DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment field on 03/30/2026. Claims 45-63, of which claims 45, 56 and 61 are independent, were pending in this application and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments---
A new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, which is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101, 35 USC § 102, and 35 USC § 103 is based on the newly amended limitations, which are addressed in a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action below. The following is also noted.
Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 VI. states: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Applicant’s Argument: “Support for the amendments to the claims can be found, at least, for example, in Paragraphs [0068], [0090], [0091], [0112], [0119], and [0147] of the Specification as published." (Remarks, lines 4-6 of page 7)
Examiner Response: “Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).” (last paragraph of section 13 of the office action mailed on 12/29/2025).
Applicant’s Argument: “Under Alice Step 1 (Prong 1), claims are not directed to abstract ideas alone; "determining a predictive model" specifies machine-learning integration (Claim 47) for paging-specific predictions, tied to network states/locations (Claims 47, 49, and 54), distinguishing from mental processes like generic evaluation. Prong 2 integrates into practical application: model outputs (Claim 45) drive node actions (e.g., Claim 52 subscriptions, Claim 61 paging determination), improving paging efficiency in CM (connected mode) to idle transitions, a specific technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(a), (e)). Step 2B adds "significantly more": model training/testing (Claims 47-50) uses nonconventional data (e.g., paging reasons, locate times in Claim 53), not routine data gathering/transmission (contra MPEP 2106.05(d)); NWDAF-specific nodes (Claim 55) exceed generic computers (Thales Avionics, Inc. v. Digital Airborne, 199 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (not routine integration))." (Remarks, lines 5-17 of page 9; emphasis added).
Examiner Response: Applicant is arguing the claims 47-50 and 52-55, which are not any of rejected claims 45-46, 51, and 61, except for claim 45, as highlighted above. However, Applicant merely suggest that the model output, determined in claim 45, drives node action of claim 52 and 61, which are not included in the claim 45, are not rejected, and therefore could be used to amend the rejected claim 45 in order to overcome its rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The test for enablement is whether Applicant's specification provides sufficient detail so one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP § 2164.01. To determine whether the amount of experimentation would be undue, or unreasonable, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has enumerated several non-exclusive factors, any of which may not apply in agiven case. In re Wands at 1404; MPEP § 2164.01(a). The factors include (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands at 1404; MPEP § 2614.01(a). The scope of enablement provided by a disclosure must be commensurate in scope with the scope of protection sought by the claims. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP § 2164.08. Moreover, "[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement." Automotive Technologies International Inc. v. BMW of North America Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1108, 1114-15 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Applicant's Specification must provide written description support for all that is claimed. See 35 USC § 112 ¶ 1; MPEP § 2163. Written description support requires a disclosure that would reasonably convey Applicant's possession of all claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); MPEP § 2163. While written description support requires neither in haec verba description of the claim limitations nor any particular form of disclosure, all claim limitations must be equivalently described and not merely rendered obvious. Ariad at 1162. Accordingly, a patent claim cannot recite subject matter that is not expressly, implicitly or inherently disclosed by Applicant's written description. See Hyatt v. Boone, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Wright, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989); MPEP § 2163.
Reasonable possession of a claimed invention is also not shown when the disclosure merely amounts to a hoped for result, instead of a specifically claimed invention. See University of California v. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed Cir 1997). In Eli Lilly, the court held that where a specification merely includes generic statements that distinguish multiple genus by function alone, those statements are generally insufficient sources of written description support because they fail to define structures/identities of species within the genus. Patents must describe "an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention." Id.
Claims 45-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The subject matter not supported by the disclosure, as originally filed, includes the added material as follows: "the predictive model being configured for integration into paging procedures of the communications network to optimize resource allocation by forecasting paging occasions based on historical network events” (lines 4-7 of claim 1), "the determined predictive model thereby enabling the second node to adjust paging parameters in real-time for improved network efficiency” (lines 5-7 of claim 56), "the predicted future need thereby providing a basis for selective paging decisions that minimize signaling overhead in the communications network” (lines 5-7 of claim 61). Nowhere in the disclosure as originally filed, has such restriction been indicated.
Regarding claims 46-55, 57-60, and 62-63, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 45, 56, and 61, correspondingly.
Examiner Note – for the purpose of art rejection, the features not supported by the specification are discounted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
There are four statutory classes of invention defined in 35 USC § 101: machine, process, article of manufacture and composition of matter. 35 USC § 101. The Supreme Court of the United States has further delineated several subject matter exceptions that are ineligible for patenting. Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010); MPEP § 2106. In particular, claims embracing abstract ideas, physical phenomena and laws of nature are patent ineligible. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), slip op., at 5 (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S 576 (2013), slip op., at 11)); Bilski at 1005-06; MPEP § 2106. According to Alice, the two part analysis of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) should be used for all types of judicial exceptions and all categories of claims. Alice Corp., slip op., at 7, 16, 17. The first part of the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent- ineligible concept." Alice Corp., slip op., at 7. Upon determining that an abstract idea is present in the claim, the second part of the analysis is to determine whether the claim "contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice Corp., slip op., at 11 (citing Mayo, slip op., at 3, 11). Claims, therefore, must do more than merely add insignificant limitations, such as limiting the field of use, adding token extra solution activity that lacks a particular machine or transform and adding wholly conventional machines and acts. See Alice Corp., slip op., at 12-13 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention . “Stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it with a computer' simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result."); Bilski at 1009-10; MPEP § 2106.
Claims 45-46, 51, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter claims 45 and 61 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 45: Step 1: a process claim. Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation, “determining a predictive model of a future need to page a device operating in the communications network,” is Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “A computer-implemented” and “first node” are applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (first node) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. The additional element “the predictive model being configured for integration into paging procedures of the communications network to optimize resource allocation by forecasting paging occasions based on historical network events” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional element, “outputting a first indication, the first indication being based on the determined predictive model,” is merely data outputting and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional element, “communications network” and “page” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (communication) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine paging group information.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitation, “outputting a first indication, the first indication being based on the determined predictive model,” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (communication) using a generic computer.
Regarding claim 46: The additional element, “wherein the first indication indicates one of: the determined predictive model, a predicted future need to page the device, an instruction to page the device and a recommendation to page the device.” is Mental Process (i.e., determining, predicting, instructing).
Regarding claim 51: The additional element, “wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a second indication, the second indication indicating at least one of: whether or not the device was paged within the third time period, and whether or not the device was paged at another time period, and determining whether or not to update the determined predictive model based on the obtained second indication.” is merely data/status obtaining and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Regarding claim 61: Step 1: a process claim. Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitation, “determining, based on the obtained third indication, whether or not to page the device,” is Mental Process (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element, “A computer-implemented” and “third node” are applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (third node) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. The additional element, “obtaining a third indication from a second node operating in the communications network, the third indication indicating a predicted future need to page a device operating in the communications network,” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional element, “communications network”, “page” and “the predicted future need thereby providing a basis for selective paging decisions that minimize signaling overhead in the communications network” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (communication) (MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine paging group information. Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitation, “obtaining a third indication from a second node operating in the communications network, the third indication indicating a predicted future need to page a device operating in the communications network,” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (communication) using a generic computer.
Regarding claim 62: The additional element, “ is Mental Process (i.e., subscribing).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the … claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01. ("(A) Prove a primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.").
Claims 45-46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0053530 A1 to Ahmed et al.
Regarding claim 45, Ahmed et al. disclose computer-implemented method (¶[0089]: “the functions and means explained herein may be implemented using software functioning in conjunction with a programmed microprocessor or general-purpose computer”), performed by a first node, the first node operating in a communications network (¶[0080]: "The term "network node" as is used can be any kind of network node that handles some of the scheduling functions, possibly in cooperation with the Cloud in which some of the scheduling functions such as ... prediction of DL data arrival timing may be computed” {the first node is the node in the Cloud in which the prediction of DL data arrival timing is computed}, the method comprising:
determining a predictive model of a future need to page a device operating in the communications network (¶[0042: "The Wake-up ... may be sent ... when there is no data awaiting transmission in the downlink. The Wakeup ... may be sent for example when the network estimates that DL data will arrive"; ¶[0063]: "the arrival timing of the DL data may be predicted. The prediction may be based on the average time between UL data transmission on PUSCH and a corresponding arrival of data in DL"; ¶[0080]: "The term "network node" as is used can be any kind of network node that handles some of the scheduling functions, possibly in cooperation with the Cloud in which some of the scheduling functions such as ... prediction of DL data arrival timing may be computed”), and
outputting a first indication, the first indication being based on the determined predictive model (¶[0080]: "The term "network node" as is used can be any kind of network node that handles some of the scheduling functions, possibly in cooperation with the Cloud in which some of the scheduling functions such as ... prediction of DL data arrival timing may be computed”{the node in the Cloud computing the prediction of DL data arrival must send an indication to the network node in charge of transmitting the Wake-up assignment to the UE};.
Regarding claim 46, Ahmed et al. disclose as stated above. Ahmed et al. also disclose wherein the first indication indicates one of: the determined predictive model, a predicted future need to page the device, an instruction to page the device and a recommendation to page the device (¶[0080]: "The term "network node" as is used can be any kind of network node that handles some of the scheduling functions, possibly in cooperation with the Cloud in which some of the scheduling functions such as ... prediction of DL data arrival timing may be computed”; ¶[0042: "The Wake-up ... may be sent ... when there is no data awaiting transmission in the downlink. The Wakeup ... may be sent for example when the network estimates that DL data will arrive").
Claims 45-46, 52, and 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0070963 A1 to Ianev et al.
Regarding claim 45, Ianev et al. disclose computer-implemented method, performed by a first node (¶[0029]: “Network Data Analytic Function (NWDAF) node”), the first node operating in a communications network (¶[0015]: “the 5G network”), the method comprising:
determining a predictive model of a future need to page a device operating in the communications network (Ianev et al. does not explicitly mention a predictive model of a future need to page a device, but expressly disclose a method and system for customizing a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) cycle length per user equipment (UE) based on analytical results from a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) (see ¶[0025]), in which the NWDAF analyses statistics collected from different sources (see ¶[0049]) and generates an analytic result indicative of a communication pattern for a specific UE (see [0050]). The aforesaid analytic result is delivered to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (see ¶[0051]), which determines a DRX cycle for the UE based on the analytic result (see ¶[0054]). If the analytic result/communication pattern reveals that the UE use frequent communication with predominantly mobile terminating (MT) type calls, then a relatively short DRX cycle is determined for said UE, to reduce the delay associated with paging of the UE. The call delays for the UE may thereby be reduced (see ¶[0056]). Then, the aforesaid analytic result (generated by the NWDAF) which is indicative of an expected frequency of MT type calls, is inherently also indicative of an expected/predicted need of paging a UE, i.e., the above discussed analytic result correspond to the claimed "predictive model of a future need to page a device".), and
outputting a first indication, the first indication being based on the determined predictive model (providing the analytic result from the NWDAF to the AMF - see ¶[0051]).
Regarding claim 46, Ianev et al. disclose as stated above. Ianev et al. also disclose wherein the first indication indicates: the determined predictive model (providing the analytic result from the NWDAF to the AMF - see ¶[0051])
Regarding claim 52, Ianev et al. disclose as stated above. Ianev et al. also disclose wherein the outputting comprises sending the first indication to: a second node operating in the communications network, wherein the first indication indicates the determined predictive model (providing the analytic result from the NWDAF to the AMF - see ¶[0051])
Regarding claim 55, Ianev et al. disclose as stated above. Ahmed et al. also disclose wherein the first node is a Network Data Analytics Function, NWDAF (¶[0029]: “Network Data Analytic Function (NWDAF) node”), and the at least one of the one or more other nodes is one of an Access Management Function, AMF (¶0043]: “The AMF 710”) and a Centralized Unit — Control Plane, CU-CP.
Regarding claim 56, Ianev et al. disclose a computer-implemented method, performed by a second node (¶0043]: “The AMF 710”), the second node operating in a communications network (¶[0015]: “the 5G network”), the method comprising:
obtaining a first indication from a first node operating in the communications network, the first indication indicating a determined predictive model of a future need to page a device operating in the communications network (obtaining, in the AMF, the analytic result from the NWDAF, as discussed in rejection of claim 47, above), and
predicting, based on the obtained first indication, the future need to page the device (determining the DRX cycle in the AMF based on the analytic result, as discussed in rejection of claim 47, above).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The foregoing obviousness inquiry requires an expansive and flexible approach, not a rigid approach demanding express teachings, suggestions and motivations to combine prior art teachings. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 97 (US 2007). The rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness should be made explicit for review, but the rationale does not require precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim. Id. at 1396. A rejection can rely on inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. Obviousness rejections are not limited to showing the obviousness of solutions to the problems Applicant was trying to solve. Id. at 1397. Rather, one can show obviousness of a claim by establishing the obviousness of any solution to any known problem in the field of endeavor and addressed by a patent application's subject matter. Id. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is possessed of ordinary creativity. Id. One of ordinary skill could find alternative uses for prior art elements beyond the elements' primary purposes and fit prior art teachings together like a puzzle. Id. A combination of prior art teachings does not require absolute predictability. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0053530 A1 to Ahmed et al
Regarding claim 47, Ahmed et al. disclose as stated above. Ahmed et al. also disclose wherein the determining is performed [0063]: "the arrival timing of the DL data may be predicted. The prediction may be based on the average time between UL data transmission on PUSCH and a corresponding arrival of data in DL"). Ahmed et al. is silent about using machine learning. However, use of machine learning in in a NWDFA for performing data analytics is well-known and common knowledge in the art (see for example IDS: ETRI: "TR 23.791: Update of Solution 5 to Avoid Biased Data Sample", 3GPP Draft; S2-188111 Update of Solution 5 to Avoid Biased Data Sample, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre ; 650, route des Lucioles ; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, Publishing date: 2018-08-14.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the well-known machine learning techniques with the system of Ahmed et al. to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because such a combination would have represented the combination of known techniques through conventional manners to provide predictable and expected results.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0070963 A1 to Ianev et al.
Regarding claim 48, Ianev et al. disclose as stated above, except for expressly teaching subscribing with one or more other nodes to receive the first data from the one or more first devices in the communications network. However, Ianev et al. disclose that the AMF subscribes to data from the NWDAF (see for example Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the NWDAF could subscribe to the UE data (corresponding to the claimed first data), which is used for determining the communication pattern of the UE, thereby arrives at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 48, Ianev et al. disclose as stated above, except for expressly teaching wherein the determining further comprises performing iteratively: testing an accuracy of the determined predictive model with second data indicating one or more of: second paging requests sent to the one or more second devices operating, or having operated, in the communications network over a second time period, second transitions by the one or more second devices, over the second time period, from the first state wherein the one or more second devices had an active connection with the communications network to the second state wherein the one or more second devices had a standby connection with the communications network, a second mobility pattern of the one or more second devices, a second location of the one or more second devices, a second pattern of communications by the one or more second devices in the communications network, and second services used by the one or more second devices in the communications network, and one of: determining the determined predictive model is ready to be used with the proviso that the accuracy exceeds a threshold, and continuing the training of the determined predictive model with the proviso that the accuracy is lower than the threshold. However, aforesaid features relates to a standard solution for testing a machine learning model, which is
obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 53, Ianev et al. disclose as stated above, except for expressly teaching wherein the first data comprises at least one of: a respective first time paging started, a respective identifier of the one or more first devices, a respective second time period it took to locate the one or more first devices and a respective reason for paging. However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the data collected by the NWDAF includes an identifier of the UE, which enables the NWDAF to determine the
communication pattern for the UE.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights