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
This action is in response to the RCE and remarks filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 21-41 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant, in substance, argues,
a) The combination of Lee and Patil do not teach nor suggest application function that provides data to NWDAF.
b) Application ID is not taught by the applied prior art of record.
c) The combined references fail to suggest or teach information indicating one or more of a battery discharge rate, a battery discharge history, a battery health, a discontinuous reception configuration, a sleeping state, and a power saving mode.
In response to Applicant’s argument,
a) The combination of Lee and Patil discloses the argued limitations as currently presented. Specifically, Lee discloses network data collection method for a network function device performed by a network data analytic function (NWDAF) (see Lee, ¶ [0005], [0068]). Similar to the instant application (see instant specification, ¶ [00181]), Patil discloses application function that provides data to NWDAF. Specifically, paragraph 14 of Patil teaches NWDAF collecting data from application functions as disclosed the in the instant claims. Therefore, indeed combination of Lee and Patil meet the required scope of the claimed features are currently presented.
b) Lee is more comprehensive reference that in addition to subscriber ID, teaches application ID. In particular, Lee discloses utilization of application ID among other identifying attribute when discovering available data from application functions for data collection purposes (see Lee, ¶ [0281]). Therefore, the applied prior art of record discloses this feature as currently recited in the claims.
c) First of all, the argued limitation requires one of the listed elements disclosed in the argued limitations. Now the question is whether the applied prior art of record discloses any one of the elements featured in the argued limitation. The answer is yes as Chong reference is cited among other reasons, for the fact that it discloses information indicative of battery health, namely, battery level. Chong discloses data analytics element obtaining among other things battery level (see Chong, ¶ [0063]). Thus, the applied prior art of record indeed teaches battery health feature as currently required by the claimed limitation.
Again, it is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art. As it is Applicant’s right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention. It is also the Examiner’s right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is advised that, in order to further expedite the prosecution of the application in response to this action, Applicant should amend the base claims to describe in more narrow detail the true distinguishing features of Applicant’s claim invention.
Applicant has had an opportunity to amend the claimed subject matter, and has failed to modify the claim language to distinguish over the prior art of record by clarifying or substantially narrowing the claim language. Thus, Applicant apparently intends that a broad interpretation be given to the claims and the Examiner has adopted such in the present and previous Office action rejections. See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969), and MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0322775 in view of Patil et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0014141.
Regarding claim 38, Lee discloses a method performed by a network Application Function (AF), the method comprising: receiving, from a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), a request to subscribe to data about a Wireless Transmit/Receive Unit (WTRU), the request comprising an application ID and an identifier of the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0107], [0114] and [0261]; data collection request comprising identification information is received); collecting the data about the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0058] and [0068]; data is collected); and sending, to the NWDAF, a notification comprising the data and a correlation identifier associated with the data about the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0115], [0155] and 0181]; correlation of the various identifiers are sent).
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose application function.
Patil teaches application function that provides data to the NWDAF (see Patil, ¶ [0014]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to corporate the teachings of Patil with that of Lee in order to efficiently specify the network element function that is providing the data.
Regarding claim 40, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the data is anonymized, aggregated, normalized, processed, or a combination thereof, prior to sending to the NWDAF (see Lee, ¶ [0122] - [0123] and Patil, ¶ [0016] - [0017]).
Regarding claim 41, Lee-Patil teaches wherein the data about the WRTU comprises data collected from the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0180] and Patil, ¶ [0079]).
4. Claim(s) 21-25, 27-35, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Patil and further in view of Senarath et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 20180270073
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses a method performed by a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) (see Lee, ¶ [0002]; Network data analytic function is disclosed), the method comprising: receiving a request to collect data about a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (see Lee, ¶ [0107], [0114] and [0261]; data collection request is received); sending a request to the AF to subscribe to the data about the WTRU, the request comprising an application ID and an identifier of the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0114]; identification information is received); and receiving, from the AF, a message comprising the data about the WTRU and a correlation identifier for the WTRU that associates the data with the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0115], [0155] and 0181]; correlation of the various identifiers are received).
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose application function.
Patil teaches application function that provides data to the NWDAF (see Patil, ¶ [0014]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to corporate the teachings of Patil with that of Lee in order to efficiently specify the network element function that is providing the data.
Although Lee-Patil discloses the inventions substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose sending a request to receive user consent information for permission to collect the data about the WTRU; discovering, based on receiving the user consent information, an Application Function (AF) for providing the data about the WTRU.
Senarath teaches sending a request to receive user consent information for permission to collect the data about the WTRU; discovering, based on receiving the user consent information, an Application Function (AF) for providing the data about the WTRU (see Senarath, ¶ [0091], [0189] and [0250]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Senarath with that of Lee-Patil in order to receive collection consent from the user so as not to violate individual privacy rights.
Regarding claim 22, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the correlation identifier comprises a 5G Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (5G-GUTI), a General Public Subscription Identifier (GPSI), or an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0094] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the user consent information indicates the data to be collected is permitted for use in analytics, artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) training, or a combination thereof (see Lee, ¶ [0058] and Senarath, ¶ [0250]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches further comprising: receiving the user consent information from a Unified Data Management (UDM) (see Lee, ¶ 0138] and Senarath, ¶ [0250].
Regarding claim 25, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches further comprising: receiving a notification comprising updated user consent information, wherein the updated user consent information comprises an indication that the permission to collect the data is revoked; and sending a request to the AF to modify the subscription to the data about the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0146] and Senarath, ¶ [0250]).
Regarding claim 27, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating one or more of an application ID, data associated with Analytics IDs, location information, a Single - Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session ID, a Downlink (DL) data rate, a number of uplink (UL) retransmissions, a DL latency, a percentage of device loading, a percentage of access availability, a Quality of Service (QoS) level, and a mobility pattern (see Lee, ¶ [0063] and [0071]).
Regarding claim 28, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises data collected from the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0180] and Patil, ¶ [0079]).
Regarding claim 29, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating data that has been anonymized, aggregated, normalized, processed, or a combination thereof, by the AF (see Lee, ¶ [0122]- [0123] and Patil, ¶ [0016]- [0017]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating Machine Learning (ML) or Artificial Intelligence (AI) data for use as training data (see Patil, ¶ [0016] and [0075]).
Regarding claim 31, Lee discloses a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) (see Lee, ¶ [0002]; NWDAF is disclosed), comprising a processor configured to: receive a request to collect data about a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (WTRU) (see Lee, ¶ [0107], [0114] and [0261]; data collection request is received); send a request to the AF to subscribe to the data about the WTRU, the request comprising an application ID and an identifier of the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0114]; identification information is received); and receive, from the AF, a message comprising the data about the WTRU and a correlation identifier associated with the data about the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0115], [0155] and 0181]; correlation of the various identifiers are received).
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose application function.
Patil teaches application function that provides data to the NWDAF (see Patil, ¶ [0014]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to corporate the teachings of Patil with that of Lee in order to efficiently specify the network element function that is providing the data.
Although Lee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose send a request to receive user consent information for permission to collect the data about the WTRU; discover, based on receiving the user consent information, an Application Function (AF) for providing the data about the WTRU.
Senarath teaches send a request to receive user consent information for permission to collect the data about the WTRU; discover, based on receiving the user consent information, an Application Function (AF) for providing the data about the WTRU (see Senarath, ¶ [0091], [0189] and [0205]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Senarath with that of Lee-Patil in order to receive collection consent from the user so as not to violate individual privacy rights.
Regarding claim 32, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the correlation identifier comprises a 5G Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (5G-GUTI), a General Public Subscription Identifier (GPSI), or an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0094] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 33, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the user consent information indicates the data to be collected is permitted for use in analytics, artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) training, or a combination thereof (see Lee, ¶ [0058] and Senarath, ¶ [0250]).
Regarding claim 34, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the user consent information from a Unified Data Management (UDM) (see Lee, ¶ 0138] and Senarath, ¶ [0250].
Regarding claim 35, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a notification comprising updated user consent information, wherein the updated user consent information comprises an indication that the permission to collect the data is revoked; and send a request to the AF to modify the subscription to the data about the WTRU (see Lee, ¶ [0146] and Senarath, ¶ [0250]).
Regarding claim 37, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating one or more of an application ID, data associated with Analytics IDs, location information, a Single - Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session ID, a Downlink (DL) data rate, a number of uplink (UL) retransmissions, a DL latency, a percentage of device loading, a percentage of access availability, a Quality of Service (QoS) level, and a mobility pattern (see Lee, ¶ [0063] and [0071]).
Regarding claim 39, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches although Lee discloses the invention sub wherein the collecting the data is according to user consent information associated with a permission to collect the data about the WTRU (see Senarath, ¶ [0250]).
5. Claim(s) 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Patil in view of Senarath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chong, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0228422.
Although Lee-Patil-Senarath disclose the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose Regarding claim 26, Lee-Patil-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating one or more of a battery level, a battery discharge rate, a battery discharge history, a battery health, a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration, a sleeping state, and a power saving mode.
Chong teaches Regarding claim 26, Lee-Senarath teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating one or more of a battery level, a battery discharge rate, a battery discharge history, a battery health, a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration, a sleeping state, and a power saving mode (see Chong, ¶ [0056] and [0063]). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chong with that of Lee-Patil-Senarath in order to include battery level of the UE among the collection data so as to know when to pause the collection.
Regarding claim 36, Lee-Patil-Senarath-Chong teaches wherein the data about the WTRU comprises information indicating one or more of a battery level, a battery discharge rate, a battery discharge history, a battery health, a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration, a sleeping state, and a power saving mode (see Chong, ¶ [0056] and [0063]).
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
7. 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 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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444