information relating to an operational state of a first wireless device (gets data sent from another part of the network called the information management node 200, which manages behavior-related information, the data it receives includes info about how the first wireless device is working or set up according to traffic patterns) [0019, 0023, 0026]; and
send relationship information comprising an identity of the one or more wireless devices that are identified as having a relationship with the first wireless device (Page 11, claim 14. sends back data about anomalous traffic relationships between devices to the information management node 200, the info it sends includes the IDs or identities of the devices it determined are related to the first wireless device.) [0019, 0023, 0026].
But Asher doesn’t explicitly teach receive behavior information relating to an operational state and configuration of a first wireless device;
However, Sarkis discloses receive behavior information relating to an operational state and configuration of a first wireless device (Column 49, lines 20-49, Claim 1 and 12); and
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user information used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Asher with Sarkis to ensure proper configuration is enable for optimal performance, thus, improving network speed.
But Asher, as modified by Sarkis, doesn’t explicitly teach receive a request for information identifying wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device;
responsive to receiving the request, analyze the received behavior information for the first wireless device and behavior information for one or more other wireless devices to identify one or more wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device;
However, Wohlert discloses receive a request for information identifying wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device (Figs. 5-7, steps 504-506, 602-604, or 702-706; to determine whether other wireless devices might be related to that first device.) [0042-43, 0049];
responsive to receiving the request, analyze the received behavior information for the first wireless device and behavior information for one or more other wireless devices to identify one or more wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device (Figs. 5-7, steps 504-506, 602-604, or 702-706; In response to step 504, step 506 examines or studies the behavior data, e.g. location, relationships, etc. for other wireless devices, the goal is to figure out which other devices are related to the first one.) [0042-43, 0012]; and
Wohlert also discloses send relationship information comprising an identity of the one or more wireless devices that are identified as having a relationship with the first wireless device [0042-43, 0012].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user information used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Asher, and Sarkis with Wohlert to ensure related devices a can be used to improve device identification, thus, enhancing system security and capabilities.
Claim 132 differs from claim 89 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior arts Wohlert further discloses a method of operating a data analysis node in a communication network (Fig. 5) [0072-77].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 140 differs from claim 89 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Wohlert further discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program code to be executed by processing circuitry to perform operations comprising the operations of claim 132 (Fig. 4) [0065-67].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 90 and 133, Asher discloses the relationship information further comprises an indication of a type of relationship for each of the one or more wireless devices that are identified as having a relationship with the first wireless device (The relationship data also includes what kind of connection or relationship each related device has with the first device, so for every device it finds that’s related to the first one, it specifies what kind of relationship it is, for example, same user, entity, or communication partner, etc.) [0037-38].
For claims 91 and 134, Asher discloses the behavior information for the first wireless device comprises any one or more of:
mobility information for the first wireless device; Location Service information; UE availability; UE Location Area; UE Periodic Location; UE motion; configuration information; UE state; UE mode; capabilities of the first wireless device; battery capability; radio capability; computational capability; interaction information; and data session-related information [0037-38].
For claims 92 and 135, Asher discloses the interaction information relates to interactions between the first wireless device and one or more other wireless devices [0037-38].
For claims 93 and 136, Asher discloses the data analysis node is operative to analyze by identifying one or more wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device as one or more wireless devices for which the behavior, data session(s) and/or configuration of the one or more wireless devices represented by the respective behavior information has one or more similarities with the behavior, data session(s) and/or configuration of the first wireless device represented by the received behavior information for the first wireless device (Page 11, claim 14) [0037-38].
For claims 94 and 137, Asher discloses the data analysis node is operative to analyze by using a machine learning algorithm to which the received behavior information and the behavior information for one or more other wireless devices are provided as inputs [0027, 0034],
the machine learning algorithm analyzing the input behavior information to determine measures of similarity between the received behavior information and the behavior information for the one or more other wireless devices (Page 11, claim 14) [0037-38], and
the machine learning algorithm identifying one or more wireless devices that have a relationship with the first wireless device as one or more wireless devices for which the respective behavior information has a required measure of similarity with the received behavior information (Page 11, claim 14) [0042-43].
For claims 96 and 139, Asher as modified by Sarkis and Wohlert, Wohlert further discloses the data analysis node is a Network Data Analytics Function, NWDAF [0117], and/or the location information management node is a Location Management Function, LMF [0109, 0148]. See motivation to combined the references from the above.
Claims 95 and 138 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher et al. (US Pub. 20220131893 A1) in view of Sarkis (US Pat. 11595893 B2) in further view of Wohlert et al. (US Pub. 20140095630 A1) in further view of Gibson (US Pub. 20200220892 A1).
Claims 95 and 138, Asher, as modified by Wohlert, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Asher, as modified by Wohlert, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Gibson.
Gibson discloses the machine learning algorithm is a graph-based machine learning algorithm (Fig. 2) [0046, 0006],
wherein the behavior information is input in the form of respective graphs, and the graph-based machine learning algorithm determines the measures of similarity by encoding each graph into a respective vector and comparing the vectors (Fig. 2) [0046, 0006].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user information used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Asher and Wohlert with Gibson to ensure user’s behavioral data can be easily access and utilized for machine learning, thus, improving the reliability of the models for machine learning system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…receive behavior information relating to an operational state and con figuration of a first wireless device;”, the Examiner asserts that Sarkis teaches “receive behavior information relating to an operational state and configuration of a first wireless device” by disclosing that UE 115 receives and decodes a wake-up signal containing UE behavior-configuration information: the wake-up indication specifies the UE’s operational state, whether it should transition from a low-power state to an active state, while the behavior configuration fields specify how the UE is configured to operate after waking, such as activating a bandwidth part or measuring CSI-RS and transmitting a CSI report. Thus, the received wake-up signal includes information relating both to the UE’s operational state and its configuration. (Sarkis’s claim 1; Figs. 1-2 and 8; col. 49, lines. 20-49.)
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Applicant’s assertion that Sarkis merely sends configuration information: Applicant’s argument that Sarkis “only discloses that the network sends wake up configuration information to the UE” is not persuasive because it addresses only the base-station transmission side and overlooks the disclosure relied upon in column 49 and claim 1. Sarkis expressly requires the UE to receive and decode a wake-up signal containing “a plurality of UE behavior configuration information fields,” after which the UE changes its operational state and performs behavior according to the received configuration; the disclosed behavior includes waking from a low-power state, activating a bandwidth part, receiving CSI-RS, and transmitting a CSI report. Thus, Sarkis teaches receipt, at a wireless node, of information relating both to the UE’s operational state and its configuration, while Asher teaches a network traffic-management node that processes UE status, configuration, and traffic-related communications. Sarkis need not individually disclose every other feature of claim 89 because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. (Sarkis, [0094]-[0097], claim 1, col. 49, lines 20-49; Asher, [0017]-[0019], [0065]-[0069].)
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand. Applicant’s assertion that the combination would disclose other devices’ information to the blocked source: Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with claim 89 because the claim merely requires the data-analysis node to “send relationship information”; it does not require that information to be sent to the first wireless device, much less to Asher’s potentially malicious external source. In the proposed combination, Asher’s analytics system may send the relationship information internally or to the entity that controls the affected UEs, as Asher already does through its filtering-rule notifications. Sarkis likewise does not require disclosure of one UE’s detailed configuration to another UE: its wake-up signal contains distinct fields corresponding to different UEs, and each UE identifies the field corresponding to its monitoring index. Wohlert’s capability exchange occurs between identified users or devices having stored relationship information, not between Asher’s security system and an unknown attacking source. Consequently, Applicant attacks a transmission path neither required by the claim nor proposed by the rejection. (Asher, [0018], [0037]-[0042]; Sarkis, claims 1 and 12; Wohlert, [0021]-[0027].)
ARGUING TEACHING AWAY
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the federal circuit explained that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” MPEP §2145.Applicant’s contention that Asher must be considered as a whole: Consideration of Asher as a whole does not establish teaching away because Asher does not criticize, discredit, or discourage using device relationships, behavior information, configuration information, or device identities in performing network analysis. To the contrary, Asher analyzes records containing source and destination addresses, ports, protocols, times, locations, and filtering status; detects a “communication between a first UE … and a second UE”; and generates filters directed to particular UEs or related groups of UEs. Asher further states that targeted policies allow overly broad filtering to be avoided. Wohlert’s use of device behavior and relationship strength would therefore refine Asher’s device-specific analysis instead of contradicting it. Moreover, the obviousness inquiry is not whether Sarkis and Wohlert can be bodily inserted unchanged into Asher; the governing “test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested.” (Asher, [0014], [0019], [0025], [0032], [0037]-[0040])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights