DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 3, 2026 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Claims 1-30 are currently pending. Claims 1, 4, 13, 16, and 29 were amended.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 of the REMARKS filed on September 9, 2025 that US 2023/0319533 (“Ly”) and US 2015/02499321 (“Rácz”) do not disclose the amended features recited in independent claims 1, 13, 16, and 29. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over Ly in view of Rácz has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been asserted. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-22 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0319533 to Ly et al. (hereinafter, “Ly”) in view of US 2012/02085031 to Johansson (hereinafter, “Johansson”).
As per claim 1: Ly discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a first network node (a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) operating in a 5G system [Ly, ¶0046]), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (nodes/functional entities of the network are implemented in computing systems comprising a processor and memory [Ly, ¶0233-0235]): transmit, to a second network node, first information associated with granular user consent control, the first information being further associated with a data processing task and a user equipment (UE) (“The NWDAF performs an NUDM_SDM_Get service operation to first obtain user consent from the one or more UEs from UDM/UDR. The operation may include identifiers for the one or more UEs, a group ID, the types of data to be collected, a list of application IDs that data is collected from, one or more Analytics IDs, the expected time duration of data collection, whether data is anonymized or aggregated, what data transformation functions to process the data with, etc.” [Ly, ¶0149; Fig. 11(Step 1)]; herein, the UDM/UDR is the “second network node”); receive, from the second network node, a user consent result associated with the data processing task and a user of the UE based on the granular user consent control (“The UDM/UDR returns a response of all the UEs that user consent is allowed for data collection based on the types of data, the application IDs, whether data needs to be anonymized and/or aggregated, an expiration time for the data and the associated expiration options, etc.” [Ly, ¶0150; Fig. 11(Step 2)]); and handle the data processing task based on the user consent result (“The NWDAF, based on pre-configuration or after having discovered an AF that has the capability to collect the desired UE data, sends an EventExposure _Subscribe service operation to the AF via the NEF. The NWDAF may provide the AF information about the user consent, such as the consent for certain data types or from certain applications…” [Ly, ¶0151])
Ly does not explicitly disclose the data collection, or the “data processing”, is a “trace session” and that “the user consent result is associated with a revocation of the trace session that is already ongoing”. However, Johansson is directed to analogous art of managing user consent for minimization drive test (MDT) [Johansson, Abstract]. Johansson discloses: a trace session (MDT is a feature where user equipment (UE) collects measurements and report the measured information [Johansson, ¶0002]); and the user consent result is associated with a revocation of the trace session that is already ongoing (when a user consent information changes, such as the user revoking consent, a centralized server updates the user consent information and forwards a signaling message to terminate a current MDT [Johansson, ¶0009])
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement any type of data collection session in Ly, such as an MDT session, and enable users to revoke consents to stop data collection in real-time. MDT was a well-known technique in cellular systems for measuring and assessing network coverage and capacity for network optimization. The application of MDT was further suggested as one of the data type transport in [Ly, ¶0127-0128].
As per claim 2: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the granular user consent control is based on at least one of an area, a public land mobile network (PLMN), a radio access technology (RAT), a radio network controller (RNC), a target area, a slice, a service associated with the data processing task, a carrier frequency, a time, a UE power status, available UE computational power, or the user of the UE (a user consent profile has parameters that allow a user to specify what types of data to share and user equipment (UE) specific data, such as battery level and memory usage [Ly, ¶0159]; there are 11 categories of types of data user consent described in [Ly, ¶0160-0164] that include, but not limited to, locations, time, network protocols, MNO, etc.).
As per claim 3: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the user consent result is further based on second information from the UE or the first information, the first information indicates at least one of an area, a public land mobile network (PLMN), a radio access technology (RAT), a radio network controller (RNC), a target area, or a carrier frequency (“…user consent is required in order for the network to collect data from the UE. A user consent profile may be maintained to specify the parameters for the user consent and may be comprised of the types of data the user is granting the network to collect…” [Ly, ¶0158]; the communication system include multiple access systems and one or more channel access schemes, include base stations in RANs that offer communication access for the UEs [Ly, ¶0045, 0193]), and the second information includes a UE power status or an indication of available UE computational power (battery level and memory usage are also parameters defined in the user consent profile [Ly, ¶0159]).
As per claim 4: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1, Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein to handle the data processing task based on the user consent result, the at least one processor is further configured to: initiate, modify, or terminate the data processing task based on the user consent result (“The AF processes the requirements received from the NWDAF and if necessary, the AF initiates data collection from the UEs. Depending on the requirements provided by the NWDAF, the AF may need to provide the UE with information on what types of data to collect, one or more application IDs whose data should be collected, the frequency of data collection, the reporting frequency, etc.” [Ly, ¶0153; Fig. 11(Step 5)]).
As per claim 5: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein to handle the data processing task based on the user consent result, the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, to the UE, a configuration associated with the data processing task based on the user consent result (“Depending on the requirements provided by the NWDAF, the AF may need to provide the UE with information on what types of data to collect, one or more application IDs whose data should be collected, the frequency of data collection, the reporting frequency, etc.” [Ly, ¶0153; Fig. 11(Step 5)]).
As per claim 6: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the trace session is based on a service associated with a service identifier (ID) (initiating data collection (an MDT session in view of Rácz) from the UE by using one or more application IDs whose data should be collected [Ly, ¶0153]).
As per claim 7: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first network node is a data collection requesting entity associated with the data processing task or a data processor associated with the data processing task (the NWDAF provides data analytics to service consumers and can subscribe to collect data [Ly, ¶0046]).
As per claim 8: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first network node corresponds to at least one of an operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM), a radio access network (RAN), or a network data analytics function (NWDAF) (NWDAF, [Ly, ¶0148]), and the second network node corresponds to a unified data management (UDM) (UDM/UDR [Ly, ¶0149]).
As per claim 9: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: the at least one processor being further configured to: receive, from the second network node, an updated user consent result associated with the data processing task and the user of the UE based on the granular user consent control; and handle the data processing task based on the updated user consent result (“If user consent is present in the UDM/UDR, the UDM/UDR may contact the AMF(s) that are associated with each UE and initiate a UE Configuration Update procedure with each UE in order to send UE Data Collection Information to each UE as previously described. The content of the UE Data Collection Information may be based on information that was received from the NWDAF.” [Ly, ¶0150; Fig. 11(Step 2)]; the update renews user consents (which in turn, provides the NWDAF with user consents) [Ly, ¶0175]).
As per claim 10: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the transmission of the first information to the second network node corresponds to a request for the user consent result (“An event triggers the NWDAF to start data collection for one or more UEs.” [Ly, ¶0149; Fig. 11(Step 1)]).
As per claim 11: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first network node receives second information from the UE and forwards the second information from the UE to the second network node (“…UEs may trigger data collection and analytics generation from the NWDAF during PDU session establishment procedure by including an indication that may be used to request data collection and analytics from the NWDAF. The indication may be used to select appropriate Analytic IDs, or a list of Analytic IDs may be specified by the UE in addition to providing the indication.” [Ly, ¶0080]; this request corresponds to the triggered event of the NWDAF described in [Ly, ¶0149; Fig. 11(Step 1)]).
As per claim 12: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ly discloses: further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (communication circuity for connecting to and communicating on the network [Ly, ¶0238]).
As per claim 13: Claim 13 is different from overall scope of claim 1 but recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 1. Specifically, claim 13 is a method corresponding to the functions of the apparatus of claim 1. Ly discloses all these functions (a method) as applied in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is also applicable to claim 13.
As per claim 14: Claim 14 incorporates all limitations of claim 13 and is a method corresponding to claim 2. Therefore, the rejections of claims 2 and 13 are also applicable to claim 14.
As per claim 15: Claim 15 incorporates all limitations of claim 13 and is a method corresponding to claim 3. Therefore, the rejections of claims 3 and 13 are also applicable to claim 15.
As per claim 16: Ly discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a second network node (a Unified Data Management/Repository (UDM/UDR) [Ly, ¶0043]), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (nodes/functional entities of the network are implemented in computing systems comprising a processor and memory [Ly, ¶0233-0235]): receive, from a first network node, first information associated with granular user consent control, the first information being further associated with a data processing task and a user equipment (UE)(“The NWDAF performs an NUDM_SDM_Get service operation to first obtain user consent from the one or more UEs from UDM/UDR. The operation may include identifiers for the one or more UEs, a group ID, the types of data to be collected, a list of application IDs that data is collected from, one or more Analytics IDs, the expected time duration of data collection, whether data is anonymized or aggregated, what data transformation functions to process the data with, etc.” [Ly, ¶0149; Fig. 11(Step 1)]; herein, the UDM/UDR is the “second network node”); receive, from the first network node or the UE, second information associated with the granular user consent control, the second information being further associated with the data processing task and the UE (a UE can perform updates to the UE registration, such as updates to the user consent in the UDM/UDR [Ly, ¶0136]; for example, the UDM/UDR contacts AMF(s) associated with each UE to initiate a UE Configuration Update procedure allowing for updating user consent [Ly, ¶0150, 0179]; furthermore, multiple parameters (i.e., “second information”) of a user consent profile is specified by a user through a graphical user interface (GUI) of a client application (operating in the UE) [Ly, ¶0134, 0158]); identify a user consent result associated with the data processing task and a user of the UE based on the granular user consent control, the user consent result being further based on the first information or the second information (“The UDM/UDR checks for the user consent for the one or more UEs.” [Ly, ¶0150])(“The UDM/UDR returns a response of all the UEs that user consent is allowed for data collection…” [Ly, ¶0150]).
Ly does not explicitly disclose the data collection, or the “data processing”, is a “trace session” and that “the user consent result is associated with a revocation of the trace session that is already ongoing”. However, Johansson is directed to analogous art of managing user consent for minimization drive test (MDT) [Johansson, Abstract]. Johansson discloses: a trace session (MDT is a feature where user equipment (UE) collects measurements and report the measured information [Johansson, ¶0002]); and the user consent result is associated with a revocation of the trace session that is already ongoing (when a user consent information changes, such as the user revoking consent, a centralized server updates the user consent information and forwards a signaling message to terminate a current MDT [Johansson, ¶0009])
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement any type of data collection session in Ly, such as an MDT session, and enable users to revoke consents to stop data collection in real-time. MDT was a well-known technique in cellular systems for measuring and assessing network coverage and capacity for network optimization. The application of MDT was further suggested as one of the data type transport in [Ly, ¶0127-0128].
As per claim 17: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the granular user consent control is based on at least one of an area, a public land mobile network (PLMN), a radio access technology (RAT), a radio network controller (RNC), a target area, a slice, a service associated with the data processing task, a carrier frequency, a time, a UE power status, available UE computational power, or the user of the UE (a user consent profile has parameters that allow a user to specify what types of data to share and user equipment (UE) specific data, such as battery level and memory usage [Ly, ¶0159]; there are 11 categories of types of data user consent described in [Ly, ¶0160-0164] that include, but not limited to, locations, time, network protocols, MNO, etc.).
As per claim 18: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first information indicates at least one of an area, a public land mobile network (PLMN), a radio access technology (RAT), a radio network controller (RNC), a target area, or a carrier frequency (“…user consent is required in order for the network to collect data from the UE. A user consent profile may be maintained to specify the parameters for the user consent and may be comprised of the types of data the user is granting the network to collect…” [Ly, ¶0158]; the communication system include multiple access systems and one or more channel access schemes, include base stations in RANs that offer communication access for the UEs [Ly, ¶0045, 0193]), and the second information includes a UE power status or an indication of available UE computational power (battery level and memory usage are also parameters defined in the user consent profile [Ly, ¶0159]).
As per claim 19: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the data processing task is a data collection task based on a service associated with a service identifier (ID) (initiating data collection from the UE by using one or more application IDs whose data should be collected [Ly, ¶0153]).
As per claim 20: Ly in view of Johansson discloses all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first network node is a data collection requesting entity associated with the data processing task or a data processor associated with the data processing task (the NWDAF provides data analytics to service consumers and can subscribe to collect data [Ly, ¶0046]).
As per claim 21: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first network node corresponds to at least one of an operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM), a radio access network (RAN), or a network data analytics function (NWDAF) (NWDAF, [Ly, ¶0148]), and the second network node corresponds to a unified data management (UDM) (UDM/UDR [Ly, ¶0149]).
As per claim 22: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: the at least one processor being further configured to: identify an updated user consent result associated with the data processing task and the user of the UE based on the granular user consent control, the updated user consent result being further based on updated first information or updated second information; and transmit, to the first network node or the UE, the updated user consent result (“If user consent is present in the UDM/UDR, the UDM/UDR may contact the AMF(s) that are associated with each UE and initiate a UE Configuration Update procedure with each UE in order to send UE Data Collection Information to each UE as previously described. The content of the UE Data Collection Information may be based on information that was received from the NWDAF.” [Ly, ¶0150; Fig. 11(Step 2)]; the update renews user consents [Ly, ¶0175]).
As per claim 24: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 22. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein to transmit the updated user consent result, the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the user consent result to the UE via at least one third network node (“If user consent is present in the UDM/UDR, the UDM/UDR may contact the AMF(s) that are associated with each UE and initiate a UE Configuration Update procedure with each UE in order to send UE Data Collection Information to each UE as previously described.” [Ly, ¶0150]).
As per claim 25: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 24. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the at least one third network node corresponds to an access and mobility management function (AMF) or a base station (AMF [Ly, ¶0150]).
As per claim 26: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the second network node stores data associated with the granular user consent control (“Unified Data Management/Repository (UDM/UDR): The UDM/UDR supports generation of 3GPP AKA Authentication Credentials, user identification handling, subscription management and storage, etc.” [Ly, ¶0043]; user consent is stored in the UDM/UDR [Ly, ¶0136]).
As per claim 27: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 22. Furthermore, Ly discloses: wherein the first information from the first network node corresponds to a request for the user consent result, and to transmit the updated user consent result, the least one processor is further configured to transmit the user consent result to the first network node based on the request for the user consent result (“An event triggers the NWDAF to start data collection for one or more UEs.” [Ly, ¶0149; Fig. 11(Step 1)]; “The UDM/UDR returns a response of all the UEs that user consent is allowed for data collection…” [Ly, ¶0150; Fig. 11(Step 2)]).
As per claim 28: Ly in view of Johansson disclose all limitations of claim 16. Furthermore, Ly discloses: further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (communication circuity for connecting to and communicating on the network [Ly, ¶0238]).
As per claim 29: Claim 29 is different from overall scope of claim 16 but recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 16. Specifically, claim 29 is a method corresponding to the functions of the apparatus of claim 16. Ly discloses all these functions (a method) as applied in the rejection of claim 16. Thus, the rejection of claim 16 is also applicable to claim 29.
As per claim 30: Claim 30 incorporates all limitations of claim 29 and is a method corresponding to claim 17. Therefore, the rejections of claims 17 and 29 are also applicable to claim 30.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected as being allowable upon a rejected claim.
The following are additional reasons of allowable subject matter to supplement those discussed in previous Office Actions. Johansson (US 2012/0208503) discloses updating user consent information and forwarding the updated user consent information to user equipment (UE) (i.e., “transmit the updated user consent result…to the UE”). If the user has revoked the user consent in the update, a current minimization drive test (MDT) session is terminated. Furthermore, new MDT sessions are not activated if user consent is not indicated. See [0028] & [0034]. However, Johansson does not explicitly state that MDT sessions are maintained (“without…modifications”) when updated user consent is received as recited in dependent claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0171944: Minimization of Drive Tests (MDT) is a mechanism for optimizing radio resources of networks by requesting user equipment (UE) to perform signal measurements and collecting the measurements. The set of measurements collected from a UE is called a “trace”. A trace session includes activation of MDT. See ¶0003-0005.
J. Johansson, W. A. Hapsari, S. Kelley and G. Bodog, "Minimization of drive tests in 3GPP release 11," in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 36-43, November 2012, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6353680. (MDT is realized by reusing and extending the trace framework defined in 3GPP. See pg. 36.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
1 Cited by Examiner on June 9, 2025.