DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 04/16/2026.
2. Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, are pending in this application.
3. Claims 1, 13, 24, have been amended.
4. Claims 2, 12, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, have been previously cancelled.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued that:
a. Specifically, Tandon fails to disclose or suggest the operations of claim 1 at least with respect to obtaining, from the data, based on one or more protection policies with respect to the second public land mobile network, processed information which is to be sent to the network function consumer, wherein at least one of the one or more protection policies indicates whether to filter the data to obtain the processed information, whether to restrict the data, or whether to anonymize the data; storing the processed information; and sending, to the network function consumer, a response to the request, the response comprising the processed information.
Tandon's policies are not directed to whether to filter data to obtain processed information, whether to restrict the data, or whether to anonymize the data to other policies regarding transport of collected data. That is; Tandon fails to disclose or suggest a network function producer of a first public land mobile network that collect, for at least one user equipment, data from the first public land mobile network; obtain, processed data from that data based on one or more protection policies that indicates whether to filter the data to obtain the processed information, whether to restrict the data, or whether to anonymize the data; then stores the processed information and sends, a response comprising the processed information to the network function consumer in response to the request (Applicant’s remarks, pages 10-12).
In response: Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In applicant’s remarks, applicant has recited the claim language, given a general summary of the cited art, and then states that the cited art does not disclose the claim language. As stated above, applicant has not provided any specifics on how the claim language differs from the cited art.
Nonetheless, applicant has argued that Tandon’s policies are not directed to whether to filter data to obtain processed information, whether to restrict the data, or whether to anonymize the data. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Tandon, policies from the HPLMN, VPLMN, and a static policy database are gathered and negotiated into a single policy. This single policy is then applied to subscriber traffic in roaming scenarios. Tandon’s negotiated single policy allows for the ability to mirror, steer, block, or even redirect user traffic. Blocking user traffic based on a policy derived from a HPLMN when a user is roaming in a VPLMN is equated to the claimed “restrict the data” while the redirecting of user traffic is equated to the claimed “filter.” It is noted that the claim language requires only one of the limitations to be taught, however, in light of compact prosecution, the examiner has pointed to two of the three limitations as being taught by Tandon. This interpretation applies to independent claim 13 as well. However, independent claim 24 was not amended to include the all the amended limitations of claims 1 and 13 and is rejected under previous rationale.
Therefore, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
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, 3-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poe et al. (US 2022/0070071) in view of Tandon et al. (US 10,645,230).
Regarding claim 1, Poe disclosed:
An apparatus (Figure 1, data producer 109) for a first network (Paragraph 79, different network planes), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code of a network function producer wherein the computer program code, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to perform: (Paragraphs 75-77, Figure 1, data handler 101 (NWDAF) connects to consumers and producers and processes data subscribe requests (i.e., data retrieval)): receiving, from a network function consumer (Figure 1, consumer 107-2) of a second network (Paragraph 79, different network planes), a request (Figure 1, request #1) for retrieving data for at least one user equipment via a data retrieval service (Figure 1, data subscribe/requests), of the apparatus (Paragraphs 75-77, the data handler receives requests for data from consumers and forwards the requests for data to the data producers 109);
collecting, for the at least one user equipment, the data from the first network (Paragraph 24, the NWDAF uses event IDs for monitoring data to be collected from the data producers);
obtaining, from the data, processed information which is to be sent to the network function consumer (Paragraphs 20-21, once the data handler receives the information from the data producer, the data handler can either forward the monitoring data without any changes or process the monitoring data before sending the data to the consumer);
storing the processed information (Paragraph 77, determining if the monitoring data is already available at the data handler (i.e., stored). Paragraph 249, retain data collected in the data storage);
sending, to the network function consumer, a response to the request, the request comprising the processed information (Paragraphs 20-21, the data handler forwards the processed monitoring data to the consumer).
While Poe disclosed different network planes (see above) and processing information being sent to a consumer (see above), Poe did not explicitly disclose wherein the first public land mobile network and the second public land mobile network are different public land mobile networks and that the processed information which is to be sent to the network function consumer is based on one or more protection policies with respect to the second public land mobile network.
However, in an analogous art, Tandon disclosed wherein the first public land mobile network and the second public land mobile network are different public land mobile networks (Column 1, Lines 39-43 and Col. 4, Lines 40-47, mobile roaming where a mobile subscriber of a Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN) is using mobile service in a foreign location which is provided by a Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN)); and
obtaining, from the data, based on one or more protection policies with respect to the second public land mobile network, processed information which is to be sent to the network function consumer, wherein at least one of the one or more protection policies indicates whether to filter the data to obtain the processed information, whether to restrict the data, or whether to anonymize the data (Column 2, Lines 35-50, receiving a GTP signaling message (i.e., processed information) and determining to enforce policies onto the GTP traffic that either mirror, steer (i.e., filter), block (i.e., restrict), or redirect the GTP user traffic (i.e., processed). Column 5, Lines 5-25, after receiving a GTP message, receiving the Visited PCRF policies and comparing them to the Home PCRF policies along with static policies from both. Evaluating the respective policies from the VPLMN and the HPLMN to build a single negotiated policy (i.e., based on the protection policies of the second PLMN) to provide session control to…the HPLMN. Enforcing the negotiated policy and forwarding the messages to the PGW (i.e., network function consumer)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Poe with Tandon because the references involve roaming across different networks, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the protection policies of the second PLMN of Tandon with the teachings of Poe in order to enhance subscriber experience (Tandon, Column 1, Lines 66-67).
Regarding claims 13, 24, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1. Claim 24 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Poe, Paragraph 249, data storage). Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 3, 15, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the obtaining the processed information comprises at least one of the following:
applying the one or more protection policies with respect to the second public land mobile network to the data;
filtering the data to obtain the processed information (Poe, Paragraph 17
5, NWDAF modifying the request with the required filtered data); or
anonymizing the data.
Regarding claims 4, 16, the limitations of claims 3, 15, have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the one or more protection policies are associated with at least one of the following:
a type of a network function of the network function consumer (Tandon, Column 4, Lines 14-24, roaming policies such as QoS related functions including QoS class identifiers (i.e., type of network function)),
a type of a network function of the network function producer,
an identity of the first public land mobile network, and
an identity of the second public land mobile network.
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the network function consumer comprises a first network data analytics function and the network function producer comprises a second network data analytics function (Poe, Paragraph 54, NWDAF service consumer. Paragraph 186, NWDAF communicating with different producers, thereby producers having the functions also).
Regarding claims 6, 18, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the collecting, for the at least one user equipment, the data the first public land mobile network (Tandon, Column 1, Lines 39-43, mobile roaming where a mobile subscriber of a Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN) is using mobile service in a foreign location which is provided by a Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN)) comprises at least one of the following:
collecting the data from network functions of the first public land mobile network (Poe, Paragraph 24, analytics data being collected such as network performance, UE mobility, UE communication, or NF load information. Paragraph 44, first data request with the data to be collected as the monitoring data, the monitoring data being associated with monitoring parameters);
collecting the data from an operation, administration and maintenance entity of the first public land mobile network;
collecting the data from application functions of the first public land mobile network;
collecting the data from data collection coordination functions of the first public land mobile network; or
collecting the data from data lakes or external storage of the first public land mobile network.
Regarding claims 7, 19, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the computer program code, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to perform: registering a profile of the network function producer, the profile comprising information indicating that the network function producer provides the data retrieval service for retrieving and collecting data (Tandon, Column 9, Lines 9-12, Home Location Register which is a database that contains subscription data about subscribers authorized to use the network. The HLR stores details of every SIM card issued by the operator. Column 12, Lines 12-17, Visitor Location register that is a database that stores data about mobile phones that joined an area of a mobile operators network).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the registering comprises indicating events which are supported by the data retrieval service (Tandon, Column 9, Lines 19-26, the HSS implements the HLR. The HSS includes a central database that contains user and subscription related information and functionalities such as mobility management, call and session establishment support, user authentication, and access authorization).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the at least one user equipment comprises at least one of the following: one or more user equipments that are visiting the first public land mobile network (Tandon, Column 1, Lines 39-44, a mobile subscriber of a HPLMN using a mobile service in a foreign location provided by a VPLMN); and
one or more user equipments of a specific public land mobile network.
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 10, 22, the limitations of claims 1, 13, have been addressed. Poe and Tandon disclosed:
wherein the collecting, for the at least one user equipment, the data comprises at least one of the following:
subscribing to at least one network function of the first public land mobile network (Tandon, Column 1, Lines 39-44, having a VPLMN) (Poe, Figure 1, showing a subscribe request), and
contacting at least one network function of the first public land mobile network to obtain the data.
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Poe and Garcia disclosed:
the network function consumer comprises a first analytics function (Poe, Paragraph 54, NWDAF service consumer), a network data analytics function, or a proxy function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights