DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 21 July 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 2-20 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 21-30 are new.
Claims 1, 21-30 will be pending.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 have overcome each and every rejection under 35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103, previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21 April 2026. Applicant’s cancellations of Claims 2-20 renders each and every rejection under 35 USC 112(b), previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21 April 2026, moot. Examiner notes Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not fully address the objections, previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21 April 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be considered allowable if the noted formal matters were overcome.
Claims 21-30 would be considered allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b), set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The claims in the application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record. The prior art does not anticipate, or render obvious as a whole, the claim limitations of Claim 1 as disclosed in Applicant’s claims.
Presented with the additional limitations of Claim 1, the prior art fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness for limitations,
“receiving, from a Model Training Logical Function of the Network Data Analytics Function, an active-learning subscription request for inference data samples to be used in re-training a machine learning model, wherein the active-learning subscription request specifies:
a minimum number of five selected training samples;
a feature set comprising received signal strength indicator, speed, and data rate an identifier of an uncertainty-sampling query algorithm; and
a query-algorithm parameter set comprising an uncertainty threshold and a sample-portion-size parameter of five percent”,
“the request from the inference consumer triggers obtaining a pool of one hundred inference data samples; and the active-learning subscription request, by itself, does not trigger obtaining the inference data samples; querying the obtained interference data samples to generate a filtered set of data samples, wherein the querying is performed at the Analytics Logical Function by applying the uncertainty-sampling query algorithm to the pool of one hundred inference data samples, and wherein the filtered set consists of five data samples that: have the five highest uncertainty values among the pool of one hundred inference data samples”,
“calculating, at the Analytics Logical Function, a usefulness score for each of the five data samples, the usefulness score ranking an expected usefulness of the respective data sample for re-training the machine learning model; notifying the Model Training Logical Function, in response to identifying the five data samples, that enough new supporting data samples are available such that re-training of the machine learning model is advised; sending the filtered set of data samples to the Model Training Logical Function for re-training the machine learning model, wherein each of the five data samples is sent with a sample identifier, data comprising the received signal strength indicator, the speed, and the data rate, a prediction generated by the machine learning model, and the usefulness score; and sending the obtained inference data samples to the inference consumer such that the inference data samples obtained in response to the request from the inference consumer are used both to provide network analytics to the inference consumer and to provide the filtered set of five data samples to the Model Training Logical Function for re-training the machine learning model”,
because the machines and methods shown to be found in the prior arts, made of record (see Non-Final Office Action, mailed 21 April 2026) cannot be reconciled with the above limitations and an obviousness determination would require impermissible hindsight.
In summary, the references made of record, fail to disclose the required claimed technical features recited by the Claim 1 limitations as a whole. The claim, definite, and enabled by the Specification would be considered allowable if the noted formal matters were overcome, set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 21-30, which depend directly or indirectly from Claim 1, would be considered allowable if the noted formal matters of Claim 1 were overcome, and rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b), set forth in this Office 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the obtained interference data samples” in line 31 should be “the obtained inference data samples”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “receiving, from the Model Training Logical Function, a discovery request identifying active-learning functionality requested by the Model Training Logical Function”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “in some examples a discovery request/response message pair may be used between inference producer 440 and training producer 442, which informs the training producer 442 which algorithms and AL-related functionality are supported by the inference entity 440” is recited in the Specification [0135]. Claims 22-30, which are dependent on claim 21, are similarly rejected.
Claim 22 recites “operations, administration, and maintenance system”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “OAM” is recited in the Specification [0129]. Claims 23-30, which are dependent on claim 22, are similarly rejected.
Claim 22 recites “configuration information configuring an active- learning query function executed by the Analytics Logical Function, the configuration information identifying at least the uncertainty threshold, the sample-portion-size parameter, and the feature set”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “configuration parameters” is only recited in the Specification [0108]. Claims 23-30, which are dependent on claim 22, are similarly rejected.
Claim 23 recites “storing the pool of one hundred inference data samples in an inference data store located at the Analytics Logical Function; retaining the pool of one hundred inference data samples in the inference data store until each of the one hundred inference data samples has been inspected using the uncertainty-sampling query algorithm; and after identifying the five data samples, deleting from the inference data store the inference data samples that are not included in the filtered set”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “inference data store” is only recited in the Specification [0127]. Claims 24-30, which are dependent on claim 23, are similarly rejected.
Claim 24 recites “wherein each of the one hundred inference data samples further comprises a measurement of signal strength, a number of active user equipment devices, and at least one network configuration parameter, and wherein the prediction generated by the machine learning model for each of the one hundred inference data samples comprises a predicted uplink-throughput value”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “data samples could include measurements of signal strength, number of active UEs, configuration parameters which form a data sample, and this may be used to predict the label UL throughput value” is recited in the Specification [0108]. Claims 25-30, which are dependent on claim 24, are similarly rejected.
Claim 25 recites “wherein a lower confidence value output by the machine learning model for a respective data sample corresponds to a greater usefulness of the respective data sample for re-training the machine learning model”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “Some ML models can output a probability or confidence value (which again could be expressed as a percentage, for example) for inferred data samples” is recited in the Specification [0122]. Claims 26-30, which are dependent on claim 25, are similarly rejected.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the sending of the filtered set of data samples to the Model Training Logical Function comprises sending the five data samples to an Analytics Data Repository Function for retrieval by the Model Training Logical Function, and sending an active-learning notification to the Model Training Logical Function indicating that the five data samples are available from the Analytics Data Repository Function”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “In an example case where the minimum number of samples is set to 5, inference for 100 samples would then need to be performed before the 5 most uncertain samples are forwarded/reported” is recited in the Specification [0140]. Claims 27-30, which are dependent on claim 26, are similarly rejected.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the active-learning notification comprises information-request parameters identifying respective storage locations of the five data samples within the Analytics Data Repository Function, thereby enabling the Model Training Logical Function to retrieve the five data samples from the respective storage locations without the five data samples being included in the active-learning notification”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “an "information request" parameter is sent from inference producer 740 to ADRF 760, which indicates which data is to be used for inference” is recited in the Specification [0165] and “This notification informs the training producer about new (possibly filtered) data samples, by also giving the information request parameters” is recited in the Specification [0166]. Claims 28-30, which are dependent on claim 27, are similarly rejected.
Claim 28 recites “including, in the notification that enough new supporting data samples are available such that re-training is advised, an indication that the concept drift has been detected”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “In some examples, responses from the query function at the inference and/or training stage can be used as an indication that there has been "drift" (e.g. concept drift, where there is a change in the relationship between input and output over time) in the data. Where concept drift is detected, this may indicate that re-training is required” is recited in the Specification [0178]. Claims 29-30, which are dependent on claim 28, are similarly rejected.
Claim 29 recites “after the Model Training Logical Function re-trains the machine learning model using the five data samples, receiving, from the Model Training Logical Function, an updated version of the machine learning model”, “storing the updated version of the machine learning model at the Analytics Logical Function”, “using the updated version of the machine learning model to obtain subsequent inference data samples in response to a subsequent request for network analytics received from the inference consumer”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “A list of addresses or IDs pointing to inference producers deploying the current or up-to- date version of the model (in case of initial training this list has to be empty)” is recited in the Specification [0116] and “for example when sending an updated ML model to inference producer” is recited in the Specification [0126]. Claim 30, which is dependent on claim 29, is similarly rejected.
Claim 30 recites “in response to the deactivation or de-subscription request, ceasing application of the uncertainty-sampling query algorithm”, which is not recited or described in the Specification. Examiner notes “This message confirms the activation or de-activation of Active Learning and optionally reports the selected query algorithm and the parameters of the query algorithm being used/activated” is recited in the Specification [0134].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the notification" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the notification" has been construed to be “a notification”. Claims 29-30, which are dependent on Claim 28, are similarly rejected.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the active-learning subscription" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the active-learning subscription" has been construed to be “an active-learning subscription”.
Claim 28, the term “enough” in line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “enough” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such a product, any number of data samples can be considered "enough" for retraining of the machine learning model. For examination purposes, the term "enough" has been construed to be in response to the identification of the five data samples of Claim 1, Lines 44-45. Claims 29-30, which are dependent on Claim 28, are similarly rejected.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGGIE MAIDO whose telephone number is (703) 756-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6am - 4pm.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached on (303) 297-4307. 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.
/MM/Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/IMAD KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights