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 Amendment
The amendments filed on 03/02/2026 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claim 1-20 has been cancelled. Claims 21-35 have been added. Claims 21-35 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21, 26 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 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 21, 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al Pub. No.: (US 2025/0267076 A1) (hereinafter “Xin”) in view of Fan et al Pub. No.: (US 2018/0152378 A1) (hereinafter "Fan”).
With respect to claim 21: Xin discloses a method applied in a mobile communication system, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by an aggregation node, calculation results of at least two second nodes in the mobile communication system, wherein the second node is a node with local data in the mobile communication system, the second node is locally deployed with one sub-model in a model, and the calculation result is obtained by calculating the local data of the second node using the sub-model in the second node (the first data analytics network elements receives sub-models from one or more third data analytic network elements and/or second data analytics network elements, the sub-models are aggregated to obtain an updated model [0286-0289], [0384-0386], [Fig. 7A and Fig. 7B]. Additionally, the server node may aggregate a sub-models of the client nodes, the client reports a quantity of samples and a local gradient value [0181-0184], [0188-0192], [0384-0386], [Fig. 3], [Fig. 11]);
wherein the aggregation calculation result is obtained by aggregating the calculation results of the at least two second nodes (the sub-models are aggregated to obtain an updated model [0286-0289], [Fig. 7Aand Fig. 7B], [0385]);
sending, by the aggregation node, an aggregation calculation result to the node in the mobile communication system (the first data analytics network element sends the updated model to the one or more third data analytics network elements [0290]),
However, Xin does not explicitly disclose sending, by the aggregation node, an aggregation calculation result to a first node in the mobile communication system,
Fan discloses sending, by the aggregation node, an aggregation calculation result to a first node in the mobile communication system (the destination aggregation node sends the aggregated packet to the destination leaf node [0080], [0102]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin in view of Fan in order to send, by the aggregation node, an aggregation calculation result to a first node;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve packet forwarding efficiency [Fan: 0007].
With respect to claims 26 and 31, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 21, respectively. Therefore claims 26 and 31 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21.
Claims 22, 24, 27, 29, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al Pub. No.: (US 2025/0267076 A1) (hereinafter “Xin”) in view of Fan et al Pub. No.: (US 2018/0152378 A1) (hereinafter "Fan”) as applied to claims 21, 26 and 31 above, further in view of Shi et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0392553 A1) (hereinafter "Shi”) and Zhu et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0345243 A1) (hereinafter "Zhu”).
With respect to claim 22: Xin-Fan discloses the method according to claim 21 as set forth above, wherein:
Xin discloses the second node is at least one of a core network element or an application server (obtaining data from the core network element [0277]);
However, Xin-Fan does not explicitly disclose the aggregation node is a core network element;
the first node is a core network element;
wherein types of the first node and the second node are different;
Shi discloses the first node is a core network element (first core network element [0007-0010]);
wherein types of the first node and the second node are different (the first core network element and the second core network element may be core network elements of different standards/types [0050]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin-Fan in view of Shi in order to have the first type and the second type are different;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide different type of communication such as a 4G core network and a 5G core network [Shi: 0050];
However, Xin-Fan-Shi does not explicitly disclose the aggregation node is a core network element;
Zhu discloses the aggregation node is a core network element (the aggregation network element may be an independent core network element [0019], [0038], [0043], [0085], [0233]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin-Fan-Shi in view of Zhu in order to have the aggregation node is a core network element;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve application service quality [Zhu: 0145].
With respect to claim 24: Xin-Fan-Shi-Zhu discloses the method according to claim 22 as set forth above.
Xin discloses the aggregation node and the first node (second network elements/third elements and first network element (aggregation node) [Fig. 7A and Fig. 7B]);
However, Xin-Fan does not explicitly disclose wherein the aggregation node and the first node are different types of core network elements;
Shi discloses wherein the aggregation node and the first node are different types of core network elements (the first core network element and the second core network element may be core network elements of different standards/types [0050]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin-Fan in view of Shi in order to have the aggregation node and the first node are different types of core network elements;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide different type of communication such as a 4G core network and a 5G core network [Shi: 0050].
With respect to claims 27, 29, 32 and 34 they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 22 and 24, respectively. Therefore claims 27, 29, 32 and 34 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 22 and 24.
Claims 23, 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al Pub. No.: (US 2025/0267076 A1) (hereinafter “Xin”) in view of Fan et al Pub. No.: (US 2018/0152378 A1) (hereinafter "Fan”) as applied to claims 21, 26 and 31 above, further in view of Nentwig et al Pub. No.: (US 2012/0164950 A1) (hereinafter "Nentwig”).
With respect to claim 23: Xin-Fan discloses the method according to claim 21 as set forth above.
However, Xin-Fan does not explicitly disclose wherein the aggregation calculation result is used by the first node to calculate an inference result;
Nentwig discloses wherein the aggregation calculation result is used by the first node to calculate an inference result (calculation of multiple interference component are combined to determine the combined interference strength [0031-0032]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin-Fan in view of Nentwig in order to have an aggregation calculation result used by the first node to calculate an interference result;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve efficiency but maximizing the transmission reliability [Nentwig: 0032].
With respect to claims 28 and 33, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 23, respectively. Therefore claims 28 and 33 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 23.
Claims 25, 30 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al Pub. No.: (US 2025/0267076 A1) (hereinafter “Xin”) in view of Fan et al Pub. No.: (US 2018/0152378 A1) (hereinafter "Fan”) as applied to claims 21, 26 and 31 above, further in view of Cao et al Pub. No.: (US 2023/0344717 A1) (hereinafter "Cao”).
With respect to claim 25: Xin-Fan discloses the method according to claim 21 as set forth above.
However, Xin-Fan does not explicitly disclose wherein a core network element is a network data analytics function (NWDAF);
Cao wherein a core network element is a network data analytics function (NWDAF) (the core network element is a NWDAF [0253], [0326]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin-Fan in view of Cao in order to have a core network element is a network data analytics function (NWDAF)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would permit the core network element which act as the NWDAF to analyze the core network data [Cao: 0050].
With respect to claims 30 and 35, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 25, respectively. Therefore claims 30 and 35 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 25.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights