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 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically on p. 3 para. 2-4, Applicant argues that Examiner cannot properly equate a user device to limitation “wireless side”, that such term can yet can be interpreted as “e.g. radio access network”, plus that the limitation “network distance” cannot only be equated as physical or geographic proximity between end-user devices, but is a parameter between a network node and a wireless side (e.g. a radio access network). The Examiner respectively disagrees.
The Examiner upheld that term “wireless side” may be broadly interpreted as “user device’s wireless interface”, and that “network distance” may be broadly interpreted as distance between a user device and the mobile network infrastructure (i.e. network side) comprising the radio access nodes (e.g. access points or base stations), because the user device + network infrastructure combined may be interpreted as a complete network.
Yet only to advance the prosecution and mitigate the above argument, Examiner has provide secondary prior art to overcome such argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 21-22, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlert (US 2014/0095630) in view of Andres (WO 2022/111787).
Regarding claim 1, Wohlert describes a capability calling method for a first network node (fig. 1, first electronic device 122 sending capability requests 126 & 128 to second & third electronic devices respectively), comprising:
classifying, in accordance with at least one parameter, a capability classification corresponding to a first capability on each of at least two second network nodes (para. 12, first electronic device prioritizes (classifies) capability signaling based on relationship strength (parameter) to each of second & third electronic devices, see also abstract).
Wohlert describes:
wherein in the case that the first capability is a network capability, the at least one parameter comprises at least one of:
a distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side [of a user device] (para. 12, prioritization (classification) of capability signaling is based on relationship strength (parameter) which is based, at least in part, on a geographical proximity of the first electronic device 122 and the second electronic device 152, para. 28, 34, 43 or claim 8), but fails to further explicitly describe:
a network distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side.
Andres also describes wireless communication comprising network (p,1 lines 20-32), further describing:
the first capability is a network capability, the at least one parameter comprises at least one of: a network distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side (p. 15 para. 2, AMF (second network node) determines/selects the radio access node(s) to use as a group based on each access node’s within its tracking area (distance from itself)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to specify that the first capability being a network capability in Wohlert to be a network distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side as in Andres.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this improves the reliability of GNSS timing services (Andres p. 13 para. 10-11).
Regarding claim 3, Wohlert and Andres combined describe:
wherein the classifying, in accordance with the at least one parameter, the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes comprises:
when registering the first capability, classifying, in accordance with the at least one parameter, the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes (Wohlert, para. 25, from sending first & second capability requests 126 & 128, first electronic device 22 receives & stores/records (registers) the responses 132 & 134 from second & third electronic devices 152 & 162 respectively, which is tied to individual devices’ relationship strengths with the first electronic device for prioritizing (classifying) capability signaling (para. 12), until an update of relationship strength when particular electronic device’s proximity changes).
Regarding claim 9, Wohlert describes a capability calling method for any second network node in at least two second network nodes (fig. 2, capability calling for device 152 or 162 (second network nodes)), a first capability being deployed on each of the at least two second network nodes, the capability calling method comprising:
receiving first information sent by a first network node (fig. 1, electronic device 152 (second network device) receives capability request 126 (first information) sent by electronic device 122 (first network node));
determining a capability classification corresponding to the first capability in accordance with the first information, wherein the first information is used to indicate the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes, and the capability classification is classified by the first network node in accordance with at least one parameter (para. 12, electronic device 152 (second network device) understands (determines) that electronic device 122 (first network device) performs prioritization (classification) of capability signaling based on relationship strength (parameter) which is based, at least in part, on a geographical proximity of the first electronic device 122 and such corresponding second electronic device 152, para. 28, 34, 43 or claim 8).
Wohlert describes:
wherein in the case that the first capability is a network capability, the at least one parameter comprises at least one of:
a distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side [of a user device] (para. 12, prioritization (classification) of capability signaling is based on relationship strength (parameter) which is based, at least in part, on a geographical proximity of the first electronic device 122 and the second electronic device 152, para. 28, 34, 43 or claim 8), but fails to further explicitly describe:
Andres also describes wireless communication comprising network (p,1 lines 20-32), further describing:
the first capability is a network capability, the at least one parameter comprises at least one of: a network distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side (p. 15 para. 2, AMF (second network node) determines/selects the radio access node(s) to use as a group based on each access node’s within its tracking area (distance from itself)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to specify that the first capability being a network capability in Wohlert to be a network distance between a corresponding second network node and a wireless side as in Andres.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this improves the reliability of GNSS timing services (Andres p. 13 para. 10-11).
Regarding claim 21, Wohlert and Andres combined describe:
a first network node, comprising a first processor and a first memory storing therein a computer program, wherein the first processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the capability calling method according to claim 1 (Wohlert, fig. 1, electronic device 122 comprising processor 142 & memory 144 to run program to perform the method steps in claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, Wohlert and Andres combined describe:
a second network node, comprising a second processor and a second memory storing therein a computer program, wherein the second processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the capability calling method according to claim 9 (Wohlert, fig. 1, electronic device 122 comprising processor 142 & memory 144 to run program to perform the method steps in claim 12).
Regarding claim 25, Wohlert and Andres combined describe: wherein the classifying, in accordance with the at least one parameter, the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes comprises: when registering the first capability, classifying, in accordance with the at least one parameter, the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes (Wohlert, para. 25, from sending first & second capability requests 126 & 128, first electronic device 22 receives & stores/records (registers) the responses 132 & 134 from second & third electronic devices 152 & 162 respectively, which is tied to individual devices’ relationship strengths with the first electronic device for prioritizing (classifying) capability signaling (para. 12), until an update of relationship strength when particular electronic device’s proximity changes).
Claims 4-5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlert in view Andres of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2023/0049810).
Regarding claim 4, Wohlert and Andres combined fail to further explicitly describe:
sending first information to a third network node and each of the at least two second network nodes, wherein the first information is used to indicate the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes,
and the third network node is a network node for ordering and calling the first capability.
Zhang also describes capability calling in wireless network (abstract & fig. 2), further explicitly describing:
sending first information to a third network node and each of the at least two second network nodes, wherein the first information is used to indicate the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes (fig. 4 and para. 73-74, second function network element as AF2 (first network node) sends capability invocation request in step S14 to AF1/first function network element which may be plural (see fig. 2) (second network nodes) as well as to PCF device via NEF device (third network node),
and the third network node is a network node for ordering and calling the first capability (fig. 2 or 4 and para. 73, the PCF device via NEF device (third network node) controls the time window & related conditions for background data transmission according to the capability invocation request 1 (ordering & calling the first capability)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first network node in Wohlert and Andres to send to first information to second & third network nodes wherein the third node is used for ordering and calling the first capability as in Zhang.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables 5G network elements to directly exchange data which increases efficiency of information transfers between network elements (Zhang, para. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Wohlert and Andres combined fail to further explicitly describe:
storing second information, and sending the second information to each of the at least two second network nodes (para. 83, second function network element/AF2 stores access token information or target key information (second information) for use of accessing first function network element/AF1 which may be plural (see fig. 2) (second network nodes) wherein the second information is used to indicate a network capability ordered by a third network node and a capability classification corresponding to the ordered network capability (para. 83, access token information or target key information (second information) is part of the response from the NEF (third network node) indicating authentication success regarding the capability invocation request sent in step S11 by second network function element/AF2 (first network node), wherein the PCF device via NEF device (third network node) controls the time window & related conditions for background data transmission according to the capability invocation request 1 (capability classification corresponding to the ordered network capability), para. 73).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first network node in Wohlert and Andres to store & send to second information to second network nodes wherein the second information is used to indicate a network capability ordered by a third network node and a capability classification corresponding to the ordered network capability as in Zhang.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables 5G network elements to directly exchange data which increases efficiency of information transfers between network elements (Zhang, para. 4).
Regarding claim 26, Wohlert and Andres combined fail to further explicitly describe:
sending first information to a third network node and each of the at least two second network nodes, wherein the first information is used to indicate the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes,
and the third network node is a network node for ordering and calling the first capability.
Zhang also describes capability calling in wireless network (abstract & fig. 2), further explicitly describing:
sending first information to a third network node and each of the at least two second network nodes, wherein the first information is used to indicate the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes (fig. 4 and para. 73-74, second function network element as AF2 (first network node) sends capability invocation request in step S14 to AF1/first function network element which may be plural (see fig. 2) (second network nodes) as well as to PCF device via NEF device (third network node),
and the third network node is a network node for ordering and calling the first capability (fig. 2 or 4 and para. 73, the PCF device via NEF device (third network node) controls the time window & related conditions for background data transmission according to the capability invocation request 1 (ordering & calling the first capability)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first network node in Wohlert and Andres to send to first information to second & third network nodes wherein the third node is used for ordering and calling the first capability as in Zhang.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables 5G network elements to directly exchange data which increases efficiency of information transfers between network elements (Zhang, para. 4).
Claims 12-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohlert in view Andres of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2023/0049810).
Regarding 12, Wohlert describes a capability calling method for first & second nodes, comprising:
ordering a first capability corresponding to a first capability classification to a first network node, a capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes is classified by the first network node in accordance with at least one parameter (para. 12, first electronic device prioritizes (classifies) capability signaling based on relationship strength (parameter) to each of second & third electronic devices, see also abstract).
Wohlert fails to describe capability calling method for a third network node, comprising: the first capability is deployed on at least two second network nodes.
Zhang also describes capability calling in wireless network (abstract & fig. 2), further explicitly describing:
calling method for a third network node, comprising: the first capability is deployed on at least two second network nodes (fig. 4 and para. 73-74, second function network element as AF2 (first network node) sends capability invocation request in step S14 to AF1/first function network element which may be plural (see fig. 2) (second network nodes) as well as to PCF device via NEF device (third network node),
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to specify that the first network node in Wohlert to send to first information to second & third network nodes as in Zhang.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables 5G network elements to directly exchange data which increases efficiency of information transfers between network elements (Zhang, para. 4).
Regarding 13, Wohlert and Zhang combined describe:
receiving first information sent by the first network node, the first information being used to indicate the capability classification corresponding to the first capability on each of the at least two second network nodes (Wohlert, fig. 1, electronic device 122 122 (third network node) receives responses 132 & 134 from two electronic devices 152 & 162 (2 second network nodes) regarding capability for prioritization (classification)).
sending a first request to a corresponding network node in accordance with the first information, the first request being used to request to call the first capability (Wohlert, para. 12, in response to receiving a capability response 132/134, electronic device 122 (third network node) periodically (in the next period) sends out another capability request 126/128 to corresponding electronic device 152/162 to call the [first] capability)).
Regarding claim 23, Wohlert and Zhang combined describe:
a third network node, comprising a third processor and a third memory storing therein a computer program, wherein the third processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the capability calling method according to claim 12 (Wohlert, fig. 1, electronic device 122 comprising processor 142 & memory 144 to run program to perform the method steps in claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10-11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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 WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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, Ian Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469