DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/25/2025 with respect to claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous office action dated 08/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-20, claims the method for a network element have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that “Fernandez Alonso and Zhu fail to disclose or suggest the features of independent Claim 18. Fernandez Alonso does not describe there being any cross referencing between a service subscription information for the UE in a request with stored service subscription information for the UE. Fernandez Alonso does not describe any comparison between subscription information for the UE in the request and stored service subscription information. Fernandez Alonso does not describe "in response to the service subscription information for the UE in the request and the stored service subscription information for the UE being not consistent, initiating updating of service subscriptions for the UE in the second network element according to the stored service subscription information for the UE”, with the corresponding teaching indicating the arguments and the arts references below, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
All limitations of claim 18 is silent of “in response to the service subscription information for the UE in the request and the stored service subscription information for the UE being not consistent, initiating updating of service subscriptions for the UE in the second network element according to the stored service subscription information for the UE”. Claim 18 doesn’t claim “any cross referencing between a service subscription information for the UE in a request with stored service subscription information for the UE”. Therefore, rejection of claim 18 and its dependent thereof is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Fernandez Alonso et al. (US 2023/0080510; Cited in PTO-892 Part of Paper No. 20250819).
Regarding claim 18, Fernandez Alonso discloses a method for a network element serving a user equipment, UE, in a communication network to perform service subscriptions for the UE, comprising:
sending a request comprising service subscription information for the UE to another network element consistency (paragraphs [0055], [0061]; e.g., NF1 210 sends 101 a subscribe request to the UDR 200 requesting notification of certain resource data changes); and
in response to receiving service subscriptions for the UE from the another network element (paragraph [0009]; e.g., Responsive to the subscription
identifier contained in the change request), updating service subscriptions for the UE in the network element according to the received service subscriptions for the UE (Fig. 2 steps 108 or 115; paragraph [0065]; e.g., UDR 200 replies by sending 115 an update request response…. to be included in the change request (create/modify/delete) to indicate the subscriptions to resource data changes that will not trigger a notification as consequence of the requested change).
Regarding claim 19, Fernandez Alonso discloses the method of claim 18, the updating comprising one of the following: modifying service subscriptions for the UE in the network element according to the received service subscriptions; or subscribing services for the UE in the network element according to the received service subscriptions (paragraphs [0065]-[0068]; e.g., UDR 200 checks 116 the subscribed notifications as a result of the performed update, taking into account if the NF indicated in the change request whether the notification corresponding to one or more subscription contacts needs to be silenced (muted)).
Regarding claim 20, Fernandez Alonso discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the request comprises one of the following: a notification request for the network element to notify the another network element, or a registration request for the network element to register with the another network element (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 25 are allowed.
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 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 TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648