DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an application filed on Apr. 24, 2023. Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-21 are pending.
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 . 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Quang et al. WO 2022/026482 in view of Kenyon et al. U.S. 2020/0034553. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Quang in view of Kenyon does not disclose: “provisioned at the first network entity; and provision user consent information to a third network entity of the communication network, the user consent information authorizing use, by one or more additional network entities of the communication network, of at least one of the one or more second level data types for at least one of the one or second level purposes.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Quang et al. WO 2022/026482 in view of Friedman U.S. 2020/0401708, and Serdar et al., U.S. 2021/0303705.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 Applicant asserts that “previously-presented independent claims 1 and 17 include recitations of particular processing operations performed by an apparatus of a communication network, the operations including receiving a notification of a first level user consent for a first level data type for a first level purpose and applying at least one hierarchical consent policy to the first level user consent to determine whether the first level user consent implies a second level user consent for a second level data type for a second level purpose. Such recitations of particular processing operations are clearly not mental processes as alleged,”
This is not persuasive.
Legal documents such as non-disclosure agreements, or powers of attorney, are hierarchical in nature and their prohibitions or allowances apply in some circumstances but not in others. The claims as presented recite hierarchy, data types, and mapping at a high level of generality that is easily encompassed by the mental process of drafting a legal document based on broad guidance from a client. The claims are neither specifically tailored to a machine implementation, nor do they embody improvements to a machine for processing consent.
It is notable that while Applicant’s background is directed to 4G and 5G networks and associated standards (see Applicant’s specification p. 3) the claims avoid requiring such technical features in favor of more abstract applications.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim(s) 1 and 17 recite(s) a mental process of drafting a legal document. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited computing hardware, the additional elements, is merely a suggestion to “apply it” to use a computer as a tool to perform the drafting of contracts. MPEP 2106.04(d).I. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the acts of sending or receiving data is well understood, routine, and conventional, MPEP 2106.05(d), and does not transform the abstract idea of drafting a legal document.
As to the dependent claims 2-10, 12-14, 16, and 18-21, the dependent claims set forth the types of ‘consent’ intended to be incorporated into the legal document or set forth the intended function of the network entities but requires no action on the part of the other entities. Thus, the other entities are merely an “apply it” and do amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-10, 12-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quang et al. WO 2022/026482 hereinafter “Quang” Published Feb. 03, 2022 in view of Friedman U.S. 2020/0401708 hereafter “Friedman” Published Dec. 24, 2020, and Serdar et al., U.S. 2021/0303705 hereafter “Serdar” Published Sep. 30, 2021.
Regarding claim 1, Quang teaches: an apparatus (Quang, see FIG. 16A, items 102a, 102b) comprising: at least one processor and; at least one memory including computer program code of a first network entity of the communication network; the computer program code being configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (Quang, see FIG. 16A, items 118a, 118b along with [0210-0211 and 0242]):
Receive, from a second network entity of the communication network, a notification (Quang, see ¶ [0011]) of a first level user consent (Quang, see ¶ [0171]) for a first level data type (Quang, see ¶¶ [0008 and 0085]) for a first level purpose (Quang, see ¶ [0131]);
generate a mapping the first level user consent and a second level user consent for one or more second level data types for one or more second level purposes (Quang, first see FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 along with ¶¶ [0089 and 0092], “The URSP rules may specify that all PDU sessions include the indication specifying the requirement for data collection and analytics from the NWDAF to optimize UP communications when establishing PDU sessions”; “when traffic triggers the application of a URSP rule that includes indication( s) that data analytics can, or should, be applied”)
based at least in part on at least one hierarchical consent policy provisioned at the first network entity; and
provision user consent information to a third network entity of the communication network, the user consent information authorizing use, by one or more additional network entities of the communication network, of at least one of the one or more second level data types for at least one of the one or second level purposes.
Quang does not disclose:
based at least in part on at least one hierarchical consent policy provisioned at the first network entity; and
provision user consent information to a third network entity of the communication network, the user consent information authorizing use, by one or more additional network entities of the communication network, of at least one of the one or more second level data types for at least one of the one or second level purposes.
Friedman discloses:
(see Friedman Figs. 6A-B showing physical hardware).
Receive, from a second network entity of the communication network, a notification of a first level user consent for a first level data type for a first level purpose (“administrator(s) 178 can provide and/or elect a consent policy for use by some or all users and/or services belonging to or used by the respective companies” Friedman ¶ 41. See Friedman Fig. 1A, user/admins configuring the consent policies, also ¶¶ 3-4)
generate a mapping the first level user consent and a second level user consent for one or more second level data types for one or more second level purposes (“For example, in block 168, the operation based on the consent values may include mapping the consent values to Boolean values (i.e., true or false), and then performing a logical AND operation on those Boolean values. Alternatively, more complex schemes and/or operations could be envisaged. Implementations could also support a configurable operation which is expressed in the selected policy 149 (e.g., in a formula language).” Friedman ¶ 49. See also ¶ 44 and 46. Also Friedman ¶ 50 “the consent policy's second plurality of rules 144A-F is applied in order of priority to find another rule based on the respective conditions of that rule being met by the result for the first level of the hierarchy 172”)
based at least in part on at least one hierarchical consent policy provisioned at the first network entity; and (Fig. 1B and associated disclosure discussing application of a ‘hierarchy’.)
the user consent information authorizing use, by one or more additional network entities of the communication network, (see Friedman Fig. 1A, companies 154A-C) of at least one of the one or more second level data types for at least one of the one or second level purposes. (“If found, that rule identifies a result that indicates whether to proceed with the action 185. If a rule is not found, some implementations may apply a default rule (not shown) to identify whether to proceed 185.” Friedman ¶ 50. See also ¶¶ 35 and 48)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Quang with Friedman by utilizing the user configured consent policies that include mapping and hierarchy of Friedman into the system of Quang. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Quang with Friedman in order to a flexible consent/permission system that accommodates dynamic permissions based on requester and requested action, Friedman Figs. 3-4, thereby allowing consent to be permissioned based on required data privacy regulations (Friedman ¶ 29) as well as trust in a requesting entity (Friedman ¶ 90)
Quang in view of Friedman does not disclose: provision user consent information to a third network entity of the communication network,
Serdar discloses: provision user consent information to a third network entity of the communication network, (“The application 302 obtains consent information from the end-users via an application interface as described above. This information is conveyed to the CMS 304 via the SaveConsent API 312 such that it can be stored in the user consent database 306. Subsequently, the application 302 can receive a consent request from a third-party 310 entered via a third-party facing application interface.” Serdar ¶ 49. Note the suggestion of distributed processing in Serdar ¶ 50. See also Serdar Fig. 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Quang in view of Friedman with Serdar by separating the consent input application and the consent management system from the end users and third parties configuring and requesting consent. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Quang in view of Friedman with Serdar in order to provide a standardized API interface for consent entry and validation thereby providing interoperability with various requesters and database systems, Serdar ¶¶ 10 and 49.
Regarding claim 2, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further Quang teaches: wherein the first level data type comprises a user comprehendible data type and the first level purpose comprises a user comprehendible purpose, wherein the user comprehendible data type is mapped to the user comprehendible purpose (Examiner note: Examiner equates “comprehendible data type” to Quang’s only known by the SMF; Quang, see ¶ [0117], “The SMF in turn will communicate with the NWDAF using a token identifier that is associated with the UE and the mapping between the token and UE subscription identifier might only be known by the SMF. The token may be formatted such that it includes the SMF ID so that the token is unique across SMF's”).
Regarding claim 3, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further Serdar teaches:
wherein the user comprehendible data type indicates data a user consents to share for the user comprehendible purpose. (see Friedman Figs 3A-F. See Serdar Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further Quang teaches: wherein the second level user consent applies to two or more levels of system-related data types respectively mapped to two or more levels of system-related purposes (Quang, see ¶ [0090], “the data analytics may be utilized to make steering decisions between two or more network accesses. A more advanced feature may be enabled that uses the data analytics to dynamically adjust the splitting percentages of traffic between both legs of the MA PDU session”).
Regarding claim 5, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 4. Further Quang teaches: wherein the two or more levels of system-related data types comprise a system data type, a sub-system data type, and a sub-system component data type, and the two or more levels of system-related purposes comprise a system purpose, a subsystem purpose, and a sub-system component purpose, wherein the system data type, the subsystem data type, and the sub-system component data type are respectively mapped to the system purpose, the sub-system purpose, and the sub-system component purpose (Quang, see ¶¶ [0090 and 0117], “the data analytics may be utilized to make steering decisions between two or more network accesses. A more advanced feature may be enabled that uses the data analytics to dynamically adjust the splitting percentages of traffic between both legs of the MA PDU session”).
Regarding claim 6, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 4. Further Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teaches: wherein the two or more levels of system-related data types respectfully indicate data shareable (“The query 100 is submitted by a requestor of the requestors 150. The query includes an identifier 102 and a designation of an action 104.” Friedman ¶ 35. “the currently selected consent policy 149 is applied to the plurality of records to determine whether to proceed with the action.” Friedman ¶ 48. The record being the data that is shared.) for at least one of an analytics purpose and an analytics model training purpose (Quang, see ¶¶ [0010-0011 and 0115]).
Regarding claim 7, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further Friedman teaches: authorize or deny … hierarchical consent policy provisioned at the first network entity (“For example, in block 168, the operation based on the consent values may include mapping the consent values to Boolean values (i.e., true or false), and then performing a logical AND operation on those Boolean values. Alternatively, more complex schemes and/or operations could be envisaged. Implementations could also support a configurable operation which is expressed in the selected policy 149 (e.g., in a formula language).” Friedman ¶ 49. See also ¶ 44 and 46.)
Regarding claim 8, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 7. Further Friedman teaches: in response to the second level user consent being authorized, cause the second level user consent to be stored in the third network entity in the communication network (“The application 302 obtains consent information from the end-users via an application interface as described above. This information is conveyed to the CMS 304 via the SaveConsent API 312 such that it can be stored in the user consent database 306. Subsequently, the application 302 can receive a consent request from a third-party 310 entered via a third-party facing application interface.” Serdar ¶ 49. Note the suggestion of distributed processing in Serdar ¶ 50. See also Serdar Fig. 1) for interaction with the one or more additional network entities in the communication network. (future intended use is non-limiting. See “consent request” of Serdar ¶ 49)
Regarding claim 9, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 8. Further Quang teaches: wherein the first network entity comprises a unified data management function of the communication network (Quang, first see table 0 abbreviation “UDR Unified Data Repository” then see ¶¶ [0043, 0085, and 0117, …], “The network ( e.g., SMF) may obtain subscription information from the UDM/UDR that indicates whether the subscriber is willing to share certain types of data for analytics”).
Regarding claim 10, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 8. Further Quang teaches: wherein the third network entity comprises a policy control function of the communication network (Quang, see ¶ [0041] see Serdar Fig. 3, CMS 304).
Claim 11 is canceled.
Regarding claim 12, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 11. Further Quang teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more service consumers comprises a network data analytics function of the communication network. (Quang, see ¶¶ [0047, 0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 11. Further Quang teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more service consumers comprises an access and mobility management function of the communication network. (Quang, see ¶¶ [0037, 0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 11. Further Quang teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more service consumers comprises a session management function of the communication network (Quang, see ¶ [0040]).
Claim 15 is canceled.
Regarding claim 16, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further Quang teaches: wherein the second network entity comprises an application function associated with the communication network (Quang, see ¶ [0008, 0083]. see Serdar Fig. 3, Application 302).
Regarding claim 17, this claim defines a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Quang in para. [0004] discloses method for enabling an apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, this claim defines a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2. Furthermore, Quang in para. [0004] discloses method for enabling an apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, this claim defines a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3. Furthermore, Quang in para. [0004] discloses method for enabling an apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, this claim defines a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 4. Furthermore, Quang in para. [0004] discloses method for enabling an apparatus.
Regarding claim 21, Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teach all the limitations of claim 1. Further Quang in view of Friedman and Serdar teaches:
the second network entity comprises an application function associated with the communication network; (see Serdar Fig. 3, Application 302)
the third network entity comprises one of a unified data management function and a policy control function of the communication network; and (see Serdar Fig. 3, CMS 304)
the one or more additional network entities comprise one or more service consumers, (see Serdar Fig. 3, third-parties 310) the one or more service consumers comprising at least one of a network data analytics function (Quang, see ¶¶ [0047, 0050]), an access and mobility management function, and a session management function of the communication network. (alternatives not required.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, particularly:
Pottier et al., US 2022/0229918, discloses a consent management method.
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 RUPAL DHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-3880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6am-3pm 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.
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.
/RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights